Noah and the Animals

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 311 here:

Noah did not take a lab and a terrier and a wolf and a fox and a coyote aboard the Ark. He took a pair of canines, male and female, and from them come all the different groups of canines that you see today.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the above statement is true and factual.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Can someone (preferably a theist) explain to me why Abrahamic theists (almost without exception AFAICS) recoil at the use of the word "magic" in these contexts?
If a Supernatural God can do things that wouldn't be possible under the laws of physics, why isn't that simply called 'magic'? Then we can have something like Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.
We atheists can smirk all we like about how the spiny anteaters could have waddled all the way to Noah's boatyard. (and how and why the flightless birds walked all the way to Australia and New Zealand afterwards) but we atheists would then be in the position of having to accept that we simply don't know anything about, and don't even acknowledge the existence of, the realm (or magisterium, which sounds grander but means the same) of God's magical powers. The theists can shrug off all the smart-ass quibbles from us atheists with a brave and honest statement of 'Our God can do things like that because he's magic."
What's wrong with that?

A one time theist who got lots of good grades in religion class here. Is that good enough?

The term magic is generally used for acts contrary to nature that are allegedly performed by an individual's own power - a power God does not grant - or by the assistance of evil spirits, like maybe the Red Guy himself - something which is forbidden. The miracles performed by God, including those mediated by certain designees, are in the normal nature of God and do not fit into either of the above categories. [/canned answer]

[Artie]

Labels don't fit me too well. I am an individual. I believe in the type of creation that is spoken of in the first couple chapters of Genesis. I believe since the Bible says "The evening and morning were the first day" etc. that Genesis is talking about a 24 hour time period. So I believe the Earth was created in 6 24 hour days, which I guess we can call "Literal Creationism."

I see. Thanks for the clarification. When an atheist or an evolutionist is debating a Christian it's very difficult to know exactly what the Christian actually believes in because of the great variety of beliefs.

[Artie]

You obviously lack faith. God could easily have brought these animals together and fed them.

If God could create the universe He could easily have stopped the hearts of every person he wanted dead without drowning anyone causing no unnecessary suffering to humans or animals. The only conclusion must be that He actually wanted all these humans and animals to suffer the agony of drowning.

[Goat]

You say it would not be possible to populate the earth from two of each species, and yet you most likely believe in evolution, from the context. So basically you believe the entire earth was entirely populated from nothing.

Moses Yoder criticizes us for not believing that two of each kind, enough to fit on one boat, could populate the whole earth in a few thousand years. Because we do believe that in conditions far different from the current earth, abiogenesis could occur naturally over a few billion years. Do I understand correctly?

Yes, that is correct. Actually, if you can prove the earth is a few billion years old, I might believe in abiogenesis and evolution myself. I just don't have that much faith.

That has been proven, quite conclusively. However, no evidence is powerful enough for people if they have refuse to look at it and dismiss it because of their preconceptions. When people get their 'science' from groups dedicated to lie about it for religious purposes, then they get misinformation, rather than information.

[Jax Agnesson]

[/url]
A one time theist who got lots of good grades in religion class here. Is that good enough?

Good enough for me TGA. Hello, by the way. I'm new here. Looking for intelligent, mutually respectful discussion. In which respects, this forum looks good so far.

[/url]The term magic is generally used for acts contrary to nature that are allegedly performed by an individual's own power - a power God does not grant - or by the assistance of evil spirits, like maybe the Red Guy himself - something which is forbidden. The miracles performed by God, including those mediated by certain designees, are in the normal nature of God and do not fit into either of the above categories. [/canned answer]

Yes I know the term is used in this way by Christians, but not by most other English speakers. We (non-theists) don't assume that Harry Potter or Tinkerbell or whoever must be getting their magic from a forbidden source. Nor do we assume that the person performing the magic must be the source themselves. In most such spheres of story, magic is just a special kind of energy. Believers in some oother (non-Abrahamic) faiths happily use the word 'magic' to refer to the supernatural events, acts, ceremonies etc in their belief systems and practises. I am aware that the medieval RC church got extremely possessive about the question of who could/could not perform exorcisms, baptisms, divinations etc. But I would have thought a less authoritarian, more protestant, theology could perhaps rehabilitate the term.
Apart from being without God's permission or active intervention, what else distinguishes 'magic' from 'miracle' in modern Christian thought?

[Artie]

You say it would not be possible to populate the earth from two of each species, and yet you most likely believe in evolution, from the context. So basically you believe the entire earth was entirely populated from nothing.

The Minimum Viable Population needed to repopulate the Earth would be in the thousands not two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population Anyway you would need evolution of course to create the great variety of species we have on the planet today from a few thousand "kind".

[Moses Yoder]

Labels don't fit me too well. I am an individual. I believe in the type of creation that is spoken of in the first couple chapters of Genesis. I believe since the Bible says "The evening and morning were the first day" etc. that Genesis is talking about a 24 hour time period. So I believe the Earth was created in 6 24 hour days, which I guess we can call "Literal Creationism."

I see. Thanks for the clarification. When an atheist or an evolutionist is debating a Christian it's very difficult to know exactly what the Christian actually believes in because of the great variety of beliefs.

Yes. I am finding that is also true of the atheists and agnostics in this forum. Maybe we should start labeling them. All those who are fundamental atheists please stand up!

[ThatGirlAgain]

[/url]
A one time theist who got lots of good grades in religion class here. Is that good enough?

Good enough for me TGA. Hello, by the way. I'm new here. Looking for intelligent, mutually respectful discussion. In which respects, this forum looks good so far.

[/url]The term magic is generally used for acts contrary to nature that are allegedly performed by an individual's own power - a power God does not grant - or by the assistance of evil spirits, like maybe the Red Guy himself - something which is forbidden. The miracles performed by God, including those mediated by certain designees, are in the normal nature of God and do not fit into either of the above categories. [/canned answer]

Yes I know the term is used in this way by Christians, but not by most other English speakers. We (non-theists) don't assume that Harry Potter or Tinkerbell or whoever must be getting their magic from a forbidden source. Nor do we assume that the person performing the magic must be the source themselves. In most such spheres of story, magic is just a special kind of energy. Believers in some other (non-Abrahamic) faiths happily use the word 'magic' to refer to the supernatural events, acts, ceremonies etc in their belief systems and practises. I am aware that the medieval RC church got extremely possessive about the question of who could/could not perform exorcisms, baptisms, divinations etc. But I would have thought a less authoritarian, more protestant, theology could perhaps rehabilitate the term.
Apart from being without God's permission or active intervention, what else distinguishes 'magic' from 'miracle' in modern Christian thought?

Having shopped around quite a bit before settling here, I agree that this is the place to be.

Not being Baskin Robbins, I basically offer only two flavors: detailed knowledge of Catholicism and non-religious independent thinker who reads a lot. The only Protestant viewpoint I might be able to offer on magic is the one from the witch hunt days, namely that it is the devil's doing. But as far as semantics goes, is there any special reason for using the word magic in place of miracle? When speaking with those who adhere to some belief system, I have found it a more effective way of challenging those beliefs to work within their own contexts. Otherwise they are not listening.

[Moses Yoder]

[/url]
A one time theist who got lots of good grades in religion class here. Is that good enough?

Good enough for me TGA. Hello, by the way. I'm new here. Looking for intelligent, mutually respectful discussion. In which respects, this forum looks good so far.

[/url]The term magic is generally used for acts contrary to nature that are allegedly performed by an individual's own power - a power God does not grant - or by the assistance of evil spirits, like maybe the Red Guy himself - something which is forbidden. The miracles performed by God, including those mediated by certain designees, are in the normal nature of God and do not fit into either of the above categories. [/canned answer]

Yes I know the term is used in this way by Christians, but not by most other English speakers. We (non-theists) don't assume that Harry Potter or Tinkerbell or whoever must be getting their magic from a forbidden source. Nor do we assume that the person performing the magic must be the source themselves. In most such spheres of story, magic is just a special kind of energy. Believers in some oother (non-Abrahamic) faiths happily use the word 'magic' to refer to the supernatural events, acts, ceremonies etc in their belief systems and practises. I am aware that the medieval RC church got extremely possessive about the question of who could/could not perform exorcisms, baptisms, divinations etc. But I would have thought a less authoritarian, more protestant, theology could perhaps rehabilitate the term.
Apart from being without God's permission or active intervention, what else distinguishes 'magic' from 'miracle' in modern Christian thought?

The definition of "magic" according to dictionary.com;

1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.
3. the use of this art: Magic, it was believed, could drive illness from the body.
4. the effects produced: the magic of recovery.
5. power or influence exerted through this art: a wizard of great magic

I think the magic you are referring to would fit under definition #2 but notice it refers to human control of supernatural agencies. In other words, if I performed magic I would be controlling God. I think this is a theological no-no.

Miracle is defined as;

1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.
4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics

[Artie]

Yes. I am finding that is also true of the atheists and agnostics in this forum. Maybe we should start labeling them. All those who are fundamental atheists please stand up!

The reference was to all the different kinds of creationism. There are no different kinds of atheism. Atheism simply means non-belief in deities. What differs are attitudes.