Ahab Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Any such bits coming together releases heat. More than enough heat to melt any such bits to a liquid. You seem to be thinking on the planetary core level, or near to that. What if some icebergs or a huge volume of water from another planet was brought to this planet during the creation. Would you still make the same statement, and would that be a bad thing? And what if the water had living things in it?
snowflake Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Ahab said: Possibilities: 1) This planet was previously occupied by dinosaurs prior to the creation, with no need to smash up every bit of the planet to remove every trace of the former inhabitants of the prior organization, thus leaving those traces for us to find as we have found them. 2) What happened to those prior inhabitants of this planet is that they died and/or those still living on the prior organization were moved to some other planet. And yes there are probably some more possibilities to mull over. How about just going with what Genesis says, dinosaurs were created with the other beasts and man. Then a big flood buried them all in mud? I know it sounds Waco.....
snowflake Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: The Bible claims lots of things that can't be demonstrated. Whom did Cain marry? 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: Must have been one of his sisters....according to Genesis 5:4 And I absolutely agree, the Bible claims things that we cannot demonstrate however, there are many things that cannot be demonstrated, but we teach them in our schools as truth.
Ahab Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, snowflake said: How about just going with what Genesis says, dinosaurs were created with the other beasts and man. Then a big flood buried them all in mud? I know it sounds Waco..... Because dinosaurs were too big for Noah's ark. And I grew up in Waco, Texas.
snowflake Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: Because dinosaurs were too big for Noah's ark. And I grew up in Waco, Texas. Baby dinosaurs would fit. Also most fossils are found in sedimentary rock layers, laid down by water.
Ahab Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, snowflake said: Baby dinosaurs would fit. Also most fossils are found in sedimentary rock layers, laid down by water. Ah, you're too clever for me. I never even considered Noah having dinosaurs on his ark. Do you think maybe some dragons too?
snowflake Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 28 minutes ago, Ahab said: Ah, you're too clever for me. I never even considered Noah having dinosaurs on his ark. Do you think maybe some dragons too? Of course, read Daniel chapter 14, it's called Bel and the dragon, (Daniel chapter 13 and 14 only exist in the Catholic bible btw). Some think that Job 40 and 41 are referring to dinosaurs.....and maybe a fire breathing dragon too Job 41: 18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
Rivers Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 1 hour ago, snowflake said: How about just going with what Genesis says, dinosaurs were created with the other beasts and man. Then a big flood buried them all in mud? I know it sounds Waco..... Don't forget about the centaurs and satyrs that the people were bioengineering before the flood. 1
snowflake Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 27 minutes ago, Rivers said: Don't forget about the centaurs and satyrs that the people were bioengineering before the flood. Yes, the hybrids, Nephilim. Fallen angels taking brides they chose creating hybrids. 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gray Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, snowflake said: OK, that's all fine and dandy. I'm just pointing out that the bible gives us a genealogy that can be traced back quite accurately pointing to the biblical creation around 4000B.C. You don't have to believe it, just saying that is what the bible indicates. Is that what it would take for you to believe it, 100%verafiable evidence for Moses and Adam? A 4,000 BCE creation date is completely impossible. To believe in a historical Moses, I'd like some evidence tying him to history, it wouldn't take a lot. Something contemporary or shortly after his death, similar to Jesus. Adam is another impossibility, he's an obvious metaphor for humanity. Edited March 9, 2017 by Gray
Alan Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I wasn't speaking to belief, but rather to scholarship and science. In this arena "science" is a belief system based on assumptions, the justifications for which are dubious at best. 1
3DOP Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 My problem is that I do not think my faith and modern science are compatible. I can't believe in both. It is difficult to be objective about something that threatens my faith. It seems difficult to me to be ambivalent about religion or modern science. If you aren't religious, you sure don't want religion to be true. It seems like those who aren't religious would be pleased to disprove religion with science just as religious persons would be pleased to make scientific truth minimally compatible with religion as the young earthers do. I don't have the ability to apprehend the mysteries of science much better than I can the mysteries of religion. Either way, I am leaning on someone else's understanding. I just don't trust modern science. It tastes bad to me. It doesn't work the goodness that keeps me believing the stupendous, and I would say, unimaginable claims of the Catholic faith. It follows from what I have said that I would think that the Christians who claim modern science is no threat to their religion are fooling themselves. Of course I know that no one here will agree with me about everything, but I thought I should not fail to admit my misgivings about modern science. I am with Alan as far as not believing that man has been around for long. With Christ and the Apostles, I believe in Adam, Noah, and big fish stories. It seems to me like the New Testament treatment of the Old Testament lends itself to belief in Genesis and other remarkable events of the Old Testament as history. It is primarily the New Testament which makes me unable to divorce history from the Old Testament. The New Testament makes me distrust science when science contradicts the historicity of the Old Testament. 1
Marmonboy Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 Here are some questions for the Biblical literalists on here--how long did Adam live in the Garden of Eden? What or who lived in the rest of the world? Was it devoid of life, or did other things live out there? How do you decide which pats of the Bible are the literal truth, and which parts are not?
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Alan said: In this arena "science" is a belief system based on assumptions, the justifications for which are dubious at best. Well-founded assumptions with mountains of evidence to support them. Science is no threat to a vital and informed faith.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 6 hours ago, snowflake said: Exodus 20:1111 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. What am I missing, seems like 6 days to me, biblically speaking. Yes, this is certainly a clear-cut formula, based on the understanding of the Israelite scribes who were not present at Creation, but have merely read about it the same way any modern Hebraist can. Of course it seems like six 24-hour days. When closely read and analyzed by scholars, however, such a sequence does not bear up. Aside from the sun not even existing during the first three days of Creation, the Hebrew term "day" can apply to virtually any amount of time. Casual readers just don't see that. Then too, one might want to consider the meaning of "time" instead of "day" in Abraham 4. The biblical Creation Story is a poetic and liturgical iteration of an ancient temple text -- that is the opinion of non-Mormon scholars. It is not meant to be a historical or scientific text. Indeed, such texts did not even exist in ancient times. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 6 hours ago, snowflake said: The bible of course, we do have the genealogies in Genesis 5 that give us from Adam to Noah. And Matthew and Luke the line can be followed back to Jesus, tack on 2000 years to today and there you go approx. 6000 years. There are plenty of diagrams of how they come up with the estimate. Yes, that would be the approach of Archbishop Ussher. There are, however, several variant chronologies available biblically (Hebrew, LXX Greek, Samaritan), and many other chronologies of other ancient cultures which also seek to delineate the exact amount of time which had passed. As David Bokovoy and others have pointed out (and as I have previously mentioned on this board), the biblical data are actually based on the sexagesimal Mesopotamian chronology, and cannot be taken at decimal value at all. This markedly increases the amounts of time being covered -- which are already immense -- and leave us with the understanding that the ancient chroniclers did not in fact know how much time was involved. All that aside from scientific (geological) fact, which tells how long we actually must deal with. The biblical texts we have received are meant to be taken as ritual texts, formulaic rather than scientific in nature.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Alan said: In this arena "science" is a belief system based on assumptions, the justifications for which are dubious at best. Beliefs may be systematic or unsystematic, held personally or by a group. However, the nature of faith qua belief is not achieved the same way science is done. One comes via the Holy Spirit. The other comes through the experimental and logical methods of science, which must be repeatedly demonstrated to independent observers. In the best of all possible worlds, true systems should not clash, regardless of how they come to be. i have found that people of faith frequently have no idea what science is and what justifies it. That is the basis for their very dubious statements about science. In Mormonism, science is not the enemy of faith. In some other religions is certainly is.
3DOP Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Marmonboy said: Here are some questions for the Biblical literalists on here--how long did Adam live in the Garden of Eden? What or who lived in the rest of the world? Was it devoid of life, or did other things live out there? How do you decide which pats of the Bible are the literal truth, and which parts are not? Hi Marmonboy. 1) It seems unlikely that Adam lived very long in the Garden. I say that because he and his wife were still childless in ch. 3, when they were put out of the Garden. 2) Chapters 2 and 3 make it clear that there was abundant animal life in the rest of the world before Adam was placed in paradise. 3) One doesn't always know. Assuming in my case that any interpretation would not violate Catholic Tradition, a general rule would be that if Christ and the Apostles spoke of persons and events of the Old Testament literally, it would be necessary for the follower of Christ and the Apostles to do likewise. For instance, when asked for a sign by the Jews, Jesus refers to the story of Jonah and tells them that as Jonah was in the fish, so He would be buried for a similar three days before coming back. If the Jews and Christ don't believe in the historicity of the Jonah story, why would Jesus compare His resurrection to it, and call it a sign? I admit that much of revelation can seem hard to believe literally. But when I think about a bigger picture, it is hard to "believe" in myself. What am I? What caused me? Why is the color of a sunny sky so pleasing to me? Happy accident? Why is there anything and so much beauty? Nothing would make more sense. I am not an atheist. Before religion, I believe in a Creator God. And if there is a God, and especially if He is good, He might like it if we believe in things not because they are easy to believe, but because He said so. I hope a good God would be pleased with a simple faith that trusts what we think He has revealed, and especially if others are scoffing. If the stories and miracles of the Old Testament referenced in the New are mostly figurative and allegorical, it appears to me that the New Testament is false. I think it is safe to say that the New Testament does not exhibit incredulity with regards to the historicity of the Old Testament record or the veracity of miracles recorded therein. 3DOP
clarkgoble Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 40 minutes ago, 3DOP said: 1) It seems unlikely that Adam lived very long in the Garden. I say that because he and his wife were still childless in ch. 3, when they were put out of the Garden. I think most no death before the fall (NDBTF) types think they couldn't have children until they fell. Their key text is 2 Nephi 2 which suggests that. Not terribly relevant for non-Mormon 'literalists' of course. Quote Chapters 2 and 3 make it clear that there was abundant animal life in the rest of the world before Adam was placed in paradise. Again I think most NDBTF assume the fall was for the whole world. This is the biggest problem with that reading, btw. After the fall the garden is still there guarded by an angel to ensure Adam and Eve don't get back in.
3DOP Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I think most no death before the fall (NDBTF) types think they couldn't have children until they fell. Their key text is 2 Nephi 2 which suggests that. Not terribly relevant for non-Mormon 'literalists' of course. Again I think most NDBTF assume the fall was for the whole world. This is the biggest problem with that reading, btw. After the fall the garden is still there guarded by an angel to ensure Adam and Eve don't get back in. clarkgoble, hey. Real name? Thanks for the reply. I had a great high school friend...Kerry Grant. I hope he is okay. You too! Anyway...I was aware that most of you guys went with the no children thing until the fall idea. If I was sola scriptura I would point out that God mentioned being fruitful and multiplying before the fall. It is a principle with us that God doesn't command or even recommend the impossible. I guess I pointed it out anyway. But I'll just say that your view is plausible too according to Scripture alone, and especially with additional revelation I am sure. Edited March 10, 2017 by 3DOP 1
clarkgoble Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, 3DOP said: clarkgoble, hey. Real name? Thanks for the reply. I had a great high school friend...Kerry Grant. I hope he is okay. You too! Anyway...I was aware that most of you guys went with the no children thing until the fall idea. If I was sola scriptura I would point out that God mentioned being fruitful and multiplying before the fall. It is a principle with us that God doesn't command or even recommend the impossible. I guess I pointed it out anyway. But I'll just say that your view is plausible too according to Scripture alone, and especially with additional revelation I am sure. Oh yeah. The Grants up in Halifax? Haven't seen them in ages. I heard their dad came down with Alzheimer's and died. But sadly I've not been back to Nova Scotia in an awfully long time. Since before I was married. Roy was the same age as me and we were in all the same classes in Church until they split Sackville off from Halifax. Sorry - wasn't trying to block you with the comments. Just noting that the way the fundamentalism presents itself is quite different with pretty different motivations. Fundamentalism on Genesis in Mormonism is usually based around 2 Nephi 2. There are big problems with that view of course. Their answer to the command to multiply is that is why Eve chose to fall - so she could have children. This gives a slightly different thrust to Genesis 2-3 since the problem is ultimately being given contradictory commandments. The typical LDS view is that Eve is the hero of the story rather than the villain precisely because of that emphasis. Edited March 10, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 On 3/8/2017 at 7:21 AM, ERayR said: Some scientists take a new look at the genesis story. Maybe the science isn't so settled. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5350538925001/?#sp=show-clips And maybe it is more settled then this video would try to make it out to be.
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: Well-founded assumptions with mountains of evidence to support them. Science is no threat to a vital and informed faith. I think it depends on your faith. A dyed in the wool Babylonian pagan might find scientific evidence suggesting that the heavens and the earth are not made of the corpse of the giant sea dragon Tiamat to be a threat to their faith.
strappinglad Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: Well-founded assumptions with mountains of evidence to support them. Science is no threat to a vital and informed faith. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/mind-and-cosmos-9780199919758?cc=us&lang=en T. Nagel, has a couple of things to say about all that incontrovertible evidence.
Recommended Posts