• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The "Religion" thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll tell you what it says(a few translations given, as interpretation is a big thing in the bible):
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."- New International Version

"For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made."-New American Standard bible

In seven days I will send rain to the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. I will wipe off the face of the earth every living creature that I have made."- God's Word Translation

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. - King James
That's Genesis 7:4 by the way

Now onto age:
The ages of the men mentioned in Genesis(well as many as I'm bothered mentioning) are:
Adam 930
Seth 912
Enos 905
Cainan 910
Mahalaleel 895
Jared 962
Enoch 365
Methuselah 969
Lamech 777
Noah 950

A bit over the 120 apparently established, no?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Oct 26 2009, 11:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I'll tell you what it says(a few translations given, as interpretation is a big thing in the bible):
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."- New International Version

"For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made."-New American Standard bible

In seven days I will send rain to the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. I will wipe off the face of the earth every living creature that I have made."- God's Word Translation

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. - King James
That's Genesis 7:4 by the way

Now onto age:
The ages of the men mentioned in Genesis(well as many as I'm bothered mentioning) are:
Adam 930
Seth 912
Enos 905
Cainan 910
Mahalaleel 895
Jared 962
Enoch 365
Methuselah 969
Lamech 777
Noah 950

A bit over the 120 apparently established, no?[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Long Life Spans: "Adam Lived 930 Years and Then He Died"
New Discoveries in the Biochemistry of Aging Support the Biblical Record

By

Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D.
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Richard Deem, M. S.

"Adam lived 930 years and then he died." The mere assertion that humans could live more than 900 years-as Genesis 5:5 states-seems, for many people, nothing short of absurdity. The mention of long life spans in Genesis 5 hinders these people from openly exploring the Christian faith. Unable to accept 900-year human life spans, skeptics and others view the Bible as unreliable, a book of human myth rather than divine revelation.

This skepticism towards the long life spans of Genesis 5 is understandable. Tremendous advances have been made and will continue to be made in medical science and technology to conquer many dreaded diseases. The Western world has widespread access to health services, and for most Americans, nutrition is not a vital concern. And yet, the average life span in the U.S. is less than 80 years. Over the last century, human life expectancy has increased, but only by a handful of years. In light of these facts, how can the long life spans described in Genesis 5 conceivably be true? Yet another stumbling block crops up in Genesis 6:3, which declares that God intervened to shorten man's life span from about 900 to 120 years. (For a discussion on why God would have allowed man's long life span only to shorten it later, see The Genesis Question by Hugh Ross.) Even though a maximum life expectancy of about 120 years accords with current data, the abrupt shortening of human life spans creates another hurdle for skeptics. How can this dramatic change in human life spans be scientifically rational?

Recent advances in the biochemistry of aging provide answers to these seemingly intractable problems. Scientists have uncovered several distinct biochemical mechanisms that either cause, or are associated with, senescence (aging). Even subtle changes in cellular chemistry can be responsible for aging, and in some cases, can increase life expectancy by nearly 50%.1, 2 These discoveries point to a number of possible ways that God could have allowed long life spans and then altered human life expectancy- simply by "tweaking" human biochemistry. The recent progress of research in the biochemistry of aging, along with the cosmic radiation caused by the Vela supernova eruption, makes the long life spans of Genesis 5 and the decrease of human life spans at the time of the Flood scientifically plausible.3, 4

Reactive Oxygen SpeciesThe free-radical theory of aging is one of the leading explanations for senescence.5 Free radicals are chemical entities that possess one or more unshared electrons as part of their structural configurations. Because electrons find stability by forming pairs, the unshared electron(s) of free radicals makes them unstable, highly reactive and chemically destructive compounds. When a molecule contains an unshared electron it becomes highly reactive because the unshared electron aggressively "seeks out" another electron with which to pair.

Some free radicals produced inside the cell during the normal course of cellular metabolism are derived from molecular oxygen (O2) and are called reactive oxygen species (ROS).6 Some examples are superoxide (·O2-), the hydroxy free radical (·OH), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Most ROS produced internally and occurring normally in the cell come from the mitochondriaâ€"organelles inside the cell that play a central role in harvesting energy.7

According to the free radical theory of aging, the ROS produced in the cell during the natural course of metabolism act randomly and indiscriminately to damage important cell components. For example, in their search for other unshared electrons, ROS attack the molecules that make up the cell's membrane (lipids), proteins, and DNA.8 Since this damage to cellular components is cumulative, ROS may contribute significantly to the aging process.9

Cells do have mechanisms to counteract many of the harmful effects of ROS. For example, the enzymes superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase hunt the free radicals superoxide and hydrogen peroxide, respectively.10 Cells also have additional antioxidants such as glutathione, peroxidase, and vitamins E and C.11 However, these protective systems are insufficient to prevent all the damage caused by ROS over a cell's lifetime.

A team of pharmacologists recently demonstrated that the aging effects caused by ROS can be largely subverted by augmenting the cell's native antioxidant defenses by using enzyme mimetics.12 Enzyme mimetics, (synthetic compounds that imitate the chemistry of enzymes) catalyze (bring about) the same chemical reactions as the enzymes for which they are named. In other words, enzyme mimetics imitate natural enzymes. For example, SOD/catalase enzyme mimetics catalyze the decomposition of superoxide and hydrogen peroxide. The pharmacologists found that administering SOD/catalase enzyme mimetics to a study group of worms (Caenorhabditis elegans)13 can extend the worms' average life span by 44% by providing additional defense against the damage that free radicals cause.

Not only does the worm study help define the role of ROS in the aging process, it also indicates that human life span could be, and in fact, may be lengthened or shortened by this "pharmacological intervention."14

Researchers also have been able to extend the life span of fruit flies by about 40% through similar means. Instead of using enzyme mimetics, scientists manipulated the fruit flies' genes, causing their mitochondria to produce more SOD and catalase.15 The results were similar.

Further evidence that altering SOD and catalase levels can influence life span comes from recent work by researchers at the University of Texas in Houston. These scientists have shown that by targeting SOD, they may be able to selectively kill cancer cells.16

These new discoveries in ROS suggest that one way God could have designed humanity to live for 900 years and then acted to decrease man's life expectancy at the time of the Flood would be to make subtle changes in the level of SOD and catalase enzyme expression within cells.

Caloric RestrictionCaloric restriction is one of the approaches that researchers have discovered for extending the life span of certain organisms.17 Selectively reducing food intake (calories) by 30 to 70% can extend life span by up to 40% for a wide range of creatures from yeast to mammals. For years, scientists have thought that caloric restriction extends life expectancy by causing a decrease in metabolic rate, which, in turn, leads to reduced production of ROS.18 Recent studies strongly suggest, however, that caloric restriction yields an increase in life span through a biochemical mechanism distinct from the free-radical mechanism.

Researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), using yeast as a study organism, recently put in place the final piece of the puzzle to explain that biochemical mechanism. 19, 20 Within chromosomes are genes that code for rRNA. These genes have unique features that, due to normal cellular activity, may cause them to become excised from the chromosome. These excised genes then form individual circular pieces of DNA, (called extrachromosomal DNA circles, or ECs), which self-replicate, accumulate, and compete with the yeast's genome for vital enzymes and other cellular materials. For this reason, ECs are toxic to cells and decrease longevity in yeast.21

Researchers from MIT, however, have found that the enzyme Sir2 plays a significant role in reducing the accumulation of ECs, thereby extending the life span of yeast. (Sir2 has been found throughout the biological realm, including in humans.22) It is activated when the energy status of a cell drops offâ€"which would occur under conditions of caloric restriction.23 When activated, Sir2 causes the chromosomes to become highly condensed and the genes within the chromosomes to be silenced.24, 25 Because the chromosomes' genes are silenced, the production of ECs diminishes, resulting in an extension of yeast life span. The results for yeast carry broad implications for the human aging process, since Sir2 has been discovered in humans.

The relationship between gene silencing and aging can be understood through a simple analogy. A car driven normally for thirty years will show signs of significant wear and tear, if it is still functioning. A similar car, however, that is driven only to church on Sundays will remain in mint condition even after thirty years. Likewise, a strand of DNA experiencing normal wear and tear can produce toxic ECs, decreasing life span. The enzyme Sir2, however, silences the genes within a chromosome, limits wear and tear on the DNA and prevents ECs from forming, thereby extending the life span of yeast.

The work on ROS and caloric restriction correlates with Genesis 1:29-30, where God prescribes a vegetarian diet for pre-Flood humans. A vegetarian diet not only ensures the consumption of high levels of antioxidants, but also prevents the intake of toxins that accumulate in animal flesh. A vegetarian diet also aids with caloric restriction because the consumption of vegetables yields far fewer calories than does the consumption of the equivalent weight of meat. Through a vegetarian diet, God could have used caloric restriction to help extend pre-Flood life spans.

Another way God could have altered human life spans is through a gene mutation that mimics caloric restriction. Recent work by investigators from the University of Connecticut identified a mutation in fruit flies that disables a gene involved in metabolism.26, 27 The loss of this gene's activity makes metabolism less efficient. Inefficiency in metabolism means that the organism can't extract energy from food stuff very effectively. This limits the energy available and, similar to caloric restriction, leads to longer life spans. Fruit fly life spans doubled as a result of this mutation.

The fruit-fly work demonstrates how God could have helped control mankind's life expectancy by altering the activity of a single gene. Whether He used this method or not, it does represent a simple, viable option. Interestingly, as highlighted by other work on fruit flies, many organisms seem to be genetically programmed to hasten mortality. Recently, scientists have discovered another single gene mutation that leads to long life spans. Though this gene, called the Methuselah gene, has been shown to extend life spans in fruit flies when mutated, the function of this gene, when not mutated, remains unknown.28, 29

Telomere LossAltering telomerase activity is another way God could have acted to regulate human longevity. Telomerase is an enzyme complex that maintains the length of telomeresâ€"the terminal ends DNA strands in chromosomes.30 Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes; one member of each chromosome pair comes from the mother, and the other from the father. Prior to cell division, each chromosome duplicates, and, after cell division, the parent and daughter chromosomes separate from one another.

Telomeres' non-coding repetitive sequences of DNA at the terminal ends of chromosomes maintain chromosome stability. During DNA replication, telomerase functions to maintain telomere length. Without sufficient telomerase activity, telomeres become successively shorter with each round of cell division. If telomeres disappear, chromosomes lose stability and the cell's ability to replicate is compromised. Thus, loss of telomerase activity and the disappearance of telomeric DNA is associated with aging.31

Telomere length serves as an indicator of health. Thus, scientists use telomere length to assess the health of cloned animals.32 Researchers have been able to extend life spans by introducing telomerase into cultured human cells that lack telomerase activity.33 Cancer cells, considered to be essentially immortal, possess elevated telomerase activity levels.34 Recent research suggests, however, that the relationship between telomere length and cell longevity is even more complex than previously thought.35, 36 (For example, in an environment where elevated radiation significantly increases cancer cell production, higher telomerase activity may actually shorten, rather than lengthen, life spans.) Nonetheless, God could have changed human life expectancy simply by varying telomerase activity. Alternatively, God may have complemented an increase in radiation levels (see discussion of the Vela supernova event) with a reduction in telomerase activity so as to minimize human suffering in the context of shortened life expectancy.

Genome SizeInvestigators from Glasgow University in the United Kingdom have recently uncovered a significant relationship between genome size and longevity.37 The term genome refers to the entire DNA makeup of an organism. Genomes consist of genesâ€"which encode the information needed for the cell to make proteins and structural RNA moleculesâ€"and of noncoding DNA.

The Glasgow team surveyed 67 bird species and found that larger genome sizes correlate with longer life spans. Birds are ideal models to characterize the effect of genome size on life expectancy because of the substantial data for bird genome size and longevity. No clear explanation yet exists for why larger genomes lead to longer lifetimes. The scientists who carried out this study have speculated that larger genomes may slow down the cell cycle (the time between cell divisions). Before a cell cycle can be completedâ€" culminating in cell divisionâ€"the cell's DNA must be replicated to produce duplicate copies of the genome. The larger the genome, the longer it takes for DNA replication to occur. This longer replication process results in a longer cell cycle and ultimately leads to longer life spans.

The correlation between genome size and longevity is intriguing in light of the Human Genome Project (HGP). Humans have a large genomeâ€"three billion base pairs (genetic letters). However, initial estimates from the HGP indicate that the human genome possesses only 28,000 to 120,000 genes.38 This means that noncoding DNA makes up roughly 97% of the human genome. This prompts speculation, with Genesis 5 and 6 in mind, that quite possibly the large size of the human genomeâ€"comprised of a large amount of noncoding DNAâ€"may reflect God's original purpose for man. God might have designed the large human genome to allow life spans of 900 years. According to this suggestion, the noncoding DNA may have performed a critical function at one time. Perhaps God left the human genome intact at the time of the Flood as He acted through astronomical events and other biochemical changes to limit man's life expectancy. Then the human genome, as observed today, would be a carryoverâ€"and a possible testimony toâ€"the time when God purposed for people to live longer.

Alternatively, the human genome may have been even larger before the Flood. Given their relatively large body size and high level of activity, humans live considerably longer than members of other species. This combination of size and activity level may in itself explain humans' large genome size, but the pre-Flood life spans may have required an even larger genome.

Vela SupernovaA major astronomical event provides a partial explanation for how God may have acted to reduce the long pre-Flood human life spans. Cosmic radiation is one of the main factors that limits human life expectancy. The cosmic radiation coming down to Earth has not been uniform through time, and in fact, most of the deadliest cosmic radiation Earth experiences comes from a fairly recent and nearby (1300 light years away) event, the Vela supernova (A supernova is a rare celestial phenomenon, the explosion of most of the material in a star). About 20,000 to 30,000 years ago (roughly the time of the Genesis flood), the Vela supernova erupted.39, 40

Prior to the Vela supernova, only a fraction of the current level of deadly cosmic radiation bathed the Earth. Under these lower radiation conditions (coupled with complementary biochemical adjustments) life spans of up to 900 years might have been possible. Scientists do acknowledge that this higher-level radiation silently bombarding the Earth since Vela plays a significant role in limiting life expectancy. Moreover, a significant radiation event such as Vela would explain the mathematical curve, the gradual, exponential reduction in life spans, from about 900 to 120 years reported in Genesis 11.

Assessing Scientific PlausibilityAdvances in the biology and biochemistry of aging have been remarkable, and, at the same time, they reveal that the aging process is, indeed, complex. Much remains to be learned and discovered about it. Recent discoveries do clearly indicate, however, that aging can result from subtle changes in the invisible realm of cosmic radiation and cellular chemistry. Given the subtly of these changes, investigators are gaining some hope and confidence that in the near future they will be able to slow the human aging process through drug treatment and dietary alteration.

Scientists' success in altering the life span of selected organisms (such as worms, yeast, and fruit flies) and their emerging ability to increase human life expectancy through biochemical manipulation lend scientific plausibility to the long life spans recorded in Genesis 5. If humans with their limited knowledge and power can alter life spans, how much more so can God? He could have used any of four (or more) subtle alterations in human biochemistry to allow for long life spans. He could have used the Vela supernova or other astronomical events, in combination with complementary biochemical changes, to shorten human longevity.

Exactly how God altered human life spans no one knows. However, recent discoveries in the biochemistry of aging continue to build the case for the reliability of Scriptureâ€"even of Genesis 5 and 6. Researchers stand on the threshold of additional breakthroughs in understanding the aging process. Further advances are anticipated in the endocrinology and hormonal control of aging, and in deciphering Werner's syndrome (a disorder that leads to premature aging).41, 42, 43, 44 One can look forward to these and other discoveries in the biochemistry of aging with the confidence that they will continue to lend credibility to the biblical record.[/b]
Also, while your note of 7 days is good, the time period is unknown if one fully reads Genesis Chapter 6. God first states that he will limit mans time on earth to 120 years, then tells Noah about the flood and gives Noah the commands and plan. It then says "Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him." Then your quote takes place. So after Noah had completed his task, of which we really don't know how long it took (as I stated previously) God gives Noah the 7 day warning (the quote you posted in various translations).
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tigers forking lions... Well i'll be damned. Anyway did Noah's family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it's got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god's word is 'perfect' and 'unchangeable/complete'.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he's excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tigers forking lions... Well i'll be damned. Anyway did Noah's family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it's got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god's word is 'perfect' and 'unchangeable/complete'.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he's excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)
[/b][/quote]
Look at the chronological order of events...where is Leviticus in relation to Genesis?

So God did not bend the rule because it was not there in the first place...

At the time of Noah incest was not a sin. How else would the world be populated?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tigers forking lions... Well i'll be damned. Anyway did Noah's family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it's got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god's word is 'perfect' and 'unchangeable/complete'.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he's excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)
[/b][/quote]

God also says that it is the law that makes sin sinful, and he only gave the law to Moses, a long long time there was no written law (none given by him) in the time of Noah. The only reason new questions keep popping up about the bible is because you're trying to argue something that was not quite what you would call your course major: Theology. Trust me, don't try to find contradictions in the Bible, you will not (I stand by the KJV, since it is the most accurate translation the others have a number or two wrong.)

Come guys you still haven't brought any evidence(that cannot be refuted) to the contrary of our Theory and now you're grasping at straws.
There keeps rising to the surface, in each counter argument, these deeply personal anti-religion and anti-god emotions. Was I not told that these are distasteful, when I did it.

You asked questions, we've done our best to answer and all we're getting back is:
Just give up... we all know you're wrong... point point point... i don't respect you...
If you'll remember correctly I was prepared to talk about the original idea in this thread. If it's gonna turn into one of those stupid internet mud slinging compo's please tell me now cause i dig good discussion, but i'm not keen on wasting time...

Once again: Sorry for the harsh words i just thought this forum seemed like it was gonna be a bit different...

P.S. I was just saying Lions and Tigers can produce offspring and have, but only in captivity... my point was the ability is there!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tigers forking lions... Well i'll be damned. Anyway did Noah's family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it's got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god's word is 'perfect' and 'unchangeable/complete'.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he's excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)
[/b][/quote]

God also says that it is the law that makes sin sinful, and he only gave the law to Moses, a long long time there was no written law (none given by him) in the time of Noah. The only reason new questions keep popping up about the bible is because you're trying to argue something that was not quite what you would call your course major: Theology. Trust me, don't try to find contradictions in the Bible, you will not (I stand by the KJV, since it is the most accurate translation the others have a number or two wrong.)

Come guys you still haven't brought any evidence(that cannot be refuted) to the contrary of our Theory and now you're grasping at straws.
There keeps rising to the surface, in each counter argument, these deeply personal anti-religion and anti-god emotions. Was I not told that these are distasteful, when I did it.

You asked questions, we've done our best to answer and all we're getting back is:
Just give up... we all know you're wrong... point point point... i don't respect you...
If you'll remember correctly I was prepared to talk about the original idea in this thread. If it's gonna turn into one of those stupid internet mud slinging compo's please tell me now cause i dig good discussion, but i'm not keen on wasting time...

Once again: Sorry for the harsh words i just thought this forum seemed like it was gonna be a bit different...

P.S. I was just saying Lions and Tigers can produce offspring and have, but only in captivity... my point was the ability is there!
[/b][/quote]

mate, a male lion and female tiger make a Liger, which is infertile (and hence cannot go on to produce more Ligers). a female lion and male Tiger produces Tigons, which are also infertile.

And what's more, this is not mud slinging. It may appear so simply because for every scientifically proven fact thrown at you, you have a response which is almost always a mere theory. For example, there is evidence and proof that Evolution and continent movement took place beyond 'theories'. However you've chosen to respond to this by saying 'it's possible that x could have happened'. Maybe, in a completely exclusive situation, it is possible that there was a big ship built 000s of years ago. But it didn't ride on a major flood, nor did it contain all the animals of the world. That's impossible.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tigers forking lions... Well i'll be damned. Anyway did Noah's family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it's got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god's word is 'perfect' and 'unchangeable/complete'.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he's excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)
[/b][/quote]

God also says that it is the law that makes sin sinful, and he only gave the law to Moses, a long long time there was no written law (none given by him) in the time of Noah. The only reason new questions keep popping up about the bible is because you're trying to argue something that was not quite what you would call your course major: Theology. Trust me, don't try to find contradictions in the Bible, you will not (I stand by the KJV, since it is the most accurate translation the others have a number or two wrong.)

Come guys you still haven't brought any evidence(that cannot be refuted) to the contrary of our Theory and now you're grasping at straws.
There keeps rising to the surface, in each counter argument, these deeply personal anti-religion and anti-god emotions. Was I not told that these are distasteful, when I did it.

You asked questions, we've done our best to answer and all we're getting back is:
Just give up... we all know you're wrong... point point point... i don't respect you...
If you'll remember correctly I was prepared to talk about the original idea in this thread. If it's gonna turn into one of those stupid internet mud slinging compo's please tell me now cause i dig good discussion, but i'm not keen on wasting time...

Once again: Sorry for the harsh words i just thought this forum seemed like it was gonna be a bit different...

P.S. I was just saying Lions and Tigers can produce offspring and have, but only in captivity... my point was the ability is there!
[/b][/quote]

mate, a male lion and female tiger make a Liger, which is infertile (and hence cannot go on to produce more Ligers). a female lion and male Tiger produces Tigons, which are also infertile.

And what's more, this is not mud slinging. It may appear so simply because for every scientifically proven fact thrown at you, you have a response which is almost always a mere theory. For example, there is evidence and proof that Evolution and continent movement took place beyond 'theories'. However you've chosen to respond to this by saying 'it's possible that x could have happened'. Maybe, in a completely exclusive situation, it is possible that there was a big ship built 000s of years ago. But it didn't ride on a major flood, nor did it contain all the animals of the world. That's impossible.
[/b][/quote]
Have you seen this "evidence"? Honestly, have you physically seen this evidence?

Yes or no?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tigers forking lions... Well i'll be damned. Anyway did Noah's family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it's got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god's word is 'perfect' and 'unchangeable/complete'.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he's excused to bend the rules every now and then wink.gif
[/b][/quote]

God also says that it is the law that makes sin sinful, and he only gave the law to Moses, a long long time there was no written law (none given by him) in the time of Noah. The only reason new questions keep popping up about the bible is because you're trying to argue something that was not quite what you would call your course major: Theology. Trust me, don't try to find contradictions in the Bible, you will not (I stand by the KJV, since it is the most accurate translation the others have a number or two wrong.)

Come guys you still haven't brought any evidence(that cannot be refuted) to the contrary of our Theory and now you're grasping at straws.
There keeps rising to the surface, in each counter argument, these deeply personal anti-religion and anti-god emotions. Was I not told that these are distasteful, when I did it.

You asked questions, we've done our best to answer and all we're getting back is:
Just give up... we all know you're wrong... point point point... i don't respect you...
If you'll remember correctly I was prepared to talk about the original idea in this thread. If it's gonna turn into one of those stupid internet mud slinging compo's please tell me now cause i dig good discussion, but i'm not keen on wasting time...

Once again: Sorry for the harsh words i just thought this forum seemed like it was gonna be a bit different...

P.S. I was just saying Lions and Tigers can produce offspring and have, but only in captivity... my point was the ability is there!
[/b][/quote]

But where do you draw the line on asking genuine questions about a religion and the contents of that holy book, to probing if a god is really real, to doubting what seems to be delusional culture?

I mean how deep does the rabbit hole of off-the-wall explanations go before people stop taking you seriously and become disillusioned?

- Weakened gene pool because of Noah's incestuous family
- Today's mythical dragons borne from humans living with dinosaurs back in the day
- Several species fornicating among several other species to RAPIDLY adapt to survive after a long boat trip
- God is timeless, unchanging & perfect (which applies to this word as well) yet his laws conform to our time period.
If he was timeless these laws would of been in place since forever, which has no beginning or end.

That is just some of the theories we have been told.

And you asking me for evidence?

Some of the questions that I've asked, that have been conveniently ignored are:
- How is it possible to have a virgin birth?
- How come amputees don't fall under the 'miracle material' category? (yet a speeding fine does)
- How can a human being rise from the dead after 3 days to rise up on a cloud to "heaven"

Until you can answer me these questions like a rational thinking, educated, civilized person of the 21st century, then nothing matters to me personally.

I don't even know what why I'm posting on this thread anymore, really, we back to square one again.

We (non-religious people) use modern understanding & science to bounce our ideas/beliefs/opinions/perspectives off of; while you (religious people) will use your holy books & religious teachings to bounce your ideas/beliefs/opinions/perspectives off of.
We just not coming from the same place.
 
This has been one hell of a read. I could have posted my feelings about the matter, but I am not known for my diplomatic approach towards anything that involves religion.

I happen to think that Religion is deeply and inherently attached to the human condition. We human beings want to keep control over everything around us -- every single thing. So over time, when logic has been defied by a determined event, we have resorted to attribute it to divinity. Hundreds of years ago the Egyptians did not know what caused the annual Nile River flood, so they began to think something / someone was pulling the strings within a scope no human had ever ventured into. This has of course been refuted by now, along with thousands of similar phenomenons (although there are millions that are yet to be clarified).

Some people find solace in thinking they will be rewarded in the afterlife; others think that the latter is present in our daily life (ie when somebody talks about "angels"). Some people think there is a mighty being controlling this world with his divinity. Now, I ask you: is the current world not divine enough? Why should we think about resurrection, god(s) and such as miracles? Isn't life and everything around us not a miracle?

To me, Jesus was a great man. With unshakable principles. But still a man. And that is more divine to me than a fearless, timeless, and omnipresent being.

I won't say anything about "The Church". The fact that the Pope can't look at the sky because of his solid gold hat while people in Somalia think of water as a luxury pretty much speaks for itself. :angry:

In short: Personally, I think Religion is what you make of it -- a reason to live for, a reason to die for, a style of life, an explanation that seeks to shred light through all the problems of the world, a link to all those you love and are not physically here anymore...

I can't share the same feelings. I think that everything has got a feasible explanation -- and if it doesn't, it will, someday.

I do respect religious people though.

So...
Rugby-Pelota1.jpg


Back to the basics! :lol:
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
There's been this ongoing thing of we don't need to disproof your theory because of lack of proof + reason, well that's not only unscientific but also pretty darn easy now isn't it...[/b]

Not at all. There is a general refusal to accept it as a thoery at all, and rightly so. Its not a thoery. Why would we give any more credence to your proposition, then we would the the big flying spagetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, or the celestial teapot. I dont really need to disprove any of those as anyone with any sense would understand they are absurd. The same applies to your proposition.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I imagine the majority in scientists doesn't have that great a track record one man shouts the world is round the rest of Science say "It's Flat!". Don't drain out the blood to heal a person "Science screamed bleed him! bleed him!". Same goes for gravity[/b]
Ahhh but science never claimed to have a great track record. Thats the point. They acknowledge they dont know and go and try to find out. Wasnt it the church that used to burn people who claimed the earth was round? Kinda funny how you would use that as an example, or any of the others for that matter. Why would you trumpet Sciences achievements?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Don't tell me now there was proof because at first there was none![/b]
Ahhh okay that clears that up then :blink:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Then I want to mention Mother Theresa... and from there leave the ball in your camp because yes, surely she didn't give a rat's backside for any of those people but only did it because she was scared...[/b]
Man i cant believe you pulled the mother teresa card. Thats just low.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
(1) despite what we have been taught a few years ago in high school science, the speed of light is only a reasonably normal and stable environment, ever been out to the universe? no neither have i but your boys tell me it's pretty much not normal or stable... Both Switzerland and America have (in a lab) slowed down and sped up light.[/b]
The speed of light is consistent in a vacuum. 300,000 miles per whatsit. I'm pretty sure, but your right I havent been there, that the universe (well the bits outside of earth) is primarily a vacuum. I'd imagine the standard rules would apply but ............ ahh shite i forgot about your supernatural dude changing all the rules when it suits him. Either way, your answer is that the world is 10,000 years old and that the speed of light went faster at the start to get the light here?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
(2) See this comes down to that old interpretation thing again, people think it's up to them to interpret the bible, it's not the Bible is a handbook to interpreting itself, The great Dragon (speaking of Lucifer), allready caused a third of the stars (speaking of the Angels) to fall... to earth... This is a theological and not Scientific question if you want more on it I have books, but I'm not wasting my time debating this as a Scientific Question![/b]
Grand so. Glad you cleared that up. Incidently ......... is there somewhere I can reference which bits of the bible are meant to be taken literally, and which bits are not? I'm sure that God in all his wonderful love has set that out clearly at the beginning or maybe in an appendix? You see I always get confused, thinking the bible is the word of god and taking it literally, only for someone better versed in its mysteries to tell me that I'm wrong because this bit or that bit is not meant to be taken literally.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i've got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it's too damn long i type very slow![/b]
So the whole plate techtonics thing doesnt do it for you no? Mountains being created as a result of pressure, seabeds becoming mountains? The formation of the earth as we know it? blah blah ......... ? The twosies stuff was good. I have to give it another read tomorrow but I was entertained.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
(4) Not exactly scientific, just kinda stupid... (God is light, guess what there won't be a sun in heaven either, and there will be no night!)[/b]
So why didnt he set it up like that down here? Seems a bit daft to me going to the trouble of creating a light source when we already had one. I mean if he could just ensure that light was just ....... eh ............. there. Why didnt he? Was he just showing off?

On a side point, why do you bother to engage in Scientific stuff when we can just throw, "man made from handful of dust", "10,000 year old earth" and all the other good stuff from the old testiment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Sorry if this seems a bit agro, but there are two science camps! and it's by terminology and not science that you try and sink your opponents![/b]
Stop that, there are not two scientific camps. There is a scientific camp and a theological camp. Your fellow Christian so perfectly sets out the reason vs faith debate, or is he some splinter group? Has there been a schism in TRF's Christian faction?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 26 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
because God is supernatural he can bend the laws of the natural world. You keep searching for complete natural answers, whereas we accept the supernatural. I accept that an all powerful being can manipulate space and time and do whatever the flip he wants. Whereas you lot wish to constrain a diety to fit in your understanding of the universe.[/b]
 
I don't know if there is a true "schism" or not, but I'm done trying to make God fit in the box you've laid forth. I posted a rather good, but long post referencing the work of modern science in relation to age in the Bible yet none of the intellectual elite on the other side of the perverbial table have taken the time to read it. So, c'est la vie. Part of being God is being able to do what you want, when you want, how you want to do it without really having to fill out all the proper forms and meet all the special laws and/or requirements. So, if He in His infinite wisdom decides to make all of us grow pogo-sticks out of our asses, then I'm sure as hell not going to go ask Stephen Hawking how it all happend.
 
And you asking me for evidence?

Some of the questions that I've asked, that have been conveniently ignored are:
- How is it possible to have a virgin birth?
Very Good, this is truly a question that could not be answered without faith, and I have no Issue admitting this! This is definitely theological, because it took a supernatural act... So as a Christian I have to have faith in this, and I will not even attempt to prove it. But that would be a good argument from a purely scientific viewpoint!
- How come amputees don't fall under the 'miracle material' category? (yet a speeding fine does)
This one I did answer and it seems when I said my answer will be ignored that I was right, or maybe you just missed it in which case i'm sorry for the sarcasm...
- How can a human being rise from the dead after 3 days to rise up on a cloud to "heaven"
Same thing as with your first question. Very good. These are the type of things were faith plays a huge role in a Christian's life. Same as the creation of the world no science there just faith...

My argument was that the Arc does not take any faith when you do decent research. I think it's probably like I said, this debate is pointless because what happens is this:
We got proof - We can disprove your proof - your disprove is not proof - yes it is - no it isn't - yes it is - no it isn't... to infinity!

i too am bored with it!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 27 2009, 05:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
My argument was that the Arc does not take any faith when you do decent research. I think it's probably like I said, this debate is pointless because what happens is this:
We got proof - We can disprove your proof - your disprove is not proof - yes it is - no it isn't - yes it is - no it isn't... to infinity!

i too am bored with it![/b]

Where ? Serious link please.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Oct 26 2009, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
This has been one hell of a read. I could have posted my feelings about the matter, but I am not known for my diplomatic approach towards anything that involves religion.

I happen to think that Religion is deeply and inherently attached to the human condition. We human beings want to keep control over everything around us -- every single thing. So over time, when logic has been defied by a determined event, we have resorted to attribute it to divinity. Hundreds of years ago the Egyptians did not know what caused the annual Nile River flood, so they began to think something / someone was pulling the strings within a scope no human had ever ventured into. This has of course been refuted by now, along with thousands of similar phenomenons (although there are millions that are yet to be clarified).

Some people find solace in thinking they will be rewarded in the afterlife; others think that the latter is present in our daily life (ie when somebody talks about "angels"). Some people think there is a mighty being controlling this world with his divinity. Now, I ask you: is the current world not divine enough? Why should we think about resurrection, god(s) and such as miracles? Isn't life and everything around us not a miracle?

To me, Jesus was a great man. With unshakable principles. But still a man. And that is more divine to me than a fearless, timeless, and omnipresent being.

I won't say anything about "The Church". The fact that the Pope can't look at the sky because of his solid gold hat while people in Somalia think of water as a luxury pretty much speaks for itself. :angry:

In short: Personally, I think Religion is what you make of it -- a reason to live for, a reason to die for, a style of life, an explanation that seeks to shred light through all the problems of the world, a link to all those you love and are not physically here anymore...

I can't share the same feelings. I think that everything has got a feasible explanation -- and if it doesn't, it will, someday.

I do respect religious people though.

So...
Rugby-Pelota1.jpg


Back to the basics! :lol:[/b]

Very good point! and i don't know if you've seen my post before this whole science or not can of worms got opened, but it kinda touched on some of what you are saying...

what do you think
Pg 5
 
Well we seem to agree on that account. I can't stand people that make donations on public because they do it to somehow vindicate themselves as part of a well functioning society, or they manage to fill a void in their spiritual life.

Religion has indeed played a key role in human advancement. Let's take as example the atmosphere in Europe in the X century. Poverty, wars between landlords, diseases, etc. Then the fight over the Holy Land commenced. This fight united most kingdoms, regardless of whatever existent fringe between them, to fight for Christianity. The Crusades created a cultural and socioeconomic link between the Western World and the Eastern World. This link would prove itself crucial over time, given it bestowed both "worlds" with the ability to interact and therefore maximize their knowledge in a wide variety of subjects.

Religion does also play a negative role in today's world, notwithstanding. As a Law & Philosophy student I've come across some texts that expose the vile misuse of religion as scapegoat for the most dreadful outrages. A good example would be "The Clash of Civilizations", by Samuel P. Huntington.

Now, on to the Bible. Personally, I don't like to refer to it as the word of God because it was not written by Jesus, and because it's been modified a thousand times. The fact that we're supposed to "interpret" it annoys the heck out of me. I'm more familiar with the Qur'an, where all you read is allegedly the word of Allah. There are millions of flaws in the Bible that over the years have grown from being mere doubts to utterly impossible facts.

Jaco, I've got a question for you: Which faith is stronger? The one that possesses no doubts? Or the one professed in spite of all doubts?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Oct 27 2009, 09:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Religion has indeed played a key role in human advancement. Let's take as example the atmosphere in Europe in the X century. Poverty, wars between landlords, diseases, etc. Then the fight over the Holy Land commenced. This fight united most kingdoms, regardless of whatever existent fringe between them, to fight for Christianity. The Crusades created a cultural and socioeconomic link between the Western World and the Eastern World. This link would prove itself crucial over time, given it bestowed both "worlds" with the ability to interact and therefore maximize their knowledge in a wide variety of subjects.[/b]
Thanks for backing up some of my earlier statements.
 
Interesting thread.

While I don't have a problem with religion in general, I do get annoyed when religion causes otherwise logical people to deny reality. For example a recent survey (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) showed that almost 50% of Americans don't 'believe' in Evolution. The reason for not 'believing' evolution is almost exclusively because of religious beliefs (of course not all Christians deny evolution - it is accepted by the Catholic church!) rather than any logical reasoning.

I also don't like it when people use religion as an excuse to (a) bomb people (b ) harass gays, midgets, albinos etc.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Oct 27 2009, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Jaco, I've got a question for you: Which faith is stronger? The one that possesses no doubts? Or the one professed in spite of all doubts?[/b]

the one professed in spite of all doubts, but i also believe that those doubts cannot fly in the face of the foundation of that faith. Example: A Christian that profess his faith in the bible but denies that Jesus was the son of (and by definition therefore) God himself, according to that same bible denies the very faith.

So as long as the doubt is not about the "Doctrine" I believe your faith could still be very strong indeed. But doubts about the one in whom you have faith means there is actually no faith at all but a crutch for something else.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 28 2009, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Oct 27 2009, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Jaco, I've got a question for you: Which faith is stronger? The one that possesses no doubts? Or the one professed in spite of all doubts?[/b]

the one professed in spite of all doubts, but i also believe that those doubts cannot fly in the face of the foundation of that faith. Example: A Christian that profess his faith in the bible but denies that Jesus was the son of (and by definition therefore) God himself, according to that same bible denies the very faith.

So as long as the doubt is not about the "Doctrine" I believe your faith could still be very strong indeed. But doubts about the one in whom you have faith means there is actually no faith at all but a crutch for something else.
[/b][/quote]

faith is being sure of what you hope for, and certain of what we do not see

Faith is not synonymous with believing, it's beyond it.
 
Interesting, thanks for the answer. I have always asked people the same question and few have been able to deliver a proper answer. Have you ever read any of Friedrich Nietzsche's works? Books like "Human, All Too Human", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "On the Genealogy of Morality" pose serious criticism to Christianity in general, albeit in a very creative way.

It'd be nice if we had somebody who professes a religion totally different from Christianism to post here. For example, I know somebody at Uni who is a Muslim, and his views on the history of the world, evolution and such are surprisingly fantastic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top