Scientists meet to tackle religion

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cheese

actually that quote is supposedly by...Jesus. Not my saying.

But feel free to spin away...Im good for a discussion after my meeting.

No I mean I could spin that quote and use it against atheists as well.

How is your belief not 'blind'?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Thanks, Rouge

I've always wondered how it would have worked as well, especially with birds.........even small birds can fly away, how would they keep them from flying away?

And in your link it says there were about 35,000 animals on the ark. How would they all get along? Were there any good animal vs. animal scraps??

Either way, an interesting story. I don't believe it for a second, but it is interesting.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I've always wondered how it would have worked as well, especially with birds.........even small birds can fly away, how would they keep them from flying away?

birds have some basic survival instinct. they won't fly out to sea unless they're really old or sick and ready to die. they'd stick near the arc if everything's under water.

[Cheese]

The radius of the Earth is approx. 6370km
The height of Everest above sea-level is approx. 8.8 km
Therefore, the volume of the Earth is approx. 1,082,696,932,000km³, or 1,080 billion cubic kilometers.
The volume of the earth to the height of Everest is 1,087,190,293,000km³
Subtracting the first volume from the second gives approx. 4,493,361,000, or four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water!
Also, this rain is supposed to have fallen within about 40 days. That means that there would have been about 220 metres of rainfall every day over the entire planet (8800/40 = 220)! A few centimetres in a day is considered to be extremely heavy rain.
( Note: volume of sphere = 4/3 pi r³, and I use the American billion of 1,000,000,000 here )

Assuming it was fresh water (as it rained) this would have severely diluted the oceans, causing devastation among the marine creatures. Ask anyone with a marine fish-tank just how sensitive reef-fish and corals are to changes in water conditions. Virtually all sea-life that could not stand brackish water would have been destroyed.
How did so many plants survive being submerged in brackish water for so long? Again, many plants are quite sensitive to conditions. Take some of your household plants and leave them submerged in the bath or a pond for a year and see how they do.
Then, after the waters subside (where to?) there are still more problems with the story. What happened to all the corpses of the countless numbers of animals and humans that died? Surely there would have been terrible plague and disease caused by all that rotting meat.
Many sea-creatures would have been deposited in places they could not normally reach - inland lakes etc. Is there any evidence of marine fish skeletons being found in high, freshwater lake beds?

• How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?
• How did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?
• How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?
• How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?
• How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?

Some creationists have come up with quite remarkably imaginative explanations as to how Noah managed to gather and store all the animals in a restricted space. A couple of the more interesting ones I've come across are:

• He did not take adult animals, but eggs, babies and infants.
  Presumably then, the creatures arrived at the Ark of their own accord, laid eggs or gave birth, and left poor old Noah to cope with the mess and figure out the best way to tend to the needs of the newborn tiger, chicken or tarantula. Exactly who got the job of producing all the gallons of milk for the young mammals is not explained.
• He did not even gather babies and eggs, but sperm and ova (egg eggs, if you will).
  The difficulties that this situation raises are best left to the imagination, and should probably not be brought up as a topic of conversation at the dinner table, or in front of sensitive Aunts.
• Many of the animals hibernated, or went into some sort of suspended animation.
  As mentioned above, how the already-hibernating beasties get there in the first place? Was this a natural form of hibernation (which requires the build-up of large fat reserves first), or some sort of miraculous state? How did the animals build up enough fat whilst walking thousands of miles to the Ark (which would be quite good exercise)? If it was all done with miracles, then why do creationists insist on explaining everything in naturalistic terms? Which is it? Magic or mundane?

Looking at the Evidence

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Great post Cheese.

Something else I was wondering..........the ark was floating around for 220 days.

You'd have to think a baby T-Rex could get fairly big in 220 days and want to either eat or scrap something else. How were they all seperated? Did Noah keep the T-Rex in a seperate cage or something?

[Phaneuf3]

two possible explinations:
1) IF god could ya know... create heaven and earth in 7 days and create and then get rid of 4.5 million cubic Kms of water in a matter of a bunch of weeks, i wouldn't think he'd have too much trouble moving a couple species around after he cleaned up a bit.

-or-

b) not everything in the bible is 100% literal. we get this, there's no point in arguing it. if anyone is taking everything as 100% fact, they can always go back to point #1 to say that its possible and you aren't going to shake their faith.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Either way, an interesting story. I don't believe it for a second, but it is interesting.

The fascinating thing is that people do believe it. It is mindboggling. Even going by the estimates on that crazy website, are we really expected to believe that 10(?) people were able to look after 35 000 animals on a hand-made tub the size of the Love Boat?

Two elephants alone eat more than a hundred thousand pounds of food in a year. Lord knows how much fresh water they would need. After you can grow and store all that, would there be any room for the other 34 999 animals and their food and water? How anyone could think this is possible is beyond me.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The Scriptures when used properly have the power to effect positive change; they are useful because they are imbued with the essence of God; when functioning as a vehicle for the performance of justice and good works, the Scriptures are alive with the character of God.

Thanks for your input. I really think many of the young people these days, who are blaming religion for all the world's problems, are missing out on a lot of wisdom, strength and beauty passed down in holy books.

I believe religion, in spite of all the wrongs that are done in its name, has and will continue to be the most stabilizing force for justice, hope and stabililty in the world.

Science on the other hand is a wonderful thing when used for good. When used for evil purposes, has unlimited potential to harm humanity.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Thanks for your input. I really think many of the young people these days, who are blaming religion for all the world's problems, are missing out on a lot of wisdom, strength and beauty passed down in holy books.

I believe religion, in spite of all the wrongs that are done in its name, has and will continue to be the most stabilizing force for justice, hope and stabililty in the world.

Science on the other hand is a wonderful thing when used for good. When used for evil purposes, has unlimited potential to harm humanity.

Well I think young people are being used by the church...again feel free to pick a denomination...to bump up the numbers of said choice, and to ensure that they continue on with said type of faith. Face it...IF people left children alone to make the decision on their own at an age where they could reason...religion would die a quick and painful death. There would be no need for its tenats. Man, being inherantly good, would find other ways to channel his energy towards helping others and filling whatever void you think would happen if religion ceased to be.
Religion does not get a free pass...in spite of its wrongs...and people are seeing it for what it really is and was.
Wisdom, Strength and Beauty is not something that is licensed solely to theists of any denomination.


.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

two possible explinations:
1) IF god could ya know... create heaven and earth in 7 days and create and then get rid of 4.5 million cubic Kms of water in a matter of a bunch of weeks, i wouldn't think he'd have too much trouble moving a couple species around after he cleaned up a bit.

That's a pretty irrational of thinking on people's part and a pretty irrational way of doing things on god's part.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe religion, in spite of all the wrongs that are done in its name, has and will continue to be the most stabilizing force for justice, hope and stabililty in the world.

Science on the other hand is a wonderful thing when used for good. When used for evil purposes, has unlimited potential to harm humanity.

As much as I disagree with my friend Cheese about the irrelevance of religion, he makes a point worth reitterating: when dealing with religion and science you cannot assume the worst of one and give the other the benefit of the doubt. Your statement about science applies probably even more accurately to religion; I would caution anyone in that on their own the entities of religion and science are completely amoral. The are neither good, nor evil; and they are not exclusively responsible for triumph and tragedy. People use both to service their own slefish and selfless desires; to benefit their ego or their community. The problem you have with religion, Cheese is a problem with the nature of man. That man is a complicated creature, who must balance his passion and sentience with his desires for preservation, pleasure and progress.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

b) not everything in the bible is 100% literal. we get this, there's no point in arguing it. if anyone is taking everything as 100% fact, they can always go back to point #1 to say that its possible and you aren't going to shake their faith.

Curious. If you do not accept the Bible as "100% literal", how do you discern between modes of reading? It appears to me as if you have constructed a hermeneutical circle through which to achieve a sense of biblical inerrency.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's a pretty irrational of thinking on people's part and a pretty irrational way of doing things on god's part.

Then again, it is also a bit presumptuous of you to judge the methods of an all-knowing, all-powerful God.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Curious. If you do not accept the Bible as "100% literal", how do you discern between modes of reading? It appears to me as if you have constructed a hermeneutical circle through which to achieve a sense of biblical inerrency.

not arguing that there aren't errors in the bible. apparantly there is a lot in the lineages for example that doesn't quite jive from book to book - all that aside....

all the neato bible stories, i don't doubt that a lot of it isn't 100% literal. in fact, there's almost nothing in there that i take as complete absolute truth, but i still see a purpose to it - even if it isn't the word of god. a lot of jesus' teachings were in parable form. its quite possible that someone else from biblical times taught in the same way. there is the possibility that there was a grain of truth to it or not - who knows. might have been slightly exaggerated (or possibly even completely made up) to teach a point. might have nohing behind them and just were histories that became legends. 40 days and 40 nights of rain completely submerging the entire world might have been a heavy rain season that wiped out a ton of crops and killed a bunch of animals.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

...in fact, there's almost nothing in there that i take as complete absolute truth, but i still see a purpose to it - even if it isn't the word of god. a lot of jesus' teachings were in parable form. its quite possible that someone else from biblical times taught in the same way. there is the possibility that there was a grain of truth to it or not - who knows. might have been slightly exaggerated (or possibly even completely made up) to teach a point. might have nohing behind them and just were histories that became legends. 40 days and 40 nights of rain completely submerging the entire world might have been a heavy rain season that wiped out a ton of crops and killed a bunch of animals.

You concede this much, and yet every woman who has sexual intercourse outside of a "committed relationship" is in your estimation little better than a "whore."
I suggest you read the stories of Jesus a little more carefully.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You concede this much, and yet every woman who has sexual intercourse outside of a "committed relationship" is in your estimation little better than a "whore."
I suggest you read the stories of Jesus a little more carefully.

made a tounge in cheek comment about how the church would make her out to be... if she was that worried about an abortion that's how she'd view (or should view if she was this worried about what the church says) her actions that lead to the pregnancy.

[northernflame]

I think the title of the post is actually understated.

Scientists such as Richard Dawkins are actually out to dismantle the myth of a God or Gods, period. They don't stop at religion. And good for them.

Science is a process that deals explicitly with possibilities and probabilities.

So, can a scientist rule out the possibility of a creator that exists outside of the current technological limits to knowledge? No. But at a minimum what he or she can say is that the technology doesn't exist today to confirm it or rule it out, but that someday it likely will. Plenty examples of that throughout history.

Or, more stongly, however improbable it is that all of the complexity in the world arouse out of the big bang and evolution, to postulate a 'creator' that exists before or outside of the big bang is to introduce even more complexity and so, as the 'Intelligent' design crew so often does, you introduce even more uncertainty to try to explain the improbable.

It's a nice cop out but it doesn't get you anywhere if one is interested in the truth.

[northernflame]

I think the title of the post is actually understated.

Scientists such as Richard Dawkins are actually out to dismantle the myth of a God or Gods, period. They don't stop at religion. And good for them.

Science is a process that deals explicitly with possibilities and probabilities.

So, can a scientist rule out the possibility of a creator that exists outside of the current technological limits to knowledge? No. But at a minimum what he or she can say is that the technology doesn't exist today, but I am confident that someday it will.

Or, more stongly, however improbable it is that all of the complexity in the world arouse out of the big bang and evolution, to postulate a 'creator' that exists before or outside of the big bang is to introduce even more complexity and so, as the 'Intelligent' design crew so often does, you introduce even more uncertainty to try to explain the improbable.

It's a nice cop out but it doesn't get you anywhere if one is interested in the truth.

[flamesfever]

For science to declare an all out assault on religion, it will adversely affect the ongoing dialogue between the large number of scientists who are also part of the faith community and the other members. In my experience, most church members, who are not involved in science, are keenly interested in learning what science has to offer. Many also struggle with the scripture, however realize that much of it is dated and is allegorical in nature. Also, in my experience, people who attend church are among the finest I have met, and I am proud to be one of them.

As a geologist, I taught Sunday school for many years to the youth group. The emphasis was always on trying to instill the moral lessons taught in the scripture, usually from a very liberal and modern perspective. The curriculum was very carefully put together and open for the parents to review if they had any concerns. I am told that at one time, back in the 50's, our church boasted the largest Sunday School in Canada. Probably many present Calgarians went through the program and became very valuable members of our community. I like to think that all of those who gave of their time voluntarily to teach the children were doing something meaningful and beneficial to society.

I believe that science needs the input of the faith community in order to decide on the course of many scientific endeavors which may have a profound effect on humanity i.e. genetic engineering, and other contentious issues like euthanasia, and what limits should be placed on scientific investigation etc.

Certainly the damage done in the name of religion is blatantly obvious these days. However, I don't think the answer is to get rid of religion and replace it with something that could be potentially even more harmful. Even to think of doing it with 6 billion people in the world is absurd.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

For science to declare an all out assault on religion, it will adversely effect the ongoing dialogue between the large number of scientists who are also part of the faith community. In my experience, most church members are keenly interested in learning what science has to offer. Many also struggle with the scripture, however realize that much of it is dated and is allegorical in nature. Also, in my experience, people who attend church are among the finest I have met, and I am proud to be one of them.

As a geologist, I taught Sunday school for many years to the youth group.
The emphasis was always on trying to instill the moral lessons taught in the scripture, usually from a very liberal and modern perspective. The curriculum was very well laid out and open for the public to scrutinize. I am told that at one time, back in the 50's, our church boasted the largest Sunday School in Canada. Probably many present Calgarians went through the program and became very valuable members of our community. I like to think that all of those who gave of their time voluntarily to teach the children were doing something meaningful and beneficial to society.

I believe that science needs the input of the faith community in many scientific endeavours which may have a profound effect on humanity. For example, the field of genetics, and in what the limits of scientific investigation should be.

Certainly the damage done in the name of religion is blatantly obvious these days. However, I don't think the answer is to get rid of religion and replace it with something that could be even much more harmful. Even to think of doing it with 6 billion people in the world is absurd. I wonder how much time Dawkins has spent studying religion, in order to give his arguments a sense of balance?

I am glad that you are a volunteer and do good things with children. Children look up to adults to provide them with facts about life, love and family. When you in turn teach them that fantasy = reality it skews their minds. When you talk to the VAST majority of church leaders they dont believe that the bible is to be used allegorically. Those that struggle with its contents probably shouldnt be part of the Christian faith.
Once again the idea that moral lessons can only be taught at a church pops up, and I fervently disagree that this is the role of the church. If you for instance only believe that the bible is written allegorically and a fundy like CalgaryBorn believes it word for word, what on earth are you doing to the kids? Cant children simply be taught that doing good for others is a great thing, and hurting people is bad WITHOUT the use of a 2000 year old scripture? Absolutely 100% it can...morality is definately NOT the backbone of any church. You have no clue that by ridding the earth of religion that it will be replaced with something worse. Thats as big a hypothesis as Jesus himself.