Noah , Babel, Peleg

[VRSpock]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment....lol

The answer to your question is in my post...in bold....AND in the quote of my post that you made...in bold

Yes akron, I read that and I agree

[Guest arkon]

ahh

So you were playing with me

[Bread_of_Life]

But this long-age scenario of slow uplift faces a major current problem. Rates of erosion are greater than uplift rates, so uplift cannot keep pace with erosion3

[VRSpock]

One question popped into my mind while thinking about this though. How did the tectonic plates form to begin with? Some would argue that it's because of the intense geo-thermal energy beneath the earth's crust, but if the planet is billions of years old, wouldn't those plates have had plenty of time to fuse by now?

Perhaps the pressure form the waters of the Genesis flood is the true culprit?

Any speculation though on this SA? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts as to what created the tectonic plates to begin with and how they have managed to never fuse over time, assuming an old earth scenario.

Thanks for that vrspock - I was actually going to give Darwin's example (as he wrote the original paper on mountainous uplift during his voyage on the beagle), but any example is good enough.

Well, I said I was going to play devil's advocate for a moment...lol There are multiple explanations for almost anything in the universe, all of which are equally plausible. That given, the question comes back to where do we put our trust?

The scenario of evolution shows that man has existed for 30 to 60 million years or so..if I remember right....and that the earth has been around for 4.6 billion years. This means that man has only had 1.3% of the total time that the Earth has existed (assuming for a moment that evolution is right) to observe events, collect data and form hypothesis on the manner in which things came into existence.

A 1.3% observation rate (assuming man has been observing things scientifically since day one, which he hasn't), is not enough observation, IMHO, to lay all my faith into man's knowledge or supposed knowldedge of things.

So, do we choose to put our trust in man's knowledge given such a small and insignificant amount of time man has had to form an opinion or do we put our trust into God?

Our theories about the creation of the universe will always be changing over time, but God's Word remains the same from the beginning until the end.

[Bread_of_Life]

Firstly vrspock, I have no idea about the mechanics of tectonic plate formation - I was always taught that they formed from the cooling of the mantle. But you'd really have to ask a geologist I'm afraid! Sorry!

Secondly, I'm not sure where you're getting your data from on how long man's been around, but as I said in another post on the Big Bang, it's a lot shorter a time than that!

Lastly, you say that man will have to rely on his own intellect and wisdom if we choose evolution. However, I argue that either way, we are relying on our intellect and wisdom and evidence. After all, there must have been an intellectual process that made you believe that the bible was true, from some sort of evidence? There must have been an intellectual process going on when you interpreted the meanings of the bible and came to a decision as to exactly how you understood it?

So whether or not we believe in God, or evolution, or creationism, or Islam - we are always going to be relying on our intellect and whatever evidence we can discover to make our conclusion. It is our intellect that forms conclusions in both the religious and scientific spheres, and evidence (different sorts of evidences in both, but still evidence) that governs what conclusion we come to. Therefore I suggest that believing in the literal reading of genesis is just as much relying on our limited intellect and reasoning and evidence as believing in anything else - the only difference being, we have little or no evidence to believe in the literal account of Genesis, and lots of evidence to believe in evolution.

In other words, if you abandon human reasoning and evidence, then you must necessarily choose nihilism - you cannot abandon and decry human reasoning in the sciences but still accept human reasoning in other areas of philosophy such as theology - you cannot eschew evidence in the sciences, but accept it in theology. You see what I mean?

[VRSpock]

Firstly vrspock, I have no idea about the mechanics of tectonic plate formation - I was always taught that they formed from the cooling of the mantle. But you'd really have to ask a geologist I'm afraid! Sorry!

Secondly, I'm not sure where you're getting your data from on how long man's been around, but as I said in another post on the Big Bang, it's a lot shorter a time than that!

Lastly, you say that man will have to rely on his own intellect and wisdom if we choose evolution. However, I argue that either way, we are relying on our intellect and wisdom and evidence. After all, there must have been an intellectual process that made you believe that the bible was true, from some sort of evidence? There must have been an intellectual process going on when you interpreted the meanings of the bible and came to a decision as to exactly how you understood it?

So whether or not we believe in God, or evolution, or creationism, or Islam - we are always going to be relying on our intellect and whatever evidence we can discover to make our conclusion. It is our intellect that forms conclusions in both the religious and scientific spheres, and evidence (different sorts of evidences in both, but still evidence) that governs what conclusion we come to. Therefore I suggest that believing in the literal reading of genesis is just as much relying on our limited intellect and reasoning and evidence as believing in anything else - the only difference being, we have little or no evidence to believe in the literal account of Genesis, and lots of evidence to believe in evolution.

In other words, if you abandon human reasoning and evidence, then you must necessarily choose nihilism - you cannot abandon and decry human reasoning in the sciences but still accept human reasoning in other areas of philosophy such as theology - you cannot eschew evidence in the sciences, but accept it in theology. You see what I mean?

To know that God exists? No, there was no intellectual process involved in that one...except I saw and I recognized. Now the rest of the bible, I agree, was an intellectual process. But once you know God, then you can see the bible in the way it's meant to be seen.

Sorry about the skewed time there.....those particular neurons have been dormant for awhile....lol

Rationalizing, Intellectual, logic, reasoning, deduction, all these are the beginning of wisdom, not the end. When you look at the grand scheme of the universe, SA, you mean you don't feel anything as well?

Can love be explained rationally? Sure, there are the chemical reactions in the brain but that only explains the feeling of love. It doesn't explain how that feeling can cause someone to ignore their own instinct for self preservation and cast aside their lives for someone that they love. Can we prove love? Should be believe in it?

Ever watched the movie Contact? I'm a sci-fi buff myself and I love movies like that. There's a great lesson in that movie about proof and evidence.

[Bread_of_Life]

To know that God exists? No, there was no intellectual process involved in that one...except I saw and I recognized.

Even in this, believe it or not, there is intellectual process.

Take my computer for example, that I am currently sitting at typing this response onto, before sending it over the internet to worthyboards. I see and recognise my computer, in the plainest possible way, with my own eyes. Yet, to go from that raw sensory data to a conclusion that my computer exists objectively outside of my own mind *is* an intellectual process - and is also fallible.

My computer may not exist in actual fact outside of being an idea in my mind - but I have drawn the intellectual conclusion that it does because I believe that that is the most probable explanation for my sensory data.

Now the rest of the bible, I agree, was an intellectual process. But once you know God, then you can see the bible in the way it's meant to be seen.

That is a rather hopeful statement, given that there are as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians. Also, it took an intellectual decision to decide that the bible was true - after all, seeing that there is a deity is rather different from identifying that deity as the judeo-christian one!

When you look at the grand scheme of the universe, SA, you mean you don't feel anything as well?

Of course I feel something - I feel awed by the scale and majesty of it all - but my subjective feelings of smallness compared to the scale of the universe are hardly a good starting point in drawing conclusions about it, since these feelings are essentially arbitrary and subjective.

Can love be explained rationally?

What do you mean by this exactly? Do you mean, can the existence of emotions such as love be explained rationally? Do you mean, given its existence, can people's actions when in love be explained rationally?

Ever watched the movie Contact?

Fraid not, no.

[Guest arkon]

We should make a 'hodge podge' thread.

It seems that threads always go off in a hundred different directions.

We have left global disaster as reported by the bible..and confirmed in the fossil record and geologic column ..

[VRSpock]

Even in this, believe it or not, there is intellectual process.

Take my computer for example, that I am currently sitting at typing this response onto, before sending it over the internet to worthyboards. I see and recognise my computer, in the plainest possible way, with my own eyes. Yet, to go from that raw sensory data to a conclusion that my computer exists objectively outside of my own mind *is* an intellectual process - and is also fallible.

My computer may not exist in actual fact outside of being an idea in my mind - but I have drawn the intellectual conclusion that it does because I believe that that is the most probable explanation for my sensory data.

You're absolutely right. This is also a hopeful statement. Everything we experience is subjective and fallible. As long as our observations are being conducted within the realm of our reality (what I mean by this is our entire existence...the grand scheme of the universe, perhaps there's a better word for this), those observations are subjective. The only truly objective view (and hence, the only one we can truly trust) then would be that of an entity that exists outside of our realm of reality, an entity that is not governed by that which controls and effects our perceptions of our own existence. A third party point of reference in other words.

That is a rather hopeful statement, given that there are as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians. Also, it took an intellectual decision to decide that the bible was true - after all, seeing that there is a deity is rather different from identifying that deity as the judeo-christian one!

Sadly, this is true. There are numerous versions of Christianity...because man has a very bad habit of reading things into scripture that simply are not there, or completely overlooking one small detail that can change things significantly. Luckily, we have the Word of God to fall back on, to study and determine what exactly is God's Truth.

Of course I feel something - I feel awed by the scale and majesty of it all - but my subjective feelings of smallness compared to the scale of the universe are hardly a good starting point in drawing conclusions about it, since these feelings are essentially arbitrary and subjective.

Ah, but since everything we expeirence is subjective, what is the difference? How does one justify putting their trust in man's ability to reason what man thinks he understands verses what one feels in their heart?...or perhaps what may be spoken to their heart by the Holy Spirit? A question man has struggled with since just after the beginning of creation. In my opinion, when man seperates himself from God.

What do you mean by this exactly? Do you mean, can the existence of emotions such as love be explained rationally? Do you mean, given its existence, can people's actions when in love be explained rationally?

I mean, given its existence, can people's actions when in love be explained rationally, and can the dynamics that determine who they love be explained? Not just the love of a mate, but the love a mother has for a child, the love of a friend, etc....the strongest type of love where someone is willing to lay down their life for the other....or acts of sympathy, even to one's mortal enemy in some cases that completely contradict rational thought.

Akron is right, perhaps we should create a new thread for this discussion since it's not realted to the flood.

[Bread_of_Life]

Everything we experience is subjective and fallible. As long as our observations are being conducted within the realm of our reality (what I mean by this is our entire existence...the grand scheme of the universe, perhaps there's a better word for this), those observations are subjective.

They are subjective, but they may be corroborated or disproved by others - this is why we involve peer review and repeatability in science.

The only truly objective view (and hence, the only one we can truly trust) then would be that of an entity that exists outside of our realm of reality, an entity that is not governed by that which controls and effects our perceptions of our own existence. A third party point of reference in other words.

Only problem is, we're not that third party - and if we have any contact with that third party, it will be through our fallible senses, and also any understanding we gain through that interaction will be interpreted and understood by our framework of logic and epistemology.

So, whatever way you look at it, we will always be relying on our own epistemology and our own understanding and our own experience for any philosophical position whatsoever, including theology, science, whatever else.

Luckily, we have the Word of God to fall back on, to study and determine what exactly is God's Truth.

Not so lcuky either, there are as many interpretations of this as there are people also - and as many arguments about it. Furthermore, there are wider arguments about exactly what the word of God is, and how many God's there are! Again, these are subjects on which we have to rely on our intellect, experience and evidence gathering abilities to make decisions on.

Ah, but since everything we expeirence is subjective, what is the difference?

Every experience is subjective, because it involves a subject. However, we have good reason to think that some experiences are caused by objective things. For example, my experience of my computer is subjective - however, I do believe that the computer causing the experience is objective.

On the other hand, my awe at the universe is subjective, but I have no reason to believe that there is actually a property of awesomeness to the universe causing this awe, rather than it simply because caused purely by subjective and arbitrary criteria in my mind. Similarly, I don't think my fiancee has an objective property of beauty causing my attraction to her - I think that there are certain subjective criteria of beauty in my mind causing me to be attracted to her.

I mean, given its existence, can people's actions when in love be explained rationally, and can the dynamics that determine who they love be explained?

These are two different questions. The answer to the first is "yes". Love is simply a very strong sort of preference - often one that overrides other preferences - and because of this it can make someone seem irrational to the naked eye.

For example, a mother saving her child from a burning building at great risk to herself may seem irrational if we assume that everyone's primary preference is self-interest and self-preservation. However, love is often a stronger preference, and therefore the mother saving her baby is actually acting rationally, given her ranking of preferences.

The second question is really one of origins. How did love come about, and why do we love who we love. The answer again is "yes", this can be explained, but the evolution of emotion, and enlightened self-interest, is really such a large topic that I'd rather not deal with it on this thread, but would rather it had a thread to itself.