Analytical thinking erodes belief in God
 

Magical thinking and science = oil and water for many.

The problem is that analytical thinking about God has basically disappeared from our culture. It used to be common.

Interesting. I suppose if one can have an analytically influenced debate about Captain Kirk vs. Captain Picard, one could use the same methods regarding the other fictional character.

Was Ptolemy a serious analytical astronomer?

The difference is that we all know Picard and Kirk are fictional and any discussion of them is based on fictional information.

Having a debate about the existence of God with someone who does not believe it is fictional is impossible.

Was the geocentric universe fictional?

Talk about magical thinking...

I was listening to a local right wing AM radio station this morning and the local host was saying that the animals on Noah's Ark went "into a trance" or "were hibernating" and she tried to explain how the continents were not in the same configuration as they are today, that they were "joined together". This freak will be speaking at one of the local mega-churches soon- people actually eat up that sh$t !?!?

It always struck me as profoundly odd.

Just as odd as serious geocentric astronomy in my mind.

And she knows this how? She was one of the animals and Noah boinked her when she was in the trance or hibernating?

I wasn't listening to it so I don't know what she was saying exactly. When a station has an obvious right or left slant. I tune them out. Could she be talking about THIS

Regardless of how ridiculous it sounds to YOU, there will be someone that buys it. That is what makes scam artists come to life. You and I both know that African Prince that wrote me is false but to someone, well....... Thankfully there will be a sucker born each day and the scam artists have low hanging fruit to get at and leave us more alone.

Like you wouldn't belive!

- Peter.

I suppose the creationists will be telling us that Dinosaurs became extinct because they couldn't fit into Noah's ark.

Has anyone ever simply calculated the space needed for 2 of every animal? I would think just the insects would fill 100 cubits, 1000 times over.......

You need to decide if they are full grown, mature animals, or cubs/young, if you want a serious answer. If you are simply looking to ridicule it, then, of course, use the full grown size.

I can't tell if this answer is a joke or not. Do you think that all of the Earth's land animals, even in their smallest size state could fit in the Ark, and actually did? Mammoths, Mastadons, Dinosaurs, etc? Seriously??

Think..embroyo.

How then do the literal bible-thumpers explain away the creatures of the "Pre-Adamite world"?

The whole notion is preposterous. What is the first recorded instance of human construction of a ship of that size? Certainly, on the most optimistic estimates, not more than 10,000 yrs ago. This would mean that all land animals currently spread around the globe would have had to move from one central location to all the continents in less that 10k years. It must be a joke.

OK, assuming we put everything we know about worl history aside for a moment (that dinosaurs and man did not co-exist) lets just talk about the basic logistics of this.

I do not see how any of the animals on the ark could be young do to the fact that the young could probably not survive with out their mother /parents. Especially as far as mammals are concerned. Quite a few mammals stay with their parents for over a year as they grow up. Then you have to take all the food needed to sustain the animals for over a months (what about seeds/plants to replace all the stuff that was flooded out, or is that on a different ark? Then there is the issue of sanitation. Exercise area unless you plan on keeping every animal segregated and locked down for over a month. According to Nature, there are about 8 million different species on earth give or take a million or so. And we have not even found over 75% of them. The site does not give a break down but lets go with a 50/50 split between land and water. That means we need a ark to hold about 4 million species or 8 million animals. Most of these animals will need to be segregated because nature has a habit of building food chains and if they are not segregated, well, some of them will turn up missing. Wish brings up another point. Animals eat other animals so we need spares which will serve as food. Lions are carnivores so they will need a deer or two as food. Spiders eat bugs ... etc I think you get the point.

I cannot even begin to imagine the size of vessel needed to hold at least 1 pair of every land based animal on the planet. I know it would be far larger than anything man has created or even could create. The complexity needed to maintain the life of all the animals for over a month would be staggering. Scientifically the idea is ludicrous. The only way it becomes feasible is if you take away reality and add in some magic and pixy dust.

Define Analytical.

Are you a friend or enema?

Use of an established method to reach an answer.

Coffee enema? :confused:

Anything is possible with Gawd.

Ive seen the article you are likely referring to, it said they werent necissarily full grown AND you could count all intermediate species as one, like horses, zebra or Tigers, Lions and all the big cats as one. You can make a "logical" sounding arguement, but it doesnt really hold water so to speak. Even in the article they say you have to believe or not believe which is the old standby, hence the loss of religions foot hold in an analytical mind

I'm going to assume you asked a serious question, and answer it seriously.
There are several answers.
Some scholars note in Genesis 1:2 " the earth was formless and void", and take a hard look at the word "void", or empty. Compare that with every other instance of God's creative work, where it is always said " It was good". Taking a few other passages from Scripture, they believe that the creation account we have is really a "re-creation" that there was an earlier creation ( a gap between the first 2 verses) that was destroyed when Satan was cast to the earth. It may not be satisfying to you, but it is one of the answers given.
Another answer is that the flood materially changed earth. Note there was no record of rainfall prior to the flood.
Yet another is the understanding that God created with "apparent age". The easiest illustration of this would be to ask how old did Adam and Eve look one day after their creation? They probably were created as mature; not as infants. The argument then goes on to use that same line to explain all the fossil and geological record.

There may be others, but those are a few ways that Biblical literalists understand the Genesis account.

Remember the scene from Indiana Jones when he whacked the SS guy out of the blimp and said "NO TICKET"? Maybe that was what happened to them too? No ticket and got tossed off the boat. Nice story but 2 of each isn't enough to ensure that there is a future for the species. What about inbreeding? Also, who did the kids of Adam and Eve procreate with? Should I be able to boink my sister?

So their descendents are some inbred creatures? Adam had to boink Eve but what after that? Didn't Lot's daughters also boink Dear Old Dad? Could that have been the case with Adam and Eve's kids? Think of the good times at the family table.

Why did unicorns and dragons get left off the boat? :(:(

Dunno about unicorns but not all the dragons got off the boat. Komodo dragon apparently stayed.

That was on the spot and correct.

What's correct? He offered several explanations there. Are they ALL correct?

Is it necessary to discard science and reason altogether in order to have personal faith in Jesus? If it is, why?

Concerning that, I woul say you have to suspend science and the need for Proof.

It's called a leap of faith. This alleged god creates beings and gives them, supposedly unique among all living things, the power of reason. He gives them a thirst for knowledge. He gifts them with these powers and then requires that they NOT use them. He requires that they instead must believe in cheap parlor tricks as proof of his existence. This is a vain, capricious god if you ask me. One who plays games with his creations. Sets expectations for his little experiments and then goofs on them when they dare to utilize the very powers he gave them. Punishes them eternally in very un-godly and un-forgiving fashion for their screw ups.
I'll pass on that little god, until I watch an amputee re-grow a limb with the power of prayer.

It is NOT a Leap of Faith!!!
That is a Kierkegaard term It is completely irrational, or even beyond reason, and not at all descriptive of Biblical Faith.
It is not a blind leap off the side of the mountain in the hope that there is a ledge just below. It is a response based on knowledge that God is trustworthy in all cases where I can verify, and therefore it is reasonable to extend that trust into areas that are not immediately verifiable.

Ok, lets not say it's a leap of faith. Lets call it a leap of complete denial of almost everything that humans have learned about natural history, species development, human evolution, human cultural development, geology, biology and technology over the last 200 years or so. To accept a literal story of the Ark would mean a person could not teach the most basic classes in Paleontology, Biology, Archaeology, History, Geology, and Physical and Cultural Anthropology. Might was well abolish the curriculum of the modern university.

Can we keep wood shop?

That is correct.

Granted. But how can one claim to be a valid member of an ancient, corrupt, hidebound institution like the R.C. church, as an instance without at least pretending to subscribe to it's admittedly risible tenets?

NOT AT ALL my friend. Science is proving The Bible to be correct almost daily. Just yesterday I watched a show on the History channel where scientist now believe the humans did NOT evolve from apes. They talked about some kind of "F" dna that ONLY exist in humans. I will try to find that info. :)

You forgot manipulative and has a tendency to keep his kids down should he feel that it isn't in his interests.

Even if I did see that miracle and accept that such a deity exists, is it worthy of my worship? I think not.

So? What if humankind evolved from species X or another being in the cosmos made us out of space dust or energy? What does it prove?

So then, ANY explanation that tries to justify the Genesis story of creation is Okey Dokey with you, and any science that tries to explain creation based on material evidence is not okay. Am I understanding you correctly?

I hate to break it to you, but NO scientist that I am aware of, or have ever read about, believes that humans evolved from apes. If the TeeVee program you watched on the History Channel (home to many academically important productions like "Ice Road Truckers", "Ax Men" and "How Bruce Lee Changed the World") actually said those words, they saw you comin' from a hundred yards away.

I don't want to talk about Kierkegaard, ration or irration. To believe a god is good who allows the rape and murder of 400,000 and the displacement and gradual death by starvation and disease of another 2.5 million in a place like Darfur, and to further believe that that god somehow has some inscrutable "plan" that we aren't allowed to be privy to requires not the extension of trust you describe, but a HUGE leap of faith as far as I can see. I see no reason to believe that if this human-shaped and human-acting god really is out there, he gives even the teensiest crap about you, or me.

Proof please.

That's really basic evolutionary biology, do you need proof.