Regarding Religion

Anything and everything.

Re: Regarding Religion

by AerisDraco » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:28 am

I know this isn't part of the true religion discussion; but something that's always bothered me is the BCE/CE thing. It's meant to be a non-biased (I.e. non-religious) method of dating years, yet it defeats its purpose by having year 0 at the birth of Christ.
KRA is now complete.
Main Topic
User avatar
Moderator
 
Posts: 2500
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:36 pm
Location: Northern Cuba (Miami)

Re: Regarding Religion

by Sir Toddalot » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:19 pm

Magnus0 wrote:
Sir Toddalot wrote:
Magnus0 wrote:I honestly don´t understand how the entire history of the earth can possibly fit in only 6000 years.

Did God create the world with buried dinosaur fossils included? Or have dinosaurs never existed, because they're not mentioned in the bible? Have they existed alongside humans and just died out somehow? If so, then why did the dinosaurs die and not the humans?

What about geographical phenomenon, like say earthquakes and eruptions. In most cases, those things happen because pressure is being built up and then released at once (obviously it's more complicated than this, but you get the idea). It can take over 6000 years to build sufficient pressure for some of the strongest quakes or eruptions that have happened on earth, so how can strong earthquakes and eruptions occur if the earth isn't even that old.

Has the Pangea-continent existed? Is it just coincidence that the east coast of South-America and the west coast of Afrika seem to align almost seamlessly? Is it just coincidence that fossils of the same sort of species of animal have been found on both South-America and Africa, and only on those two continents, even though animal would never be able to cross the giant ocean that lies between both continents currently?

These are genuine questions that come to mind when someone tells me that they believe that the earth is 6000 years old. I don't want to offend you Ninja, but I was honestly surprised when I read that you're a young-earth creationist. There's just so much solid evidence against the theory, that it is pretty bold, or even ignorant to think in a young earth. The more I think about it, the less it makes sense to me.


Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, Job 40. They were probably tons before the flood, and before the flood all animals were plant eaters so they would have lived alongside humans. After the flood, there would have been only two of each kind of dinosaurs left, and after the flood there would have been a huge lack of food, the environment of earth would have been much different than before, and tons of species would have died off, including the dinosaur. As for the fossils, well the flood was a huge natural disaster that took place very suddenly, the quick burial of tons of animals and World being completely covered in water caused the fossilization of tons of animals. (Please excuse my horrible sentence structure and grammar.)

As for the Pangea theory, well that can be explained to. Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah, probably as a ruskut of the flood effect on the earth. This could very possibly explain the Pangea idea.


The great flood didn't happen though. There's not enough water on the earth to flood the entire planet. Rain is not water that magically falls from the skye, the water has to come from somewhere. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but, 'before the flood all animals were plant eaters', is plain false, even according to the bible. Using logic of the bible, all animals we know today must have been on the arch since there is no evolution. All of them, including carnivores.That's simply impossible. The arch would have had to be massive, way too big for a single man and his family to ever build. Good luck trying to get a male and a female brontosaurus in your boat. Everything surrounding the great flood has never happened, it's simply impossible.

My interpretation of the bible is that all the stories are about morals. For example, Jesus cures people that have really bad illnesses or blindness. I think that this didn't really happen, but it still teaches people morals. Don't neglect people because of a disatvantage that they didn't ask for, because that's not fair. Or the story with the bread and the fish: share your things with people that need it.Things like that are the essence of religion in my opinion. Wether the events in the stories really happened and wether God is real or not is completely irrelevant, it's about the message.


Ok, you are right about the plant eater thing. The reason God flooded the earth was because people and animals had started killing each other. And who says there isn't evolutions? I'm not saying all animals where descended from one animal, but there would have just been one type of wolf, from which you would get dogs, foxes, and everything else dog-like. Same for other similar animals. In the book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, creationist researcher John Woodmorappe suggests that, at most, 16,000 animals were all that were needed to preserve the created kinds that God brought into the Ark. Woodmorappe used a “worst case” scenario of the Biblical “kind” being equated to the genus level of classification.

The Ark did not need to carry every kind of animal—nor did God command it. It carried only air-breathing, land-dwelling animals, creeping things, and winged animals such as birds. Aquatic life (fish, whales, etc.) and many amphibious creatures could have survived in sufficient numbers outside the Ark. This cuts down significantly the total number of animals that needed to be on board. Using a short cubit of 18 inches (46 cm) for the Ark to be conservative, Woodmorappe’s conclusion is that “less than half of the cumulative area of the Ark’s three decks need to have been occupied by the animals and their enclosures. This meant there was plenty of room for fresh food, water, and even many other people. Another factor which greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the days of Noah. Only the parent “kinds” of these species were required to be on board in order to repopulate the earth. For example, only two dogs were needed to give rise to all the dog species that exist today. Noah wouldn’t have taken the largest animals onto the Ark; it is more likely he took juveniles aboard the Ark to repopulate the earth after the Flood was over. These younger animals also require less space, less food, and have less waste. This is how the dinosaurs would have fit on the ark. He might have even just token the eggs instead of live dinosaurs at all. Additionally, it was God’s desire to have the animals multiply after the Flood (Genesis 8:17); so taking the largest animals (often the oldest) would have been antithetical to this purpose of quickly replenishing the animal population.

The water from the Flood is in the oceans and seas we see today. Three-quarters of the earth’s surface is covered with water. As even secular geologists observe, it does appear that the continents were at one time “together” and not separated by the vast oceans of today. The forces involved in the Flood were certainly sufficient to change all of this. Scripture indicates that God formed the ocean basins, raising the land out of the water, so that the floodwaters returned to a safe place. (Some theologians believe Psalm 104:7–9 may refer to this event.)

The Bible does not tell us that Noah and his sons built the Ark by themselves. Noah could have hired skilled laborers or had relatives, such as Methuselah and Lamech, help build the vessel. However, nothing indicates that they could not—or that they did not—build the Ark themselves in the time allotted. The physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah’s day was at least as great (quite likely even superior) to our own. They certainly would have had efficient means for harvesting and cutting timber, as well as for shaping, transporting, and erecting the massive beams and boards required. If one or two men today can erect a large house in just 12 weeks, how much more could three or four men do in a few years? Adam’s descendants were making complex musical instruments, forging metal, and building cities—their tools, machines, and techniques were not primitive.
“Words are pale shadows of forgotten names. As names have power, words have power. Words can light fires in the minds of men. Words can wring tears from the hardest hearts.”

-The Name of the Wind, Patrick Rothfuss
User avatar
User
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:30 pm
Location: Off fighting a dragon somewhere.

Previous

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests