Originally posted by 7ate9
you believe in giving the flood the benefit of the doubt... then what about creation where science points heavily towards a day signifying longer than a day.

Q - if the evidence points you away from a once believed meaning of creation, then does this also take away your belief in a WWFlood.

I believe in giving God the benefit of the doubt, and I touch on your other query in tanother post in this thread... the timescale and the flood ought to be discussed separately

In answer to your question, it depends where the evidence takes me, and how that affects the WW flood belief I have. The question is very subjective depending on how new evidence might affect my current idea of creation... my other post may add soemthing to your understanding of my stance

Originally posted by damage79
To the first question

Honestly, I am still wrestling with this... the flood is an interesting one, on the surface, yyou would say that as the earth is effectively a closed system, there would not be enough water to flood the whole earth. This line of thought uses uniformitarianism (processes occurring today are what were occurring in the past).
Looki ...[text shortened]... rch it out for myself... but please refrain from rediculing my stance if you wish me to respond

When a stance absolutely begs for ridicule, as yours does, it tends to recieve it.

Tell me, where did all this extra water come from? Magic? If that's the case, why bother with logic at all? Why bother doing your geology when everything that you "know" could simply be magically put there? As a scientist I would be forced to criticise you of intellectual dishonesty by adopting this stance. Not because the stance is ridiculous (it clearly is), but for it to be true would fly in the face of pretty much ALL the available information, such as radiometric dating techniques, fossils, atmospheric chemistry etc.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
When a stance absolutely begs for ridicule, as yours does, it tends to recieve it.

Tell me, where did all this extra water come from? Magic? If that's the case, why bother with logic at all? Why bother doing your geology when everything that you "know" could simply be magically put there? As a scientist I would be forced to criticise you of intel ...[text shortened]... lable information, such as radiometric dating techniques, fossils, atmospheric chemistry etc.

I didn't say any "extra" water entered the system, I was saying that we do not know the proportions of surface water, sub-surface water and atmosheric water pre-flood, we are just asuming that the proportions were similar to as they are today... I am querying whether that was in fact the case.... I did not endorse either view as truth, but stated that I was continually reviewing my beliefs and testing them, in light of my belief in God.... contrary to popualr opinion, I do not believe that science and God are mutually exclusive

Thankyou for your concern intellectual watchdog

Originally posted by damage79
I didn't say any "extra" water entered the system, I was saying that we do not know the proportions of surface water, sub-surface water and atmosheric water pre-flood, we are just asuming that the proportions were similar to as they are today... I am querying whether that was in fact the case.... I did not endorse either view as truth, but stated that I was ...[text shortened]... hat science and God are mutually exclusive

Thankyou for your concern intellectual watchdog

I never stated that science and god are mutually exclusive. However, the biblical account and science are on several issues.

For example, the bible states quite clearly that the sun (6 bya) was formed after the earth (4.5 - 5 bya), and indeed land plants (400 mya). Ludicrous. It states that winged organisms (330 mya, for insects, ~200 mya for pterydactyl, ~100 mya for birds) were created before land organisms (400 mya).

The volume of water required to flood the earth above the levels of the highest mountains is orders of magnitude greater than actually exist.

Please educate us on exactly what your beliefs are, and quit flip-flopping.

Originally posted by damage79
I didn't say any "extra" water entered the system, I was saying that we do not know the proportions of surface water, sub-surface water and atmosheric water pre-flood, we are just asuming that the proportions were similar to as they are today... I am querying whether that was in fact the case.... I did not endorse either view as truth, but stated that I was ...[text shortened]... hat science and God are mutually exclusive

Thankyou for your concern intellectual watchdog

In a previous thread I did the math and we were a good 3 orders out of the water required to flood the entire earth as it says (even using mountain tops as Mount Ararat).

And while we can't know exactly how much water is in our closed Earth system (which unless water came from space it is) we do know we aren't 1000 times out.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I never stated that science and god are mutually exclusive. However, the biblical account and science are on several issues.

For example, the bible states quite clearly that the sun (6 bya) was formed after the earth (4.5 - 5 bya), and indeed land plants (400 mya). Ludicrous. It states that winged organisms (330 mya, for insects, ~200 mya for pt ...[text shortened]... actually exist.

Please educate us on exactly what your beliefs are, and quit flip-flopping.

My position, as has been stated throughout the thread:
Science gives us the "best" answer with the evidence available in the natural realm. My experiences lead me to also give weight to the reality of God, the God who inspired the bible. You accused me of intellectual dishonesty, I disagree, I also accomodate for "spiritual honesty", my experience of which causes me to probe deeper into these "best" answers in the natural realm.

I am not professing any startling new insight into the way the our dynamic planet operates, or how our planet came to be..... If anything, my belief in God causes me to examine more closely the scientific evidence of a given theory, therby intellectual honesty is applied.

What I am saying, is that I am not going to lock it in as "Truth"... I am not arguing against the "best " answer, and I have not stated that 6 day creation or the worldwide flood were truth, I am saying that I examine all possibilities in a logical fashion, without discounting the influence of God in the natural realm.

There has been no "flip-flopping", I have never stated that the current theories are wrong, I just tend to examine them with the parameter of Godly influence as a possibility in the mix, so thereby adding another variable to the possible models that I have to examine.

I realise that faith is faith, I cannot allow you to somehow experience my experiences that you might be able to access the same "data-set", but all I am saying is that I do give weight to that "data-set" of my experiences.... I don't care whether you respect that or not, but I do not see it as illogical or inconsistent

Originally posted by damage79
My position, as has been stated throughout the thread:
Science gives us the "best" answer with the evidence available in the natural realm. My experiences lead me to also give weight to the reality of God, the God who inspired the bible. You accused me of intellectual dishonesty, I disagree, I also accomodate for "spiritual honesty", my experience of whi ...[text shortened]... whether you respect that or not, but I do not see it as logical or inconsistent

When you allow supernatural explanations in, logic goes out.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
When you allow supernatural explanations in, logic goes out.

Well then your statement of "not believing that science and God were mutually exclusive" was falsely made, because God is a supernatural being, and science is logical

please clarify your stance on this statement

Originally posted by damage79
Well then your statement of "not believing that science and God were mutually exclusive" was falsely made, because God is a supernatural being, and science is logical

please clarify your stance on this statement

Science is a method of finding out about the universe. It is not logically consistent to use God as an explanation for natural phenomena. That is not the same as saying God does not exist. If God does exist, then provided he exists outwith the physical universe there is no reason to expect science to be able to find him.

I do not believe god exists, I think that your belief has been there for you in the past, but God has not.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Science is a method of finding out about the universe. It is not logically consistent to use God as an explanation for natural phenomena. That is not the same as saying God does not exist. If God does exist, then provided he exists outwith the physical universe there is no reason to expect science to be able to find him.

I do not believe god exists, I think that your belief has been there for you in the past, but God has not.

I do believe that god exists, and my experience reveals to me that this is the case. But we both already knew that we disagreed on this point.

I have not used God to explain things that I do not understand, I have been forthright in acknowledging my shortcomings, and have not attributed these to "act of God" status. I am just not limiting God to having no role in the natural realm.... I still seek the most logical answer in a scenario

I am not here to persuade you that I am right, but if anything I have said has been thought-provoking, then this has been a fruitful discussion.

Originally posted by clive59
this trickery assigned to the 'chirstian god' - if you don't believe you're going to hell, if you don't profess your love to me you're going to hell, etc, makes me puke.

What would you have him do? Would you have him force you to love him? If he is the source of all life and you reject him, what then are you choosing? Is this trickery? If I have the cure for cancer and you need a cure, do you not need to come to me and ask for a cure? If not then heal yourself. In other words, if you are in need of something you must seek the source. If you are not in need of something then you are self sufficient and do not need to seek anything. If that is where you are at then congradulations.

Originally posted by howardgee
He should be rewarding them for doing his bidding.

Another contradiction from the nonsense that is religion coming to you soon.

Strawman argument.

Originally posted by amannion
You're wrong about atheists not considering the evidence of experiences, at least you're wrong about me anyway.
I do consider personal experiences to be valid evidence.
Where an atheist will differ over a religious person however, is in the interpretation of personal experiences.

I read a lot in these posts about people and the wonderous experiences th pernatural causes - a creator god for example.
I prefer natural causes and explanations.

Where we differ is that I don't attribute them to supernatural causes - a creator god for example.

Is that an axiom in your evaluative system?

I prefer natural causes and explanations.

Do you end up creating natural-seeming causes and explanations to explain them away?