The Bible's Scientific Credibility

[Nickswitz]

Well for starters, it would have killed all the plant and animal life on the planet, save on Noah's barge.

Yeah, your point being? there was a reason God told him to put them on there.

No, I'm asking where he got the tech to build a massive barge out of wood. We couldn't build 400ft metal ships until relatively recently. Let alone wood.

I know this sounds moronic, but God told him how to do it, and he had all those animals to help him.

Uh huh, how'd he fit a f***ing dinosaur on there then?

When was the last time you saw a dinosaur walking around?

This all boils down to the "physical laws of the universe don't apply to him!" But if they don't and we can't observe him, then how the f**k do we know it's there. Actually I already know the answer, it starts with f and ends with h.

No, he knows how to toy with them to do what he wants.

But yes, it is mostly faith that we know he exists.

[Aaron]

Yeah, your point being? there was a reason God told him to put them on there.

How is there going to be any oxygen on the planet if everything just got destroyed in the mother of all flash floods? Is the Ark a spaceship now with a garden for oxygen?

I know this sounds moronic, but God told him how to do it, and he had all those animals to help him.

Right, and Noah magically understood how to do this without any prior practise right? Here's a hint: large wooden vessels flex a lot in the water. Someone must have got really tired of manning those pumps. Not to mention round the clock shit patrol.

When was the last time you saw a dinosaur walking around?

Hey, you know what the fossil record is? If all the animals of the world lived in Eden, then there would have been dinosaurs as well.

No, he knows how to toy with them to do what he wants.

But yes, it is mostly faith that we know he exists.

You've basically just invalidated your entire argument. If you can't prove your argument within our physical laws then you have no argument, your engaging in an argument from incredulity. If you want to believe in god, all well and good. That's your business but don't try and pretend that you can fit the bible in as anything but a set of cool stories if all the scientific evidence proves your wrong.

[Nickswitz]

How is there going to be any oxygen on the planet if everything just got destroyed in the mother of all flash floods? Is the Ark a spaceship now with a garden for oxygen?

I'm sure there were plants in there, so once they had all those plants they could plant them afterwards.

Right, and Noah magically understood how to do this without any prior practise right? Here's a hint: large wooden vessels flex a lot in the water. Someone must have got really tired of manning those pumps. Not to mention round the clock s**t patrol.

God gave them directions on how to make it work in water well.

Hey, you know what the fossil record is? If all the animals of the world lived in Eden, then there would have been dinosaurs as well.

Yeah, how often do things get washed up on shore, things move around in water, why wouldn't they then?

You've basically just invalidated your entire argument. If you can't prove your argument within our physical laws then you have no argument, your engaging in an argument from incredulity. If you want to believe in god, all well and good. That's your business but don't try and pretend that you can fit the bible in as anything but a set of cool stories if all the scientific evidence proves your wrong.

But the thing is why wouldn't most of the miracles have happened, they are within our scientific laws, we just may not know how to do that.

[Graham Kennedy]

Um... like what?

And I say besides acts of god because based on biblical beliefs, God created scientific laws, so presumably he would know how to circumvent them.

Like there isn't enough water in existence to cover the surface of the Earth.

Like the rate of rainfall needed to cover the surface in 40 days would be 30 feet of rain per hour, which is more than enough to sink a battleship let alone a wooden boat.

Like wood isn't strong enough to build a wooden boat of the size of the Ark. The only boats that have come even remotely close needed extensive iron strapping on the hull, and still leaked like crazy.

Like many of the animals couldn't possibly have reached the Ark. How does a sloth that can move a few feet per day walk from south America to the middle east? (Or alternatively, if we assume they were in the middle east in the first place, how did they get TO places like Australia and South America afterwards?)

Like many animals need specialised diets. Did the Koala Bears really drag along a huge supply of eucalyptus leaves with them as they made their way from Australia?

Like the Ark couldn't have accommodated the needed numbers of animals plus food anyway.

Like the numbers of people on board couldn't possibly have looked after that many animals.

Like 7 or 2 of each kind isn't enough for a viable population base to re-establish the species after the flood.

I could go on and on.


And so on. The flood is by far the silliest story in the bible as regards science. The only possible way to explain it is to have god simply miracle it all. But if so, then for one you have just given up on the bible being scientifically accurate. And for two, as I said earlier - if you can simply miracle away all the problems, then EVERY book is scientifically accurate, without exception.

[Nickswitz]

Ok, Some of those things I could counter, such as the animals being there, they were all in that area to begin with.

But some of it I would say miraculous. So yes, a lot is based purely on faith.

[Aaron]

I'm sure there were plants in there, so once they had all those plants they could plant them afterwards.

You don't understand. The Earth is covered in water, which means no oxygen is being produced[/b] and no CO2 is being absorbed. Save for what plants are on the Ark. Which means they have to process the CO2 from Noah and family and the animals.

God gave them directions on how to make it work in water well.

Right...you do know that we can't build boats like that now, right? Which means according to our science it can't be done. Your essentially applying authors fiat.

Yeah, how often do things get washed up on shore, things move around in water, why wouldn't they then?

What?

But the thing is why wouldn't most of the miracles have happened, they are within our scientific laws, we just may not know how to do that.

Then the onus is on you to prove it.

Ok, Some of those things I could counter, such as the animals being there, they were all in that area to begin with.

But some of it I would say miraculous. So yes, a lot is based purely on faith.

Then there isn't any reason to continue this. Take it easy.

[Graham Kennedy]

Which is fine, nothing wrong with having faith.

But it disallows you from saying that the bible is consistent with science.

[Nickswitz]

Ok, Kendall your right there is little reason to continue this, because it both sides can argue based on what they believe. So I will concede this arguement. I do understand where you are coming from, both of you, and yes, it's quite easy to discount bible because a lot is faithed based. I enjoyed this though.

[Sionnach Glic]

Debate split from the "My Review" thread in the ST:XI forum.

[Sionnach Glic]

Since we're sorta on the subject, how would you explain the dinosaurs, Nick? There's not a single mention of them in the Bible, and fossil records clearly show that they died off long before Noah would have been around, so they can't have been killed by the flood.

[Nickswitz]

God made them before Noah maybe, and then they died due to a meteor, The bible is not meant to be an informational guide to earth's history, It was about HIS [God's] people. So it may have been something he realized would have been very dangerous to humans, and killed them off.

Oh, and one point I would like to respond to for Kendall.

Yeah, how often do things get washed up on shore, things move around in water, why wouldn't they then?


What?

If you have a big enough current, you can move just about anything, so why can't a fossil get moved from one point of the earth to another in a flood that covered the world.

[Sionnach Glic]

God made them before Noah maybe, and then they died due to a meteor, The bible is not meant to be an informational guide to earth's history, It was about HIS [God's] people. So it may have been something he realized would have been very dangerous to humans, and killed them off.

Wouldn't an all-knowing god have realised in advance that such creatures would be dangerous, and thus not make them in the first place?

Also, why did he decide to give dinosaurs a test-run a few dozen eons before deciding to let us loose?

[Nickswitz]

Idk, I can't claim I know anything about what he was thinking, maybe he just decided to have larger animals, and then made them get smaller through creation over time, I really don't know why he would do that, but that's why I'm not him.

[stitch626]

I don't have much time, so I'll cover this a little bit at a time.

Like there isn't enough water in existence to cover the surface of the Earth.

Based on tectonic plate movements, it is likely that the Earth around 6000 years ago had mountains half as high and the oceans weren't nearly as deep.
Also, there were no polar ice caps, no ice at all. Most of the water was in the form of a vaporous cloud that covered the entire Earth.
There is more than enough water to have covered the land.

Hey, you know what the fossil record is? If all the animals of the world lived in Eden, then there would have been dinosaurs as well.

It is highly likely that dinosaurs died out long before God created humans. Hence, no need to bring them on the ark as they'd be bones.

Like 7 or 2 of each kind isn't enough for a viable population base to re-establish the species after the flood.

And how with evolution would sexual reproduction begin in the first place? By your logic it would require a large number of creatures to all at the same time form sexual organs and be compatible both genetically and physically.



Ok, thats all I have time to cover for now. Hopefully be back later.

[Sionnach Glic]

Based on tectonic plate movements, it is likely that the Earth around 6000 years ago had mountains half as high and the oceans weren't nearly as deep.
Also, there were no polar ice caps, no ice at all. Most of the water was in the form of a vaporous cloud that covered the entire Earth.
There is more than enough water to have covered the land.

Source?

It is highly likely that dinosaurs died out long before God created humans. Hence, no need to bring them on the ark as they'd be bones.

Then we're back to the whole question of why they existed millions of years before us in the first place.

And how with evolution would sexual reproduction begin in the first place? By your logic it would require a large number of creatures to all at the same time form sexual organs and be compatible both genetically and physically.

No, it wouldn't. You should read up more on the origins of just how multi-celled creatures came about.

The fact remains, two zebras aren't going to be capable of repopulating the Earth.