Palin: A Genuine Danger to America, the World

[redbaron]

The problem is that the Bible says 'day', and that if the Bible is the word of God, no human can just make an arbitrary distinction to intrepret it in ways that are convenient to them.

why not? hehe

Parts of the Bible are poetry and story, not intended to be scientific in the least. I have no problem with that and I also don't think it makes the Bible any less the word of God.

[Lobo]

Yes yes of course, the best thing to do is to make a 13 year-old girl, who made one mistake, choose between being alienated from her family or having a rusty coat hanger shoved up her cunt. Of course the only 13 year-old girls who will have to make such decisions will be the ones too poor to afford the private illegal abortion doctors which will always be there because the market guarantees their existence. Funny how the little girls least equipped to afford a child are the ones without a choice. If human life is so fucking precious to you then you'd realize that there's plenty of children around the world that attention should be focused on, children that are dying of hunger right now while you bitch about politics.

The fact that anti-abortion movements in the United States even have sway is related to your country's pathetic excuse for a public education system, notice how other developed Western nations don't share your sentiments? Notice how undeveloped, uneducated, third world regimes do? Coincidence? The simple fact that a large amount of Americans find candidates that seem "ordinary" and "like them" as actual contenders to take the most important position in the country, the kind of position where an average IQ should immediately disqualify you, is hilarious. In light of this, amongst other things, abortion would only be high on the priority list of an idiot appealing to idiots that to be an idiot is to be a genius because Oxford and Webster were wrong.

Yes, it is a sad thing that young girls (or any women) get pregnant in circumstances that are not favorable. However, I don't see how that justifies abortion. Following your post, a question I would ask is why would the girl have an abortion in the first place? You mention that she would be alienated from her family, but that only shows that her family is unsupportive. Is she too young physically to have a baby? At 13 years old I would assume it so, and I would agree that if it poses serious risks on the girl that abortion does become a choice in the matter. However, that is still a very unfortunate thing to do, and it is something that needs to be avoided at all costs. It is fundamentally wrong to advocate for abortion other than for extreme circumstances, and it wouldn't be "advocating" but reluctantly accepting.

Also, I don't like how you relate intelligence and development to something like abortion, and what you are implying about Third World countries and the "pathetic public education" of Americans. Do you think that being anti-abortion is a decision based on stupidity or underdevelopment? There is something in your post that conveys prejudice.

The problem is that the Bible says 'day', and that if the Bible is the word of God, no human can just make an arbitrary distinction to intrepret it in ways that are convenient to them.

That would be the Fundamentalist view of the Bible.

[Expat]

Yes, that is what an alliance is.

Yes, I hope Americans in general are better informed.

For instance, Estonia is part of NATO. If Russia invades Estonia, not only the US but also Germany, the UK and even France (France does belong to NATO even as it is not part of the integrated military structure) have to regard it as an attack on themselves. If they don't, then it's clear that treaties with them aren't worth the paper they're written on.

[force my hand]

why not? hehe

Parts of the Bible are poetry and story, not intended to be scientific in the least. I have no problem with that and I also don't think it makes the Bible any less the word of God.

As an atheist, I fully agree.

As a Christian, the validity of one's authority to make that call still needs to be justified on some objective ground. If a person of faith were to say, "I can only speak subjectively", that's perfectly fine. But they must also extend that conclusion to recognize the limits of their faith, and I think the bulk of Christians understand that.

The few that support creationism as a science, however, do not. Coming up with poor, inconsistant, incorrect ideas to explain physical reality oversteps their limits, and the portrayal of those ideas as fact is simply dishonest. To further compound the problem, they expect others to propagate those mistruths, and to accept them within the public sphere. Which would be fine if we lived in Saudi Arabia, for example - but we don't. Most liberal democracies are secular, with separation of church and state enshrined in the constitution, or in Canada's example, exhibiting a long-standing record of judicial precedence on the issue of religion in public life.

[force my hand]

That would be the Fundamentalist view of the Bible.

Exactly - fundamentalism as getting down to the fundamentals of accepting the divine authority of the Bible as it commands. Where Christians get off ignoring God's divine dictate has always been a puzzle for me - there's a tendency to want to be derisive, but perhaps they just don't understand how lightly they are taking their own beliefs.

[redbaron]

As an atheist, I fully agree.

As a Christian, the validity of one's authority to make that call still needs to be justified on some objective ground. If a person of faith were to say, "I can only speak subjectively", that's perfectly fine. But they must also extend that conclusion to recognize the limits of their faith, and I think the bulk of Christians understand that.

The few that support creationism as a science, however, do not. Coming up with poor, inconsistant, incorrect ideas to explain physical reality oversteps their limits, and the portrayal of those ideas as fact is simply dishonest. To further compound the problem, they expect others to propagate those mistruths, and to accept them within the public sphere. Which would be fine if we lived in Saudi Arabia, for example - but we don't. Most liberal democracies are secular, with separation of church and state enshrined in the constitution, or in Canada's example, exhibiting a long-standing record of judicial precedence on the issue of religion in public life.

Right. I wasn't trying to support the idea that we should be teaching creationism as science. Sorry if you had that impression. I do believe in the separation of church and state and in fact think that's dangerous to live in a country where there is no separation.

[redbaron]

Exactly - fundamentalism as getting down to the fundamentals of accepting the divine authority of the Bible as it commands. Where Christians get off ignoring God's divine dictate has always been a puzzle for me - there's a tendency to want to be derisive, but perhaps they just don't understand how lightly they are taking their own beliefs.

?? what are you referring to here?

[force my hand]

redbaron, you strike me as a somewhat 'liberal' person, so I didn't think that personally of you, but I just thought it was worth mentioning given the context of this aside stems from creationist views.

?? what are you referring to here?

We can probably agree that the Bible is a bit of mess - you have the Old Testament characteristic of an early society, and then you have the New Testament where Jesus comes along and creates a new tradition in part by dissolving certain aspects of the old.

But what parts specifically? I'm not a Bible scholar, or even all that interested in the subject, but I don't think Jesus absolves the creation story and puts a liberal, scientific spin on it. So my question in general terms is 'what gives?'

If the Bible is God's word, and the Bible supports the idea of creationism, then how exactly do Christians justify modifying the account of creation as depicted in the Bible? Maybe there is an internally consistant 'loophole' (for lack of a better word) on this issue. I've never encountered one, but I would love to learn about it if indeed it exists.

I mean, there is a six-day (day, not month, year, mega-annum, giga-annum) account of creation listed in specific detail (let's ignore for a moment the contradictions that exist between the two accounts in the Bible). Now, you may be thinking, "Let's be reasonable here" with respect to language. However, that's not the only example of things stated in the Bible about our universe and planet. It's my opinion that the summation of all these cases of reinterpretation oversteps the religious' place as subjects to their god's authority.

Is this an extreme view? Perhaps, but I think it makes logical sense as an idea when you discount the subtle effects of secular life in a liberal democracy, 2000 years removed from the context in which these ideas arose.

[marooned]

The problem is that the Bible says 'day', and that if the Bible is the word of God, no human can just make an arbitrary distinction to intrepret it in ways that are convenient to them.

In a Christian philosophy class I took I think I remember it being mentioned that a lot of the "numbers" in the bible aren't exact. Sometimes they are used in allusion to something else (like the number has a meaning or significance)... or something like "40 days and 40 nights" might mean "a long time" not really that it was meant to be exact. So the 7 day process of God creating things and resting... 7 is significant as a meaningful number. When we read these numbers now we come at it with the modern exacting scientific worldview... but in that culture and time things were not so exacting... but were often in parable or metaphor. A number may not mean what it means now. (People who have studied more can correct me if they find some of this wrong.)

I thought I'd mention, I'm sure they were more "exacting" when building things. (just in case)

[redbaron]

If the Bible is God's word, and the Bible supports the idea of creationism, then how exactly do Christians justify modifying the account of creation as depicted in the Bible?

Well I don't think the Bible necessarily supports the idea of creationism the way that we've learned to think of it in our place in history. I think the creation story emphasizes the fact that God (one god, not several different ones, as many people who lived during that time would have thought) created the world, and that he did so in an orderly way. I think in today's world we put way too much emphasis on how long it took him. lol I think the most important thing that the Bible is trying to get across is that God did it. And that he gave the earth order and things like gravity and other natural laws. Sure it says day one, day two, etc. but there didn't even exist anything like "days" before God formed the earth and the planets. Days are our way of noting time. The writer of Genesis had to formulate his words in a way that people would understand. We understand days, it makes sense, it expresses a span of time that we "get". I don't think the exact length of those days is in any way important.

that's not the only example of things stated in the Bible about our universe and planet. It's my opinion that the summation of all these cases of reinterpretation oversteps the religious' place as subjects to their god's authority.

It's my opinion that in some cases, "reinterpretation" is simply setting right a previous misinterpretation that others have placed upon the text.

You do make a pretty good point though. There are indeed some people who pick and choose the things they want to believe. And there's always that question: what in the Bible is simply cultural (like piercing your ears, cutting women's hair) and what is a command for all time (such as do not commit adultery, don't steal, etc).

[redbaron]

In a Christian philosophy class I took I think I remember it being mentioned that a lot of the "numbers" in the bible aren't exact. Sometimes they are used in allusion to something else (like the number has a meaning or significance)... or something like "40 days and 40 nights" might mean "a long time" not really that it was meant to be exact. So the 7 day process of God creating things and resting... 7 is significant as a meaningful number. When we read these numbers now we come at it with the modern exacting scientific worldview... but in that culture and time things were not so exacting... but were often in parable or metaphor. A number may not mean what it means now. (People who have studied more can correct me if they find some of this wrong.)

I thought I'd mention, I'm sure they were more "exacting" when building things. (just in case)

Yes. 7 was seen to be a complete number. Which is one of the reasons given as to why "666" (the number of the beast in Revelation) simply means "incomplete", since 7 indicates completeness and perfection. But yeah, parable and metaphor were the primary means in which people understood things. There was no such thing as the scientific method or any of that.

[Lobo]

Exactly - fundamentalism as getting down to the fundamentals of accepting the divine authority of the Bible as it commands. Where Christians get off ignoring God's divine dictate has always been a puzzle for me - there's a tendency to want to be derisive, but perhaps they just don't understand how lightly they are taking their own beliefs.

Not all Christians, such as Catholics, have a fundamentalist view of the Bible, as in to take everything literally. It's hard to explain, but it's not that the Bible is "taken lightly" by not following or taking a literal meaning to everything that is in there. It's like what redbaron and Loki are saying.

[force my hand]

Nice replies, guys!

In a Christian philosophy class I took I think I remember it being mentioned that a lot of the "numbers" in the bible aren't exact. Sometimes they are used in allusion to something else (like the number has a meaning or significance)... or something like "40 days and 40 nights" might mean "a long time" not really that it was meant to be exact. So the 7 day process of God creating things and resting... 7 is significant as a meaningful number. When we read these numbers now we come at it with the modern exacting scientific worldview... but in that culture and time things were not so exacting... but were often in parable or metaphor. A number may not mean what it means now. (People who have studied more can correct me if they find some of this wrong.)

This idea appears to stem from an athropological analysis, and one with which I'd tend to agree. But this is not the YEC position associated with Evangelical Protestantism that is pushing creationism to be taught in public schools and trying to spin it as a valid science on equal footing with evolution. And it still begs the question how valid the objective analysis is to religious truth when the religion itself requires certain things of its followers. Very few people like everything stated in the Bible, and even fewer people like the idea of examining it critically and fully for their own personal intellectual and/or spiritual development.

(Certainly not when you can be making big bucks during the week to be spending it on fun come the weekend.)

One thing I find amusing is that for my blanket assertion that 'Christians should follow the Bible literally' to be proven false (which I'm not all that personally invested in; as an atheist I'd much prefer they didn't), the effect is that it strengthens my argument that the creationist position is false.

[force my hand]

Well I don't think the Bible necessarily supports the idea of creationism the way that we've learned to think of it in our place in history. I think the creation story emphasizes the fact that God (one god, not several different ones, as many people who lived during that time would have thought) created the world, and that he did so in an orderly way.

That's your personal opinion, but would you care to make an estimate on how many millions of people wordwide believe in the account as the literal truth? Many of them are those you meet on the street everyday. And correct me if I'm mistaken, but it was Christian philosopher who came up with the date of 4004 BC for the creation of the Earth based on geneaology in the Bible, an idea our own poster Brilliand mentioned in one of these two threads.

I think in today's world we put way too much emphasis on how long it took him. lol I think the most important thing that the Bible is trying to get across is that God did it. And that he gave the earth order and things like gravity and other natural laws.

Assuming this is the real message, and knowing that you cannot falsify the assertion in any way, where would you personally drawn the line between religion and science with respect to the issue of evolution, and the origin of the Earth and universe? I mean, is the scientific model of evolution correct? Natural in origin, or guided by a supernatural force, etc.?

Sure it says day one, day two, etc. but there didn't even exist anything like "days" before God formed the earth and the planets. Days are our way of noting time. The writer of Genesis had to formulate his words in a way that people would understand. We understand days, it makes sense, it expresses a span of time that we "get". I don't think the exact length of those days is in any way important.

Assuming you are Christian, you're saying you would contest your opinion with the word of God? I ask this rhetorically.

It's my opinion that in some cases, "reinterpretation" is simply setting right a previous misinterpretation that others have placed upon the text.

Misinterpretations in the Bible? Nevar! To be serious, however, I personally agree with you.

You do make a pretty good point though. There are indeed some people who pick and choose the things they want to believe. And there's always that question: what in the Bible is simply cultural (like piercing your ears, cutting women's hair) and what is a command for all time (such as do not commit adultery, don't steal, etc).

I know I'm thankful that millions of mainstream Christians are willing to see the Bible for what it is, and choose to focus their efforts what it's trying to say.

[force my hand]

Not all Christians, such as Catholics, have a fundamentalist view of the Bible, as in to take everything literally. It's hard to explain, but it's not that the Bible is "taken lightly" by not following or taking a literal meaning to everything that is in there. It's like what redbaron and Loki are saying.

Excellent point. I know, for example, that the Catholic church accepts the Big Bang theory, just enacts a supernatural force behind it. I'm not aware of anything they may say on evolution, though.

I think Catholics as a general rule are also open to seeing their particular church within its own evolution. And shit, I mean, the Pope is the Pope - god's representative on Earth.

Unfortunately for Protestants, they have to rely on a different context.

[force my hand]

Hostage Child: I thought your post was great, and really have nothing to add or comment on overall, except to reiterate the importance of those who believe the literal account of creation and their effect on our society.

[FDG]

Excellent point. I know, for example, that the Catholic church accepts the Big Bang theory, just enacts a supernatural force behind it. I'm not aware of anything they may say on evolution, though.

I think Catholics as a general rule are also open to seeing their particular church within its own evolution. And shit, I mean, the Pope is the Pope - god's representative on Earth.

The Catholic Church (which is prevalent here in Italy) considers evolution to be a valid theory, and says that the "Hand of God" has guided evolution to the creation of the human race. Which, of course, it's completely compatible with the theory itself.

[Nexus]

The Catholic Church (which is prevalent here in Italy) considers evolution to be a valid theory, and says that the "Hand of God" has guided evolution to the creation of the human race. Which, of course, it's completely compatible with the theory itself.

I wonder if they mean that the 'Hand of God' that guides survival of the fittest among biological species in evolutionary natural selection is like the 'Invisible Hand' that guides survival of the fittest among private enterprises in the free market economy.

[force my hand]

The Catholic Church (which is prevalent here in Italy) considers evolution to be a valid theory, and says that the "Hand of God" has guided evolution to the creation of the human race. Which, of course, it's completely compatible with the theory itself.

Thanks for the clarification, FDG!

[tcaudilllg]

I wonder if they mean that the 'Hand of God' that guides survival of the fittest among biological species in evolutionary natural selection is like the 'Invisible Hand' that guides survival of the fittest among private enterprises in the free market economy.

Well the Catholic Church isn't associated with economics at all that I know of (if I recall they have an extremely simple accounting system that leaves every department, diocese, and parish to micromanage its own affairs) so I don't imagine they'd have a perspective on it.

Personality mostly determines success or failure in the marketplace. Ideas are important, also, but if your personality is adequate to succeed then you're going to use the best ideas available anyhow, without reservation.

[DirectorAbbie]

Woah! I tried to start a debate with force my hand, and got most of the forum involved!

For all Abbie claims to have read about science, she is likely unfamiliar with the concept of bioaccumulation. And apparently, so too are her unreferenced 'scientists'.

You bet I am! I never claimed to have read a lot about science, I claimed to have read, studied, and watched science. And I wanted a debate that has something to do with religion because none of my friends will debate with me any more.

We can probably agree that the Bible is a bit of mess - you have the Old Testament characteristic of an early society, and then you have the New Testament where Jesus comes along and creates a new tradition in part by dissolving certain aspects of the old.

How is the Bible a mess? So it includes old writings and older writings. They don't contradict each other. Jesus disolved the parts that were now unnecessary because what they represented was there, like throwing away a plastic rock when you find a real one.

In a Christian philosophy class I took I think I remember it being mentioned that a lot of the "numbers" in the bible aren't exact. Sometimes they are used in allusion to something else (like the number has a meaning or significance)... or something like "40 days and 40 nights" might mean "a long time" not really that it was meant to be exact. So the 7 day process of God creating things and resting... 7 is significant as a meaningful number. When we read these numbers now we come at it with the modern exacting scientific worldview... but in that culture and time things were not so exacting... but were often in parable or metaphor. A number may not mean what it means now. (People who have studied more can correct me if they find some of this wrong.)

I thought I'd mention, I'm sure they were more "exacting" when building things. (just in case)

40 days and 40 nights (or as we say nowadays, 40 days) is a long time if you're just floating around listening to the rain and feeding animals. But there's no reason for it to be symbolic. The Bible sometimes mentions big numbers, and it sometimes mentions 'many' or 'an uncountable number.' Those are not meant to be exact. If someone is 63 and you ask them for their age do they say, "I'm 63." or "I'm old."?

[Lotus]

Woah! I tried to start a debate with force my hand, and got most of the forum involved!


You bet I am! I never claimed to have read a lot about science, I claimed to have read, studied, and watched science. And I wanted a debate that has something to do with religion because none of my friends will debate with me any more.


How is the Bible a mess? So it includes old writings and older writings. They don't contradict each other. Jesus disolved the parts that were now unnecessary because what they represented was there, like throwing away a plastic rock when you find a real one.



40 days and 40 nights (or as we say nowadays, 40 days) is a long time if you're just floating around listening to the rain and feeding animals. But there's no reason for it to be symbolic. The Bible sometimes mentions big numbers, and it sometimes mentions 'many' or 'an uncountable number.' Those are not meant to be exact. If someone is 63 and you ask them for their age do they say, "I'm 63." or "I'm old."?

Hey Director Abbie, how old are you?

[DirectorAbbie]

Hey Director Abbie, how old are you?

17, it's on my profile. Why?

[Slacker]

There is no possible way to hold two of every animal on the planet, plus all the food and any other supplies they'd need, plus to be prepared for all the baby animals would be born, plus room for the people and all the food and supplies they'd need, on a boat that could have been built by that many people in the amount of time given with the materials and tools available at the time. And there weren't enough people on the ark to care for all those animals. It's just impossible and silly to think that really happened as stated. I have no doubt there was some flood somewhere that someone interpreted in stories that way, but come on.

[DirectorAbbie]

There is no possible way to hold two of every animal on the planet, plus all the food and any other supplies they'd need, plus to be prepared for all the baby animals would be born, plus room for the people and all the food and supplies they'd need, on a boat that could have been built by that many people in the amount of time given with the materials and tools available at the time. And there weren't enough people on the ark to care for all those animals. It's just impossible and silly to think that really happened as stated. I have no doubt there was some flood somewhere that someone interpreted in stories that way, but come on.

It took like 120 years to build the boat. You don't think that's long enough?
As for the animals, he could have taken two canine instead of every type of dog. If you separate two groups of people from the rest of the people, so they can only marry amongst their own group, the teo seperate groups will look very different after several generations have passed because of the available gene pool. That's why we have different types of dogs.

[Enters Laughing]

The water of the oceans would have been so polluted with mud that the ark would have needed two blue whales for a start.

[Slacker]

It took like 120 years to build the boat. You don't think that's long enough?
As for the animals, he could have taken two canine instead of every type of dog. If you separate two groups of people from the rest of the people, so they can only marry amongst their own group, the teo seperate groups will look very different after several generations have passed because of the available gene pool. That's why we have different types of dogs.

No, 120 years is not long enough with the materials, number of people, and tools available at the time.

And I'm not talking about dogs. I'm talking about everything - elephants, tigers, lions, giraffes, horses, etc. And some of those animals only eat live prey, which means you'd have to have many many more than 2 of some kinds of animals. And of course they'd all have to be penned up separately so they didn't kill each other. It's just impossible. They couldn't have built a boat as big and sturdy as an aircraft carrier or anything like that. It just isn't physically possible. It isn't even physically possible for them to have gotten everywhere and collected two of every animal given how many animals there are and how far away they all live. Did they row a boat that big around with just a few people doing the work? And build it, with primitive tools and just wood, and only wood in the vicinity, AND get everywhere they need AND collect two of each animal AND prepare and get enough food together for all the animals in 120 years? Just a few people? Nope, not possible. At that point it's willful ignorance - like believing the earth is flat or that the sun rotates around the earth rather than the other way around. It's foolish.

[redbaron]

It's literature. Not scientific fact. The point of Noah's Ark story was to show God's mercy in saving his people and the animals. His great love and his providence for them as well as his promise not to destroy the earth with water. Those are the themes of the story! If you focus on the feasibility of the details, you miss the entire point. Stories like this were often told because they hold memorable images and amazing happenings that people wouldn't soon forget. This sort of thing was done all the time in many cultures. Why is it a surprise that God would use those sorts of stories to reveal himself to the people of the time, and even to us today? Noah's Ark is such a fabulous incredible imagination-grabbing story. It's true too! True in the message it was meant to convey.

[Slacker]

It's literature. Not scientific fact. The point of Noah's Ark story was to show God's mercy in saving his people and the animals. His great love and his providence for them as well as his promise not to destroy the earth with water. Those are the themes of the story! If you focus on the feasibility of the details, you miss the entire point. Stories like this were often told because they hold memorable images and amazing happenings that people wouldn't soon forget. This sort of thing was done all the time in many cultures. Why is it a surprise that God would use those sorts of stories to reveal himself to the people of the time, and even to us today? Noah's Ark is such a fabulous incredible imagination-grabbing story. It's true too! True in the message it was meant to convey.

Is this to me? Because I agree with that - it is a great story and my daughter had a Noah's Ark toy just like most little kids. I'm just saying that I think Allie is silly to take it literally. It's a great story and like a lot of Biblical stories there are lessons to be learned from it, but to insist it happened exactly as written is ridiculous.

[redbaron]

Is this to me? Because I agree with that - it is a great story and my daughter had a Noah's Ark toy just like most little kids. I'm just saying that I think Allie is silly to take it literally. It's a great story and like a lot of Biblical stories there are lessons to be learned from it, but to insist it happened exactly as written is ridiculous.

Sorry, it wasn't specifically to you! Just to everyone I guess. I think it's silly to take it literally too. Although when I was Allie's age, I did.

[Lotus]

Is this to me? Because I agree with that - it is a great story and my daughter had a Noah's Ark toy just like most little kids. I'm just saying that I think Allie is silly to take it literally. It's a great story and like a lot of Biblical stories there are lessons to be learned from it, but to insist it happened exactly as written is ridiculous.

Sorry, it wasn't specifically to you! Just to everyone I guess. I think it's silly to take it literally too. Although when I was Allie's age, I did.

You mean "Abbie" ?

[redbaron]

You mean "Abbie" ?

sorry Allie! Yes, I meant Director Abbie! (I got Allie/Abbie confused)

[Slacker]

Yes, I meant Abbie too.

[Expat]

As for the animals, he could have taken two canine instead of every type of dog. If you separate two groups of people from the rest of the people, so they can only marry amongst their own group, the teo seperate groups will look very different after several generations have passed because of the available gene pool.

Yes, they will develop problems just like the Habsburg dynasty did in Europe after centuries of inter-breeding:

Behold the famous Habsburg chin - present in most of the family, but culminating in Carlos II of Spain:

[force my hand]

You bet I am! I never claimed to have read a lot about science, I claimed to have read, studied, and watched science. And I wanted a debate that has something to do with religion because none of my friends will debate with me any more.

Are you planning to go to university? I'm not sure where your interest lies, but I would strongly recommend a few courses in geology, biology, and environmental science. Not because I want to 'turn' you, but because if you find them half as interesting as I did, you'll enjoy them very much. I'm still surprised at how many fundamental and easy concepts I learned that I had never previously encountered.

How is the Bible a mess? So it includes old writings and older writings. They don't contradict each other. Jesus disolved the parts that were now unnecessary because what they represented was there, like throwing away a plastic rock when you find a real one.

How is the Bible a mess? If a person was willing to expend the effort, the evidence could comprise another book entirely. Beyond the overarching change in God's character from a henotheistic and judgemental figure to one of love, compassion, and forgiveness, there are also specific examples. One that comes to mind is the differences in the two accounts of creation. Both cannot be correct, because they describe things differently, and in different orders. Were I not lazy right now, I'd take the time to provide examples, but let me assure you they are there because I've read them.

[force my hand]

It took like 120 years to build the boat. You don't think that's long enough?

Too long, I'd say, as we know there's no way a human back then could have lived that long. Life expectancy in those days would have likely been ~45 years. That's fact.

As for the animals, he could have taken two canine instead of every type of dog. If you separate two groups of people from the rest of the people, so they can only marry amongst their own group, the teo seperate groups will look very different after several generations have passed because of the available gene pool. That's why we have different types of dogs.

Dogs are actually the same species as a wolf, so where dogs are concerned, there's no issue. However, there are so may other issues one cannot even count that as evidence. How do you explain the extinction of mammoths which are bracketed by a layer of carbon and lie in strata the pre-dates the flood? This is one of thousands of examples that simply cannot be correlated with the flood myth.

[DirectorAbbie]

Too long, I'd say, as we know there's no way a human back then could have lived that long. Life expectancy in those days would have likely been ~45 years. That's fact.

That's fiction. People before the flood lived longer because the climate was so much better.Ever heard of Methuselah, the guy said to have lived 969 years? He lived before the flood. The flood knocked the Earth crazy with all the water rushing around, the volcanoes erupting, and the sky falling.

Dogs are actually the same species as a wolf, so where dogs are concerned, there's no issue. However, there are so may other issues one cannot even count that as evidence. How do you explain the extinction of mammoths which are bracketed by a layer of carbon and lie in strata the pre-dates the flood? This is one of thousands of examples that simply cannot be correlated with the flood myth.

The extinction of mammoths is easy - they couldn't survive the climate after the flood. What's strata?

[force my hand]

That's fiction. People before the flood lived longer because the climate was so much better.Ever heard of Methuselah, the guy said to have lived 969 years? He lived before the flood. The flood knocked the Earth crazy with all the water rushing around, the volcanoes erupting, and the sky falling.

There is no physical evidence showing the climate was significantly different 4000 years ago, and certainly not to the extent that allowed humans to live close to 1,000 years in age. Our biology simply does not allow for it.

The extinction of mammoths is easy - they couldn't survive the climate after the flood. What's strata?

Mammoth extinction pre-dates the proposed time of the flood, and there is no mechanism in the flood 'hypothesis' to account for the subsequent carbon layer.

'Strata' refers to layers of sediment deposited by various geological processes like water and wind.

[DirectorAbbie]

Are you planning to go to university? I'm not sure where your interest lies, but I would strongly recommend a few courses in geology, biology, and environmental science. Not because I want to 'turn' you, but because if you find them half as interesting as I did, you'll enjoy them very much. I'm still surprised at how many fundamental and easy concepts I learned that I had never previously encountered.



How is the Bible a mess? If a person was willing to expend the effort, the evidence could comprise another book entirely. Beyond the overarching change in God's character from a henotheistic and judgemental figure to one of love, compassion, and forgiveness, there are also specific examples. One that comes to mind is the differences in the two accounts of creation. Both cannot be correct, because they describe things differently, and in different orders. Were I not lazy right now, I'd take the time to provide examples, but let me assure you they are there because I've read them.

I'm not going to a university. I don't like crowds. I'm planning to be a preschool teacher.

You scold me for not providing sources, then refuse to provide them yourself? Hypocrite. I can't respond to your so-called 'two accounts' because I don't know what you are referring to. Shakespear made a nice quote about mercy in "The Merchant of Venice." I read it, and he also mentioned justice. Mercy and justice can go together. You don't have to be one or the other. Isn't a judging shape?

[force my hand]

You scold me for not providing sources, then refuse to provide them yourself? Hypocrite.

Refuse? I said I was too lazy, and partially because if you're debating me, I expect you to be at least sufficiently aware of your own religion's holy text.

I can't respond to your so-called 'two accounts' because I don't know what you are referring to.

Since you need to be coddled, the second return on a Google search provided Contradictions in Genesis.

Shakespear made a nice quote about mercy in "The Merchant of Venice." I read it, and he also mentioned justice. Mercy and justice can go together. You don't have to be one or the other. Isn't a judging shape?

Sorry, but I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.