One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

So was Einstein, but he started out sucking pretty bad at math. All I'm saying is that I don't deny the insane smarts that your friend has, but what he says about religion, from what I can tell, is a huge offering of conjectures and what ifs. Those 'what ifs' certainly work as a model for how it could have been (even though I still take issue with it), but because the theory is built that way, it doesn't prove a thing except for the fact that his particular view works.

When we’re dealing with the feasibility of a particular story that’s all we need.

Take, for example, abiogenesis. We can't prove how exactly it worked on earth (and because of that we don't know for certain that it even happened in our planet's case), but we can still prove that it works. This is a good example of how I approach science. I won't proceed to tell anyone that the inhabitants of this earth came about because of abiogenesis, but I will certainly spread the fact that it's a proven theory.

Abiogenesis is not a proven theory though, you’re beginning to sound like Texas Sailor, that guy has all sorts of faith in abiogenesis even though it’s never been demonstrated to even be remotely possible.

I'm just saying that saying something is built for stability doesn't make it invulnerable when certain factors are introduced. Say an Eskimo built the strongest Igloo ever. Unfortunately a heat wave hit Alaska all of a sudden. All the stability in the world couldn't save the poor man's Igloo from melting all around him.

Sure, but what factors are you referring to? We know the ark could have survived very tumultuous oceanic conditions because of it’s dimensions, so I am not sure what else it’d have to survive.

Look, perhaps conditions could be met for Noah's giant wooden construct to last all that time. Is it really possible to tell that it happened just from reading lines out of a story book? Later, during the times of Babel, could the people really have built a structure all the way to heaven using the knowledge of architecture of the time? Why also is there no room for doubt?

The Bible is not a mere story book to Christians, so that’s a bit of a misrepresentation. It also never says they built the tower to heaven, it merely says its top was in the “heavens” which means sky in that context. The story of Babel is actually consistent with what we understand about world languages, they seem to originate from about a dozen parent languages, rather than one single language.

Asserting that the story isn't feasible is all evidence-based. You can think that the evidence is being manipulated to my world view, and I can think the same about you. Just remember that my world view is based on facts and evidence while yours is based on faith. The point I'm trying to make is that in order to even talk about what's possible and not with the story of Noah's Ark is to make conjectures all across the board...I can concede that point.

A person does not base their worldview upon facts; they use their worldview in order to interpret the facts and evidence. Worldviews are axiomatic by definition.

So during that entire time he was laughed at and ridiculed? No one else was righteous? What about Methuselah, his contemporary, or Enoch, or any of their followers? Did all the righteous up to the point of the first rains of the flood simply vanish, all innocent babies and children included?

Well Enoch and Methuselah (which apparently means “When he dies, it shall come” interestingly enough) were both gone by that time period. Methuselah died the year of the flood.

I think you need to reconsider what constitutes and outrageous claim and what doesn't? So if you think that the story of Noah's Ark being true isn't outrageous, then perhaps you'll find the stories of Alien Abductions pretty believable too. You'd be surprised at the level of detail that some of the supposed victims weave into their stories. These stories almost become...well...feasible.

A man building a boat, loading it with animals, and surviving a global flood is far more feasible than the physics involved with aliens visiting Earth. Alien abductions are merely a retelling of “old hag” stories (see Old Hag Syndrome) from the time period before Roswell.

What constitutes an outrageous claim for you?

Something with neither Biblical nor scientific support; alien abductions

Just because the book gives you something feasible doesn't make the story any less fabricated. The Star Trek franchise presents some pretty convincing scenarios; however, we can't say that we can Time Travel just because the crew of the Enterprise figured out a way to turn the clock any which way by slingshotting around the sun.

Star Trek is an admitted work of fiction, so it’s not proper to compare it to scripture which claims to be true. You’d actually need some actual evidence suggesting the Noah account is a fabrication, but to the contrary it’s very well supported by cultures around the world.

Another example, let’s compare Genesis 6 with legends held by a people group half way around the World, the American Indian…

“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim[b] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”- Genesis 6:1-8

Mighty giants (the Nephilim, also mentioned in Numbers 13:33 and the extra-Biblical Hebrew sources “the Book of Enoch” and “the Book of Jubilees”) disobey God, God sends a great flood to destroy them.


“One such legend, related by Buffalo Bill in his autobiography, centers on a creation myth. According to Cody, one night a group of Pawnees came into camp bringing with them a number of large bones, one of which a doctor with Cody's expedition identified as a human thighbone. The Pawnees maintained that the bones belonged to an ancient race of men who inhabited the country and were three times the size of human beings of the day. Any one of these giants could run down a buffalo and tear off its leg with one hand and then eat it as he walked. However, these giant men did not believe in the Great Spirit; they were not intimidated by the thunder and lightning and laughed at it. This angered the Great Spirit, and he sent a great rainstorm that drove the giants to the hills. But the water rose and covered the mountaintops as well, and the conceited giants were drowned. Once the floodwaters receded, the Great Spirit considered that he had made men too large and powerful, and he would henceforth re-create them smaller and weaker. The Pawnees maintained that this was Indian history handed down to them from time out of mind. This explains why men are not like the giants of old and have to work harder to hunt and to live. Cody adds an interesting note to this episode. He remarked that since their expedition had no wagons with them and the thighbone was very large, it had to be left behind.” –Encyclopedia of the Great Plains

Mighty giants disobey the Great Spirit, the Great Spirit sends a great flood to destroy them.

The Aztecs held to a corrupted view of the Noah account and Babel account as well…

“When mankind were overwhelmed with the deluge, none were preserved but a man named Coxcox … and a woman called Xochiquetzal, who saved themselves in a little bark, and having afterwards got to land upon a mountain called by them Colhuacan, had there a great many children; these children were all born dumb, until a dove from a lofty tree imparted to them languages, but differing so much that they could not understand one another.” - Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testaments: Studies in Comparative Religion

According to Sanders in the “The Epic of Gilgamesh”, Mesopotamia had a similar legend where all mankind was destroyed in a global flood accept for Utnapishtim who was told by his god to build a giant boat which would house his family and animals. During the flood Utnapishtim released birds (including a dove and raven just like in Genesis) in order to know if land had broken the waters.

According to Morrison in “Ancient Choctaw Legend of the Great Flood”, Choctaw American Indians believed the Great Spirit had destroyed mankind in a great flood accept for one prophet who built a boat of logs and who was spared. All humans descend from this man.

According to “Aboriginal Fables And Legendary Tales” by Reed, Aboriginals believe that evil spirit giants known as Nurrumbunguttia were destroyed in a great flood that covered the mountain tops.

The Aboriginals also tell a story of Gajara, who was spared along with his wife, his sons and their wives when he built a boat to survive a global flood that rose above the mountain tops sent by Ngadja, the Supreme Being. During the voyage, Gajara released several birds to see if the flood waters had receded. After the boat landed, Gajara made a sacrifice to the Supreme Being who put a rainbow in the sky in order to keep the flood waters from flooding the Earth again.

The Teutonic tribes of Scandinavia believe all of mankind except for a select family was destroyed in a global flood; many aspects of this legend speak of water emerging from the Earth akin to the “Fountains of the Great Deep” in Genesis according to The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology.

According to the ancient Chinese “Book of All Knowledge”, mankind’s rebellious deeds were judged by a global flood sent by the gods. The waters were described to come from within the Earth just like in Genesis.

According to “Folklore in the Old Testaments: Studies in Comparative Religion”, a primitive Chinese tribe known as the Bahnars believed that a global flood destroyed everything, except for a man and a woman who took a pair of every animal into a giant chest and were spared to repopulate the Earth.

According to the Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, the Egyptians believed that the god Tem sent a global flood that destroyed all of mankind except for those who were in “Tem’s Boat”.

According to Frazier, the Incas of Peru believed a global flood that rose above the mountain tops killed everything except for a man and a woman who were saved in a box that floated on the waters.

There are over 500 documented versions of these flood legends; all of them describe a single catastrophic flood event. From a Biblical perspective this makes perfect sense, but how do you explain them?

The thing that makes science so relevant in today's world is that its theories are peer-reviewed and reproduced, leaving little margin for error based on the known evidence. That doesn't make science wrong, as you assume it does; instead, it gives us a close approximation of a theory. If your friend is, as you say, a scientist, then he should be able to explain this to you. If he instead tells you that science is wrong and can never be trusted, then why is he in the field that he is?

You’re equivocating a bit with the term “science”. There is nothing wrong with operational and empirical sciences which rely upon direct observation and repeatability. This branch of science is the strongest and coincidentally does not conflict with scripture. In fact, its God’s existence that makes this sort of science even possible. The only science that conflicts with scripture are theories of origins and historical sciences, these are the weakest forms of science and can never disprove anything attested to in scripture because they rely upon anti-Biblical assumptions.

I don't believe in a creator. I don't have evidence there is a God. I would need to assume these creatures have a creator before your statement that they are subordinate to it can be rationalized.

How can something be a creature (that which is created) and not have a creator?

The rest is a red herring. Given by your statement just before this, an argument can be good, persuasive, but also false. It's ability to persuade is still measured though, and therein lies its merits. Arguing someone to the point of changing their mind do not make the points right. I think you know this, and I don't understand why you took it down this path. My only beef is that you seemed to forget that arguments needed to be persuasive to have merits. I believe you've conceded this point, so why can't you just say that? Is it because I'm an Atheist, and, to you, I have to be wrong all the time no matter what?

We’re using the term merits differently, that’s where the confusion lies. When I say, “the merits of an argument” I am referring to its veracity. Apparently when you use that term you’re referring to it’s ability to persuade. Sorry for the confusion (and no, I do not believe you’re wrong all the time).

How long does it take an olive tree to grow branches big enough for a dove to carry?

Everything I can find says that it takes 6-8 weeks for an olive tree to sprout and begin to grow leaves. The dove brought back the olive leaf almost five months after the waters began to recede, so the timeline makes sense.

So can every Felidae interbreed? Every Carnivora? Can every different type of fly breed with another naturally out in the wild? How exactly are the biblical "Kinds" the same as "Families", when the definition you've provided gives the prerequisite of having to be able to breed with each other?

I never said it was synonymous with “family”, I just said in most cases its closer to Family than it is Genus, in some cases not though. Remember, the classification system was developed thousands of years after the Bible, so you’re not going to find a direct lining up. Not only this, but all we have today to examine are the ancestors of the Biblical kinds which have undergone thousands of years of selection and genetic reduction. Creationists are working on gaining a better understanding of which animals would have been in each Biblical kind, by examining present day animals and extinct animals they now believe there were about 1,000 different Biblical kinds of animals.

And specialized habitats? Differing climes by region of the boat? Heat lamps for the reptiles? Aquariums for the sea mammals?

I am not aware of any land dwelling animal that requires a specialized climate controlled habitat. Additionally, I have a pet snake, and she’s lived 3.5 years without a heat lamp. Only land animals were brought upon the ark (Genesis 7:22).

You don't see it as an issue because of how you've described the Biblical "Kind", and because of this you've calculated 2000 animals to be on board the boat. So did Noah have a greenhouse to keeps the green foods fresh? Did he have some kind of advanced refrigeration system? Fresh water misters? How did the fresh water remain fresh?

I didn’t define Biblical “kinds”, the Bible does and there’d be about a thousand of them. Our scientific understanding of speciation made this story possible; 200 years ago it would have seemed impossible. In order to keep plants fresh you really only need a cellar system. You act as if nobody ever embarked upon long sea voyages prior to the invention of the refrigerator.

So then what's Gopher wood? It it Cypress?

We’re not sure what type of wood was called gopher wood.

What about ventilation? The Bible offers no explanation, and it only mentions a single door.

Yup, the description of the ark in scripture is not exhaustive, but we do know that Noah released birds out of something other than the door (since it was shut and ceiled), so we know there were other openings in the ark.

You call that easy?

If that’s all it takes to save humanity and life on Earth, then yes that’s pretty easy. Superman would be jealous

Is there any explanation as to why men lived longer back then? Why doesn't anyone live that long today? Why is there no other evidence for this life-span than what is found in the Bible? How do you know how Noah looked?

Yes, there are several factors contributing to longer lifespans, a Human genome nearly devoid of genetic mutations would be one factor (Noah was only a few generations removed from Adam and Eve), there are also theories about different length telomeres (cancer cells that are not capped by telomeres are essentially immortal if allowed to continue replicating), and pre-flood climates with lower levels of solar entropy that also make a lot of sense. People don’t live that long today because of the genetic drift associated with the bottleneck event at the flood would have affected our genetics, solar entropy is greater today, and our genome contains hundreds of times more copying errors than it would have back then.
The Bible is not the only source mentioning such lifespans, the Hebrew source “The Book of Enoch” also describes such long lifespans. In Chinese culture, Zuo Ci was believed to have lived for over 300 years during the Three Kingdoms Period. During the Yin Dynasty, Peng Zu was believed to have lived for over 800 years. Emperor Jimmu and Emperor Kōan were both believed to have reigned for over a century in Japan. Taejo of Goguryeo reigned in Korea for 93 years. According to Pliny, the Roman census carried out under Vespasian recorded numerous people living in Italy who were close to 150 years old. According to the ancient Greek historian Lucian, Tiresias, the blind seer of Thebes, lived to be over 600 years old, Nestor lived to be over 300 years old, and Epimenides of Crete lived to be almost 300 years. In what is now the Czech Republic, Praotec Čech lived to be 338 years old, and Přemysl, lived for more than 180 years. Saint Servatius, Bishop of Tongeren lived for 375 years. Welsh bard Llywarch Hen lived to be 150 years old. The Maharishi of Kailas was said to be over 300 years old. According to Islamic tradition, Abdul Azziz al-Hafeed al-Habashi lived to be nearly 675 years old. Devraha Baba was rumored to be over 700 or even over 750 years old. In Hinduism, Trailanga Swami lived to be 279 years old, the sadhaka Lokenath Brahmachari lived to be 160 years old. The Buddhist, LP Suwang was believed to have lived for 444 years. Documented in the county census of Yong Tai in Fujian Province, Chen Jun was born during the Tang Dynasty and died during the Yuan Dynasty, making him over 400 years old. Even the United State Social Security death index has records of two women, Anne Feinseth and Elizabeth M. Mahony living over 190 years.

I do not know how Noah looked, but he had children when he was over 500, and built a giant boat, so it makes sense that he’d appear middle aged, because he was aging slower than we do today.

So you don't assume the Bible to be true before looking at the evidence? If you knew nothing about God before searching the universe for answers, would they point to an omnipotent creator, or do you have to know what you're looking for before you find it?

Depends on what we’re looking at, most people arrive at the existence of a single creator by examining the world around them. The finer details require interpretation while looking through the Biblical lenses. There’s nothing wrong with doing that as long as you’re honest about what you’re doing. The world makes far more sense when examined through the Biblical perspective.

If I lived in the 17th century and was as skeptical as I am now, the evidence would probably turn me to Deism. It doesn't matter if the entire truth is there or not; the problem is assuming one thing to be absolutely true and then turning the evidence over to fit your world view, while discarding all else despite their merits. Is there anything in science besides the age of the earth that you dismiss despite what the scientific community says otherwise?

You’re doing the exact same thing though. You interpret the evidence in a manner that is consistent with your materialism, whenever there is evidence that appears to contradict that viewpoint I am sure you write it off or give it a purely natural or material explanation.
Yes, I reject Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and common descent to name a few. Notice, none of those are empirical sciences though.

So you believe in predestination?

I was pre-ordained to.

You can't fathom being put in a situation, even by the being that gives you commandments from on high, in which you would have to kill another human being. The fact that you are avoiding answering my question is all the answer I need...unless I'm wrong and you would kill if he commanded you to, just like Moses did? Just like Abraham was going to?

Who did Moses kill besides the Egyptian guard? To answer your question, it was not morally wrong for the Israelites to wage war and destroy the enemies of God because morality derives from the nature of God.

To answer why I think God is immoral, I think killing people for not believing, for being homosexual (even though he supposedly made them that way), and for worshiping other gods is downright immoral, for he's getting rid of the competition, he's getting rid of people he doesn't like, and this is very much akin to what Hitler tried to do with the Jews during the Holocaust. Do you believe Adolf Hitler was moral?

You think those things are immoral? Why would your opinion of what is immoral apply anymore to God than my opinion of what is immoral? Nobody was killed for being homosexual, they were killed for engaging in sexual relations with other men, so whether you believe people choose to be gay or are born that way is irrelevant because nobody is forcing them to sodomize one another. God has the prerogative to destroy His creation; Hitler does not have the prerogative to destroy God’s creation and will be judged for doing so. As a Christian I take comfort in knowing that Hitler will receive justice for what he did even though he never got it in life, a materialist can find no such comfort.

You mean logical contradictions like how Yahweh is both Merciful and Just? Seems like we're still doing science just fine.

Being merciful and also being just is not a logical contradiction. Yes, we’re doing science because we live in a Universe created by Yahweh.

I don't know where the law originated, but they seem to think it didn't originate from anywhere. They believe that eternity is one eternal round, that there is no beginning and no end, that, yes, God had to prove himself to become the one God after walking the earth as a man, and so did his father before him, and his father.

If it’s an eternal circle, then how can there be a point where one god was not a god but then was a god? That seems to require a linear system, not a circular system. Do you see my point about the law though? Why would gods have to obey a law outside of themselves? Laws seem to require law givers.

You see...I found out during my time in Mormonism that the regular Joes of the Church don't get to be the kind of God that Yahweh is in Christianity. Elohim, the Mormon Heavenly Father, will always be number one, and that we will sing his praises forever. Later on, Jehovah (Christ) will be a Heavenly Father to his own numberless spirit children, and he will have an only begotten son...and so on.

Yup, it’s a bizarre system that seems to change depending upon which Mormon you talk to. Mormons are some of the nicest people around though; I just think they’ve been deceived.

But why is this idea so crazy? I mean, sure, I think it's all made up hoo ha, but why do you think it's crazy?

It’s not a logically cogent view of reality, it seems to allow for inconsistencies and logical absurdities (the Church is infallible but changes what it says is true in order to be more politically correct). Whether you ascribe to its teachings or not, you have to admit that Christianity is the most consistant of the Western religions, Christian Theologians can defend their positions quite well in debates and in the arena of ideas, I do not see that from Mormons.

“Let’s have the intellectual integrity to look at the responses that the Christian Philosophers have made…the point is that Christians have got some grown up answers to these sorts of things. I think Dawkins does a disservice to non-belief by not being prepared to take seriously the types of things believers believe in.” - Dr. Michael Ruse, Philosopher of Science

Why don't you look a little harder? Atheism is not the same all across the board. There is strong Atheism and weak Atheism. Weak Atheism is the easiest to defend because it doesn't go down the route of Strong Atheism by asserting anything. The definition you provided is for Strong Atheism, and they do have a burden of proof, as it is a positive assertion. Which Atheist position do you think I take?

No, the definition I provided was just for atheism, and it’s still the accepted definition today. The position you’re taking is a position first argued by Antony Flew (who ironically later became a theist). He tried to argue that there was a form of atheism that was the default position. However, philosophical references do not accept this definition because it ignores the problem of neutrality, and there is no way of proving what the default position ought to be. If you’re going to claim to be an atheist, you’re going to have to assume the baggage that comes with it. If you want to claim to simply be a non-theist, then you avoid any such baggage.

Oh, so the external sources that link to the content is wrong too?

Yes, that is a simplistic view of the burden of proof that ignores the problem of neutrality and the role of conceptual schemes. Not only this, but it seems to be ignorant of the fact that there’s really no way of proving what is the positive and what is the negative claim in a debate. It also seems to be ignorant of the fact that when dealing with an interrogative such as “does God exist?”, both sides of the aisle shoulder the burden equally. The burden of proof is a very complex concept.

Well, I have to give credit to my wife who told me to keep it civil. She actually did most of the research for the reply last time.

That’s funny; my wife thinks I waste too much time debating such things.

They would be kicking their own ass for assuming it's wrong in the first place. Assuming it's right is also stupid.

Well, you have to do one or the other in order to interpret the evidence.

You assume it's right to argue for it. I see no difference.

Good, I see no difference either, so we can neither establish nor disestablish the veracity of scripture by appealing to scientific evidence, which has been my position all along.

It takes two to tango. There would be no need to argue if you did not first make a claim.

Are you purposefully agreeing with me? Stop it, you’re creeping me out.

Yes, you're right stat.

One second…allow me to savor that for a moment……

I was using it as a figure of speech. I was pointing out that you tend to think that scripture is self-evident and use it to make arguments for God. Your circular logic begs the question. Your statement was suggestive that if you attempted to make a syllogistic argument, you would not be able to do so without committing a fallacy, and you did not disappoint...

You must have missed the point. Both sides must beg the question whenever they appeal to evidentialism. That’s why I do not appeal to scientific evidence in order to prove the Bible is true, and you should not try to point to scientific evidence in order to try and prove it is false. That dog won’t hunt.

Affirming the consequent. You are avoiding alternatives. Such as (The scriptures not being self-evident and lacking sufficient reason themselves) Just to name one.

That is not part of my syllogism; my syllogism was not proving anything in regards to the truth of scripture. My syllogism was valid and sound because it affirmed the antecedent (not the consequent), and if the premises are both true then the conclusion is also true.

p1- If a round object is white, it is a wheel of cheese.
P2-the moon is a round object that is white
p3- The moon is a wheel of cheese

Statler's School of Logic supports this message.

Fallacy of the faulty analogy, yes your syllogism is valid (it’s affirming the antecedent, not affirming the consequent), but it is unsound because premise 1 is false; golf balls are round and white and are not wheels of cheese. My syllogism was sound because both of my premises were true, if you’re assuming something in order to try and prove it is false then you’re begging the question, and secularists assume the global flood never occurred in order to argue that the Bible is false. I grow weary of giving you free logic lessons.