Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Bikeemikey]

Its truly sad that with so many witnesses in scripture for a global flood coupled with obvious evidence in the rocks that man will lean on his own understanding of which he cannot test nor prove. Its almost as if there is some evil force in the world deliberately trying to get people to disbelieve in reality.

So now scientists are evil morons overlooking obvious evidence because they have given into the evil force.

This is ridiculous.

[Rob Osborn]

Can you give an example of how a scientist might find "ultimate truth" by incorporating "God" into their theories?  What scientific questions are currently being unanswered or unsuitably answered because of this flaw in the scientific method?

There are lots of "social aspects" that involve the sciences. Things like moral decay, marriage definitions, etc. Naturalism competes with religion to teach that we ar ejust evolved beings with "animalistic" tendencies and that moral truth is an illusion. Then you get into the more physical sciences stuff dealing with the origin of life, the origin and nature of the universe, etc, and how laws work and from the purely naturalistic approach we try to envision laws that are some how miraculously able to self encode for intelligence and purpose in nature. Because of this flaw we are actually coming to dead ends over and over again and still know nothing concerning the nature of lifes origins and the nature of intelligence which we possess.

If one thinks about it, even on the biologic level, there is nothing in the makeup of chemical structure and makeup that defines intelligence. By this I mean that we have found no answer for why something should be or why it is intelligent from a purely naturalistic approach. Intelligence is an enigma for science because it refuses t incorporate reason and logic into it. Studies have shown that there is more than meets the eye in biologic systems that use intelligence and communicate in means outside of chemical chain reactions or purely mechanical naturalistic means.

[Rob Osborn]

So now scientists are evil morons overlooking obvious evidence because they have given into the evil force. This is ridiculous.

I said "its almost as if". By this I mean that at least for me I cant understand how we have been so easily led astray from biblical truth regarding the flood. This wa one of the greatest events in all of recorded history with every part of scripture teaching about it and then we come along and flush it down the garbage and chalk it up into something its not?

[Bikeemikey]

There are lots of "social aspects" that involve the sciences. Things like moral decay, marriage definitions, etc. Naturalism competes with religion to teach that we ar ejust evolved beings with "animalistic" tendencies and that moral truth is an illusion. Then you get into the more physical sciences stuff dealing with the origin of life, the origin and nature of the universe, etc, and how laws work and from the purely naturalistic approach we try to envision laws that are some how miraculously able to self encode for intelligence and purpose in nature. Because of this flaw we are actually coming to dead ends over and over again and still know nothing concerning the nature of lifes origins and the nature of intelligence which we possess.

If one thinks about it, even on the biologic level, there is nothing in the makeup of chemical structure and makeup that defines intelligence. By this I mean that we have found no answer for why something should be or why it is intelligent from a purely naturalistic approach. Intelligence is an enigma for science because it refuses t incorporate reason and logic into it. Studies have shown that there is more than meets the eye in biologic systems that use intelligence and communicate in means outside of chemical chain reactions or purely mechanical naturalistic means.

Science can't deal with the unobservable... That doesn't mean science denies the unobservable, it simply means science can't comment in the unobservable.

Everyone knows there's more going on than we are currently able to explain. I have never meet a single person in any field of scientific study that felt they have all the answers. Science is increasingly dominated by the awareness of how much we don't know.

[Bikeemikey]

I said "its almost as if". By this I mean that at least for me I cant understand how we have been so easily led astray from biblical truth regarding the flood. This wa one of the greatest events in all of recorded history with every part of scripture teaching about it and then we come along and flush it down the garbage and chalk it up into something its not?

To be clear, this event is not recorded as a global flood in written history. It is recorded in scripture. It is also recorded in some ancient texts but not as a global flood.

If I get to heaven and there is was a global flood I will find you and eat your shoes.

[Rob Osborn]

Science can't deal with the unobservable... That doesn't mean science denies the unobservable, it simply means science can't comment in the unobservable. Everyone knows there's more going on than we are currently able to explain. I have never meet a single person in any field of scientific study that felt they have all the answers. Science is increasingly dominated by the awareness of how much we don't know.

Is intelligence unobservable? Is logic unobservable? What about inference from logic? The Intelligent Design movement is advancing science into the direction it needs to get back to. The whole naturalism derailment has cost science lots of wasted time.

[Rob Osborn]

To be clear, this event is not recorded as a global flood in written history. It is recorded in scripture. It is also recorded in some ancient texts but not as a global flood. If I get to heaven and there is was a global flood I will find you and eat your shoes.

Scripture is written history. I hope you like stinky 3 year old Nike's

[Bikeemikey]

Is intelligence unobservable? Is logic unobservable? What about inference from logic? The Intelligent Design movement is advancing science into the direction it needs to get back to. The whole naturalism derailment has cost science lots of wasted time.

Weren't you just going on a few posts ago about how science can't explain intelligence (because it's unobservable). An inference is also unobservable. Some logic is unobservable though some is also quantifiable through mathematical modeling.

So based on your post, intelligent design is taking us back in the direction of unobservable data. How exactly are we meant to deal with unobservable data?

You do realize that unobservable data is basically "faith".

[JLHPROF]

You do realize that citing scriptures that support a global flood only reduces trust in scripture, right?

 

No, it reduces trust in Science.  Have a little faith that maybe God is telling the truth and Science is wrong (or doesn't have ALL the facts).

[Bikeemikey]

Scripture is written history. I hope you like stinky 3 year old Nike's

Scripture is not written history. Prophets are not historians. They are concerned with spiritual messaging.

The idea that scripture is history is the baseline issue that leads to the need to set science and religion up in conflict with each other. If you would stop insisting scripture is history (in this case you are actually saying scripture is part history part scientific text) then we could extract from scripture the value it contains with out all the unnecessary conflict.

They better be celestialized Nike's.

[Bikeemikey]

No, it reduces trust in Science. Have a little faith that maybe God is telling the truth and Science is wrong (or doesn't have ALL the facts).

Sure. I have faith in what god says. I just don't think he said what you think he said.

My trust in science and god is equally strong. I also use them for totally different purposes.

[Rob Osborn]

Scripture is not written history. Prophets are not historians. They are concerned with spiritual messaging. The idea that scripture is history is the baseline issue that leads to the need to set science and religion up in conflict with each other. If you would stop insisting scripture is history (in this case you are actually saying scripture is part history part scientific text) then we could extract from scripture the value it contains with out all the unnecessary conflict. They better be celestialized Nike's.

The global flood really happened. And when we can finally accept that truth and reality then all of the confusion of things like pre-adamites, evolution, long ages, etc, disappears and we can have a true understanding of science and God.

[Bikeemikey]

The global flood really happened. And when we can finally accept that truth and reality then all of the confusion of things like pre-adamites, evolution, long ages, etc, disappears and we can have a true understanding of science and God.

And have to totally give up trusting any kind of physical evidence because we would have to accept that there is no uniformity in nature (a basic premise of observational science).

Accepting this "global flood" premise does not get rid of any confusion. It simply allows us to say that we are confused for a good reason. The global flood would not answer any question relative to evolution, pre-adamites or long ages.

If there was a global flood science is useless. If science is useless we have to explain how science has been so successful.

[Rob Osborn]

And have to totally give up trusting any kind of physical evidence because we would have to accept that there is no uniformity in nature (a basic premise of observational science). Accepting this "global flood" premise does not get rid of any confusion. It simply allows us to say that we are confused for a good reason. The global flood would not answer any question relative to evolution, pre-adamites or long ages. If there was a global flood science is useless. If science is useless we have to explain how science has been so successful.

Uniformity in nature is a funny thing. When one looks at the geologic monuments in nature most of them point to a time in the past of great catastrophe. What we witness in the world today is very small with what happened in the recent past. With the global flood being a reality, the entire geologic column containing the billions of fossils become the testimony of that reality. This has massive implications for the theory of evolution because the evidence- all of it, disappears in the flash of an eye. It also destroys all myth of supposed pre-adamites and long geologic ages. Science has a long ways to go in properly explaining the "historical" side of science.

Science is only successful with observational science such as inventions, technology, understanding electricity, gravity, etc. When it comes to things like evolution no invention or technology has come about because of this theory. We may ask- how has the theory of evolution as it pertains to the theory of a common ancestor advanced the human race? Well, it hasn't advanced any part of humanity at all.

[Bikeemikey]

Uniformity in nature is a funny thing. When one looks at the geologic monuments in nature most of them point to a time in the past of great catastrophe. What we witness in the world today is very small with what happened in the recent past. With the global flood being a reality, the entire geologic column containing the billions of fossils become the testimony of that reality. This has massive implications for the theory of evolution because the evidence- all of it, disappears in the flash of an eye. It also destroys all myth of supposed pre-adamites and long geologic ages. Science has a long ways to go in properly explaining the "historical" side of science.

Science is only successful with observational science such as inventions, technology, understanding electricity, gravity, etc. When it comes to things like evolution no invention or technology has come about because of this theory. We may ask- how has the theory of evolution as it pertains to the theory of a common ancestor advanced the human race? Well, it hasn't advanced any part of humanity at all.

And this is where is leave the conversation.

Confirmation of a global flood doesn't come close to closing the book on the issues you have discussed.

No longer able to justify my time on this discussion.

Have a great evening.

[Rob Osborn]

And this is where is leave the conversation. Confirmation of a global flood doesn't come close to closing the book on the issues you have discussed. No longer able to justify my time on this discussion. Have a great evening.

Good evening to you too. Let me just leave you with this- If the global flood really happened with rather rapid uplift of mountain chains right the after the flood as explaied in scripture, what would one expect to see in the world for evidence?

[JLHPROF]

And have to totally give up trusting any kind of physical evidence because we would have to accept that there is no uniformity in nature (a basic premise of observational science). Accepting this "global flood" premise does not get rid of any confusion. It simply allows us to say that we are confused for a good reason. The global flood would not answer any question relative to evolution, pre-adamites or long ages. If there was a global flood science is useless. If science is useless we have to explain how science has been so successful.

 

Just as there was no scientific uniformity when Christ walked on the surface of water, turned water into wine, raised the dead, healed the blind/deaf/lame, fed thousands of people with just a few fish.

That's what belief in the flood being global comes down to.  The scriptures say God did it.  Science says it couldn't have happened.  Science also says the dead can't walk again, you can't walk on water, a few fish can't feed thousands.  Science gets things wrong.

[Gray]

Just as there was no scientific uniformity when Christ walked on the surface of water, turned water into wine, raised the dead, healed the blind/deaf/lame, fed thousands of people with just a few fish.

That's what belief in the flood being global comes down to.  The scriptures say God did it.  Science says it couldn't have happened.  Science also says the dead can't walk again, you can't walk on water, a few fish can't feed thousands.  Science gets things wrong.

 

The difference is there should be massive evidence everywhere we look for a global flood. None of it's there and instead we find strong evidence that there was never a global flood in human history 

 

Christ's miracles are not falsifiable, but the flood is very falsifiable 

[Gray]

The problem with naturalism is that it must be athestic in its approach. This naturalism which is so prevailant in science has becone its own religious dogma that must chalk up deity as the supernatural or mythical. As Ken Ham said in debate its the wrong direction to tech with. We will never find ultimate truth in science without God.

 

Mormonism is naturalistic theology, so naturalism is definitely not limited to atheist views.

[Gray]

Its truly sad that with so many witnesses in scripture for a global flood coupled with obvious evidence in the rocks that man will lean on his own understanding of which he cannot test nor prove. Its almost as if there is some evil force in the world deliberately trying to get people to disbelieve in reality.

 

Why would the creator endow us with reason and intelligence and then expect us to forebear the use of these gifts? 

[Gray]

Scripture is written history. I hope you like stinky 3 year old Nike's

 

The writers of the Old Testament had no concept of historicity. So how could the Old Testament be a history in the sense you mean it to be? 

[Alan]

Why would the creator endow us with reason and intelligence and then expect us to forebear the use of these gifts? 

 

He also endowed us with the ability to believe things we can't see or explain, and to have faith in him.

The flood was a worldwide event in my view. Why would we doubt Moses' word?

[Gray]

He also endowed us with the ability to believe things we can't see or explain, and to have faith in him.

The flood was a worldwide event in my view. Why would we doubt Moses' word?

 

First reason I can think of is because Moses probably never existed. 

 

The ability to take myths and folk tales literally isn't intrinsically valuable. Literalism certainly adds nothing of value to most of these stories. Literalism really misses the point, and makes us bifurcate our brains, where we'll trust the evidence only so far as it doesn't conflict with our own dogma. 

[danielwoods]

First reason I can think of is because Moses probably never existed. 

 

The ability to take myths and folk tales literally isn't intrinsically valuable. Literalism certainly adds nothing of value to most of these stories. Literalism really misses the point, and makes us bifurcate our brains, where we'll trust the evidence only so far as it doesn't conflict with our own dogma.

Did you intend your statement to be taken literally?

[Rob Osborn]

The difference is there should be massive evidence everywhere we look for a global flood. None of it's there and instead we find strong evidence that there was never a global flood in human history 

 

Christ's miracles are not falsifiable, but the flood is very falsifiable

So the mountains and cracks and seams we see showing the various sedimentary layers is all false?