Satenza Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Even if the ice caps melted there is not enough water to cover the entire earth. Truth - No animal could survive because of the enormous air pressure. Truth - Such air pressure would cause earths surface to be very hot, so hot nothing could survive. Source [hide=The Maths]Another problem I see with the Global Flood is that with Mt. Everest being 29,035 feet (8,850 m) above sea level, it would have to rain on the entire globe an average of about 6 inches (15.2 cm) per minute for 40 days and 40 nights. The recorded world record for rainfall in one minute is 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) - -and it occurred at one remote location, not globally, and only for that one minute, not at a constant rate for an extended period of time. According to Genesis 7:20, all the earth was covered by 15 cubits which would equate to about 25 feet (7.6 m). So, with Mt. Everest being the highest point in the world, that would equate to 29,060 feet (8,860 m) of water above sea level. Anyone familiar with SCUBA diving knows that ocean water pressure at 33 feet (10 m) equals one atmosphere of air on earth. Fresh water is 34 feet per atmosphere, so we're not talking about a big difference either way. At 33 feet of water per atmosphere, if we are under 29,060 feet (8,860 m) of water in the form of vapor in the air before the rain began, this would equate to air pressure at the earth's surface of approximately 12,775 psi as compared to the actual earth surface air pressure of a mere 14.5 psi. (29,060 divided by 33 equals about 881. 14.5 psi times 881 equals about 12,775 psi.) It would be impossible for anything to live under these conditions in that not only would the air pressure be too great, but as a result of such intense pressure, the ambient temperature at the earth's surface would be unbearably hot. And we're not talking triple digits hot; we're probably talking quintuple digits hot. Anyone with an elementary level of knowledge in physics knows that as a gas expands under reduced pressure, its temperature decreases, and as a gas contracts under increased pressure, its temperature increases. This is the primary reason why air at the earth's surface at higher elevations is generally cooler than that of lower elevations at the same latitude.[/hide] With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
____ Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 / stuff /To play the card for the people still hanging onto it: "BUT GOD WOULD'VE STOPED THE PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE GOING UP!lc" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Science is mans best guess. Sometimes he gets it right. ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron8000 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 *disclaimer* despite this post being actually on topic and not part of a religion vs science flame-war which is eternal and will never be sorted on a worldwide setting, let alone on one lonely forum, this post will be ignored *disclaimer ends* Is science valid? Yes, warrior45 knows my religious views from my posts on his other topics but I still believe the basic point of science to be worthy and a good thing, not all religious people are as blind as some. Is science the undeniable truth? No, science fanatics can scream all they like about undeniable tests etc but it can never be completely proven. Scientists 100 years ago had their own "undeniable" tests which have yet been proven wrong, and undoubtedly within a few decades if not years then our generations science will be overturned. So in conclusion - science valid? yes, science truth? No, not yet, nor will i doubt it ever will be - being the eternal thing it is. P.S. i suppose i should clarify my religious view for everyone not warrior lol, I believe in God, and that i should live my life in a way that benefits myself and others as much as possible. I have no proof for this, no evidence or science, only the feeling that i get when i see the beautiful things in this world that too me are nothing less than divine. Please don't attack this, its my personal belief and I won't force it on anyone, I just feel it to be relevant to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 *disclaimer* despite this post being actually on topic and not part of a religion vs science flame-war which is eternal and will never be sorted on a worldwide setting, let alone on one lonely forum, this post will be ignored *disclaimer ends* Is science valid? Yes, warrior45 knows my religious views from my posts on his other topics but I still believe the basic point of science to be worthy and a good thing, not all religious people are as blind as some. Is science the undeniable truth? No, science fanatics can scream all they like about undeniable tests etc but it can never be completely proven. Scientists 100 years ago had their own "undeniable" tests which have yet been proven wrong, and undoubtedly within a few decades if not years then our generations science will be overturned. So in conclusion - science valid? yes, science truth? No, not yet, nor will i doubt it ever will be - being the eternal thing it is. P.S. i suppose i should clarify my religious view for everyone not warrior lol, I believe in God, and that i should live my life in a way that benefits myself and others as much as possible. I have no proof for this, no evidence or science, only the feeling that i get when i see the beautiful things in this world that too me are nothing less than divine. Please don't attack this, its my personal belief and I won't force it on anyone, I just feel it to be relevant to the discussion. I'll skip all of that previous rubbish and come stright back to the poster who was on topic. :) Yes, you are correct, science is not the truth and it can theoretically never uncover 100% truth. I totally agree with that, but given those limits, science dosen't try to uncover 100% undeniable proof. Some people may wonder why science is not 100% foolproof. Well, I suppose it's because we are human beings and are (evolutionarily or divinely) cursed with imperfection. Does that make science any less credible? No, it's the best system we can possibly have due to the objectivity and accountability it posesses. Some people, such as defender, will argue it's 'man's best guess', implying it's no more than guesswork. Unbeknownst to him, it's the best thing we have to uncover truth, yes, even better than the bible. Here's a shocker - most of the people in this world aren't Christians. Yep, that's right. But most people in this world do use scientifically tried and tested (whether this science be performed by Dr. Smith or tribe leader Mugumbo) methods of agriculture, healthcare, engineering etc. It's the best thing we have, as physical, limited human beings. What you believe is up to you and I of all people have no problem with that, but substituting the supernatural for the natural is and will always be counter productive and against all (god given or evolution given) logic, deductive reasoning, problem solving etc. If you're a theist, science is a gift from god. The most precious gift given to uncover this incredible world. Thankfully some people, such as Baron, decide not to substitute science with the supernatural, rather let them both coincide, as I believe they are meant to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I suppose that depends whether or not you're talking about mathematical science or experimental science. I agree, experimental science will never be 100% accurate, but (if maths can be considered a science) the fact that 2+2=4 to me is just one of those universal truths. Meh. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron8000 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 thanks warrior, means a lot somebody listened To assassin = I haven't ever really thought much on the side of mathematical science, so yes i suppose i was referring mostly to experimental science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I wouldn't say science is such a great gift from God. Science is often used as a tool to try to disprove God. I don't see what's so great about that gift. Science in the light of the Bible is to me great. However, you're not supposed to change God or the Bible to correspond with current scientific theories. It's just as likely that science is wrong rather than we having misinterpreted the Bible completely. Although it has happened before, like when we thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Bear in mind that the Bible is not able to answer all questions about the seen world. The Bible answers the questions that matter the most. Like: Why we are here? Where the world comes from? Meaning of life? and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmyd17 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I've grown up to believe that science is in itself evolutionary. As time progresses scientists have uncovered groundbreaking things and developed new ways of furthering the evolution of science (electron microscope anybody?). Sure science doesn't have all the answers and it probably never will, but I believe it will uncover a lot more than has been proposed by other things such as religion. Also, I'm not knocking on religion. Religion is vital to science because it can't be disproved by itself, but with science it's possible that one could uncover facts about religions or disprove facts about religion. Religions are summarized theories in my opinion. And science tests those theories in the search of knowledge. To me all science is, is thinking of a way something could be done and if technology allows, vigorously testing that theory until it is proven true or false. Which is where I come back to the evolution of science. With more greater advancements in technology (and a little luck) science can prove/disprove theories proposed. Now, global warming. I believe that global warming is occurring because you can prove it. The planet is warming (if a Pastafarian, you already know why : ). People always try to bring up the point that the planet does occasionally warm up and cool down (ice ages are a fact of that) and that it' not the human races fault. But, how can anyone have any doubt that we're not partly to blame? I believe that it is perhaps one of the more serious threats to our wellbeing and one that is being pushed aside for far too long. And again, science has the ability to help with this (science also put us into this position :anxious: ) but we need to do it now or it'll be too far gone. PS: I don't know how the global warming thing got in there, but it's there to read. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 To play the card for the people still hanging onto it: "BUT GOD WOULD'VE STOPED THE PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE GOING UP!lc" Yes, and so the flood can't be concived as possible without the actions of God. Therefore every argument which includes Gods intervention is worthless and intrinsic. I wouldn't say science is such a great gift from God. Science is often used as a tool to try to disprove God. I don't see what's so great about that gift. Science in the light of the Bible is to me great. However, you're not supposed to change God or the Bible to correspond with current scientific theories. It's just as likely that science is wrong rather than we having misinterpreted the Bible completely. Although it has happened before, like when we thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Bear in mind that the Bible is not able to answer all questions about the seen world. The Bible answers the questions that matter the most. Like: Why we are here? Where the world comes from? Meaning of life? and so on. How is the Bible just as valid as science? Science is empirical testing the bible is just a book With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 To play the card for the people still hanging onto it: "BUT GOD WOULD'VE STOPED THE PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE GOING UP!lc" Yes, and so the flood can't be concived as possible without the actions of God. Therefore every argument which includes Gods intervention is worthless and intrinsic. I wouldn't say science is such a great gift from God. Science is often used as a tool to try to disprove God. I don't see what's so great about that gift. Science in the light of the Bible is to me great. However, you're not supposed to change God or the Bible to correspond with current scientific theories. It's just as likely that science is wrong rather than we having misinterpreted the Bible completely. Although it has happened before, like when we thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Bear in mind that the Bible is not able to answer all questions about the seen world. The Bible answers the questions that matter the most. Like: Why we are here? Where the world comes from? Meaning of life? and so on. How is the Bible just as valid as science? Science is empirical testing the bible is just a book I actually believe it's more valid than science is. But if you don't believe that God or the Bible is the truth then I guess you have to settle for science and the framework it has to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 To play the card for the people still hanging onto it: "BUT GOD WOULD'VE STOPED THE PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE GOING UP!lc" Yes, and so the flood can't be concived as possible without the actions of God. Therefore every argument which includes Gods intervention is worthless and intrinsic. I wouldn't say science is such a great gift from God. Science is often used as a tool to try to disprove God. I don't see what's so great about that gift. Science in the light of the Bible is to me great. However, you're not supposed to change God or the Bible to correspond with current scientific theories. It's just as likely that science is wrong rather than we having misinterpreted the Bible completely. Although it has happened before, like when we thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Bear in mind that the Bible is not able to answer all questions about the seen world. The Bible answers the questions that matter the most. Like: Why we are here? Where the world comes from? Meaning of life? and so on. How is the Bible just as valid as science? Science is empirical testing the bible is just a book I actually believe it's more valid than science is. But if you don't believe that God or the Bible is the truth then I guess you have to settle for science and the framework it has to offer. And here we go again, repeating the "faith vs. science" argument. Summary: Logical person: Science>Faith. Responding person: NO! MY PERSONAL BELIEFS TRUMP SCIENCE!!! MUAHAHAH! Logical person: -.- Other logical person: :XD: Now that we've got that debate over, let's get on to talking about something else :-w . [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 The Bible answers the questions that matter the most. Like: Why we are here? Where the world comes from? Meaning of life? and so on. Yeah, because the answers to those questions save lives. The bible only provides one of many different religious hypotheses as an answer to each of those questions. There is nothing to say your religion is right and others aren't, aside from the doctrines of your religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 The Bible answers the questions that matter the most. Like: Why we are here? Where the world comes from? Meaning of life? and so on. Yeah, because the answers to those questions save lives. The bible only provides one of many different religious hypotheses as an answer to each of those questions. There is nothing to say your religion is right and others aren't, aside from the doctrines of your religion. there is nothing to say it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Yes, there is. The other religions which are mutually exclusive. By your rationale there is nothing to say they are wrong either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Yes, there is. The other religions which are mutually exclusive. By your rationale there is nothing to say they are wrong either. Your logic doesn't make any sense. So if some group says something is wrong then it is wrong? Ok, I am a group, and you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Nice avoiding the question there. Parabola is quite clear in his opinion that all religions are flawed as they hold no evidence You make it clear that you believe the bible to be true and say that "there is nothing to say it is wrong" By saying that you have to agree that other religions such as Islam are also just as likely as your own religion because "there is nothing to say it is wrong" too? Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 By saying that you have to agree that other religions such as Islam are also just as likely as your own religion because "there is nothing to say it is wrong" too? Precisely. It is your logic that makes no sense, Xlpmabsv. If you think that a) there is nothing to say the bible is wrong and B) that means it is valid, you must automatically accept the holy books of all religions as the truth. Which makes no sense. It is simple to everyone but you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 By saying that you have to agree that other religions such as Islam are also just as likely as your own religion because "there is nothing to say it is wrong" too? Precisely. It is your logic that makes no sense, Xlpmabsv. If you think that a) there is nothing to say the bible is wrong and B) that means it is valid, you must automatically accept the holy books of all religions as the truth. Which makes no sense. It is simple to everyone but you. You are missing the point completely. There is nothing to say the Bible is wrong. It doesn't mean it is valid. It means you have to make a choice to believe in it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 No, methinks you are missing the point. If there is nothing to say the bible is wrong, there is nothing to say any other religion's holy book is wrong - meaning no one of them has any more validity than the last. One might as well roll a dice to decide how the earth came into existence. And fortunately that's not how truth works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 For the love of God Xplsv, shut up, read through your posts, and think for a second. You're frikking saying that two contradictory beliefs can both be part of absolute Truth at the same time. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 There's a good topic subject...Why everyone thinks their religious book is right and every other one is wrong, no matter the age of it or what it says! Probably the main reason I don't follow a religion is because you have to choose WHICH one to follow, and that just seems fake. In all fairness, though...I'd say the Jewish/Christian God's religion, aka the Bible, is probably the "right" one if there is one. It just goes more in depth with stuff where as other religions are just like "Worship me or you go to Hell LOL!", which...Yea, is a part of the Bible, too...But like I said, it goes more in-depth with certain things like creation and what not. Not in-depth enough for me, personally, but I'd rather believe in something that touches base instead of "KILL ALL NON BELIEVERS AND WORSHIP ME LOL ALLAHU AKBAR!" crap. Plus, I hope Islam isn't the right religion, because I randomly say "ALLAHU AKBAR!" to people, mocking the religion because I think those people are insane. Who the hell screams "Praise God!" after everything they do? Yea, insane people. :shock: The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Logical fallacy Xpls, logical fallacy. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 No, methinks you are missing the point. If there is nothing to say the bible is wrong, there is nothing to say any other religion's holy book is wrong - meaning no one of them has any more validity than the last. One might as well roll a dice to decide how the earth came into existence. And fortunately that's not how truth works. Again you are overlooking the point. I never said that because the Bible isn't wrong that it is valid. You have to make a decision to believe it or not. What you are talking about is knowledge: which isn't truth. The earth use to be known to be flat. That isn't truth that is knowledge. Knowledge can change, truth can't. Unless somehow you are saying truth changes your argument isn't valid. Logical fallacy Xpls, logical fallacy. Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE. Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Actually knowledge is: Justified True Belief So yes, knowledge does require truth, it is the very essance of knowledge. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now