Faith vs Science - a rant on why is the Universe so big?

[Lester]

Hi,

I like the way you are thinking, and agree that people are falible. Dare I say it; unfortunately faith gets mixed up with religion, and where I come from they are lightyears apart and do not mix.

[Lester]

Hi again,

On your second to last paragraph. Of course there would not be any record else where by any tribe, the flood was not just in one area. It was Global.

[cahullian]

Organised religion has nothing to do with faith, just as the law has nothing to do with justice. One of two thing will happen when you die.1. You will experience nothing. 2. All things will be revealed.

Old Irish proverb
"May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows your dead."
Gazz

[xelasnave]

Did China flood?
alex

[Doug]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Did China flood?
alex

Can't speak from personal experience..........I only feel that old!
I read somewhere that all Chinese boats were/are named with something like 'Nu Wah'(not sure of the spelling) incorporated into the name but I must confess I have never checked the accuracy of it.

Then mention was made of the energy requirements etc for a global flood .
The Biblical account of the flood also suggests geological upheaval.
(cf Gen 7:11.)
It might well mean that the Earth that was flooded did not have the mountains that now are, or the valleys that now are. What I am driving at is that it would take less water to cover a squash ball than a golf ball.
And then there are those perplexing shellfish fossels found thousands of feet above sea level pushed up no doubt by geologic upheavals of considerable effect.
cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

Thanks Doug I missed the naming of the boat point.
I gather there is a suggestion there as to there being an indicator of a flood in their history?
alex

[xelasnave]

And I have no view one way or the other I never thought about it until now. (How curious) It is an event that is in the past with little record of the facts (from an observers point of view other than those on the boat) so I could not say one way or the other but it would be interesting to pull together other evidence if it exsists as one would think there must be some basis for the story. There is little doubt that sea beds now lie where mountains once did and visaversa. It would be interesting to date the shells to see if the times link up.. sortta
alex
alex

[Doug]

Yes Alex, that was the point as I read it. Also there is supposed to be records in Babylonian writings and the epic of Gilgamesh, sanskrit (is that the same thing?) and others. The trouble is I can't verify the ancient Babylonian records the Chinese, the... ,the... I just allocate a 'hmmm' factor to these claims by others, I'm not skeptical nor carried away by them..
Unfortunately several people have 'clutched at straws' to prove the existance of Noah's Ark; only contributing to doubter's resolve to remain doubters.
Personally, if I were Noah, I would have trashed the arK for housing timber and maybe firewood; afterall the local timber yard and hardware store would have gone into liquidation
cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

Well I have had a couple of timber boats as recently as 12 years ago. They are gone now without trace and that was thru rot so I doubt if there is much chance even if the timber was not recycled that a vessell would survive..unless at the bottom of a peat bog, and there would have been a lot of peat formed from the flood so for the believers they should continue to seek,.. for the none believers perhaps they can reserve their verdict until the search is complete..if ever.
alex

[Orion]

For a believer he has no need to seek he has already found.

[netwolf]

Knowledge is about observerving a system repeatedly and postulating a theory on how it works. But knowledge is ever changing we should never accept absolutes in the quest for knowledge, knowledge must alwasy be challenged and changed as need be. For example 'Light' from particle to wave to duality bothe particle and wave. Why would faith enter into this equation it has no place. Faith is not some method or theory to deal with the unknown it simply is our belif in something intangible that provides us with a purpose and way to that purpose. The way and purpose are diffrent depending on who you are and what you belive.

Regards

[Lester]

Hi Netwolf,

I can relate to what you are saying.

[netwolf]

To add just take the ongoing debate about Evolution and Creation, why do some defend one over the other as if it were some religion. We must assess both via the Scientific method and evaluate that contunually as we gather more information. Scientist defending Evolution who have not investigated creation our equaly guilty as those creationist who will not inverstigate evolution. Closing our minds to the posibilities narrows our oppertunity to understand. Setting an agenda for what should be taught in science is a forumla for disaster. Instead lets teach the Scientific method a constantly changing sytem for understanding the unvierse arround us. Where we accept nothing is certain and there are no absolutes. Let us not stand atop one giant as they did Sir Isac Newton (particle theory of light) and Ignore another Giant like they did Christiaan Huygens (wave theory of light) and lose 100 years of new possibilities. Let us accept a world where there can be no absolutes. Why because we are human and not infallable. Lets not be close minded as they were when they ignored Tesla's Alternating Current in favour of Eddisions Direct Current simply because of popularity contests.

Regards
Regards.

[g__day (Matthew)]

No, no evidence of a global flood anywhere. And the arguments that maybe mounts where on 1/10th the size back then kinda makes a mockery of plate tectonics. In fact the testament talks of a mountain "high enough to survey all creation" alah flat Earth, so if anything maybe mountains where larger 4,000 years ago then they were today! Too a global flood would leave a clear signature at the approriate depth of ice in the polar cap. You'd have a lot of changed chemistry if you flooded the Earth for a year; for one you'd have a massive swamp and alot of dying and decaying vegetable matter releasing gases that you'd easily spot trapped in the ice at that depth. Sorry but its all normal during those periods. And China had no major distruption too its dynasties back then either.

Folk back then simply substituting 'global' for 'large regional' back then is a more likely assumption and explanation.

All these considerations and analysis do is redefine the boundaries of where does the known and unknown lie. The final answer is still up for grabs!

[Doug]

In fact the testament talks of a mountain "high enough to survey all creation" alah flat Earth, so if anything maybe mountains where larger 4,000 years ago then they were today!

You seem to have researched this subject very thoughourly. Which testament are you referrencing? The book of Genesis in the 'Old' Testament makes no such claim.
It makes no difference to me what another chooses to believe, however surely what we beleive should be based on reliable facts or witness or testimony.


Flat Earth? can't say for sure, but I think that idea crept in around the Dark ages. There is some evidence of a round/global Earth world view dating way way back if one chooses to look at the evidence with an open mind.

g__day, would you please provide the reference material to the above quoted statement. I don't want to see this topic go astray and incur the wrath of the moderators, however I am keen to have the truth on the table of honest scientific enquiry.
cheers,
Doug

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Doug

g__day, would you please provide the reference material to the above quoted statement. I don't want to see this topic go astray and incur the wrath of the moderators, however I am keen to have the truth on the table of honest scientific enquiry.
cheers,
Doug

Yes Doug.
If this thread remains on topic and does not stray into a "mud slinging" match then it will remain open.
What we don't want to see here is a deterioration into a "cheap shots" match which these types of discussions usually end up becoming.
I would like to see respect shown for all members viewpoints, including those that differ to the main stream view of the origin of our universe.

[Doug]

No probs. I could see a potential for, but that is not the path I want to follow .........just info.
cheers,
Doug

[netwolf]

Oh dear i knew i should not have used that example. What i ment was that Scientist should not stick to what we know as an absolute. Everything changes. And the Creationist who follow it more as a faith rather than a science should also realise that you can also never prove it. That is faith it does not require proof. I to am often conflicted my own inate desire to prove it, but in cool reflection i realise that is not what is meant to be. It is by design/evolution that we do not know everything. If we did than we would neither evolve nor need faith.

It is an inner conflict for all who belive in something passionetly, that they wish others to also see. But it can not be forced.

Regards

[Doug]

Very insightfull netwolf. The truth is probably too vast for man to grasp. While I'm an admitted creationist, I don't subscribe to the young Earth ideas, nor disallow them; just think there is more to the truth than we can get a good handle on. So I guess it would be fair to say that for me I have a platform of faith,that I wish to build on with scientific fact, but I am cautious of scientific conjecture that can lead to a false position.

It is probably true of all of us in the long run that we have a basis of faith of some sort and seek to build on it with (real) knowledge.
Where our journey leads depends on our starting point, so I don't think Faith is really in conflict with Science or visaversa, it just directs or influences how we interpret science and fit it into our world view.
The challenge is to understand some of the complex theory being offered when, as you say there are no absolutes in scientific knowledge.
Yesterday it was relativity, + quantum mechanics today they are being tied up in knots with string theory, tomorrow, who knows?

cheers,
Doug

[g__day (Matthew)]

Matthew 4:8, the Devil takes Jesus up to the highest mountain, from which he can see "all the world's kingdoms"

Lads there are about 480 well analysed scientific impossibilities in the Bible (just google biblical scientific inconsistencies) - not just the mountain, nor the worldwide flood, but how about God stopping space and time - God held the moon and stars fixed in the sky whilst..... Joshua 10:12, the Sun and Moon "stood still" in the sky at God's command for an entire day, so that the Israelites could complete their bloody vengeance upon the Amorites."

So don't go pulling out teeth becuase ancient texts got colourful.

Realise the way faith and science reconcile and interact is evolving and continues on an interesting path forward is all I say. Be tolerant, but questioning. My main question was its still an interesting ask - why do we need nore than 1, or 10 or 1 million stars if we were divinely created? Why do we instead need 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 do make it all work?