Science vs. Faith

[Anchor of Life]

The conflicts between science and the Church are not real.  Faith is not an obstacle to research.  Faith is not contrary to the dignity of science.  Faith is not discredited by history.  Science itself points to an all-wise and all-powerful Creator.  There can be no real conflict between the facts of the Bible and the facts of science, since God was the Author of both.  Have you ever asked yourself where those laws of nature came from?  They didn't just happen by chance; they were established by God.  In other words, God not only created the physical "stuff" of the universe; He also established the laws that govern it.  

"Faith and reason are of mutual help to each other: by reason, well applied, the foundations of faith are established, and, in the light of faith, the science of Divinity is built up.  Faith, on the other hand frees and preserves reason from error and enriches it with knowledge.  The Church, therefore, far from hindering the pursuit of arts and sciences, fosters and promotes them in many ways. . . . Nor does she prevent sciences, each in its sphere, from making use of their own principles and methods.  Yet, while acknowledging the freedom due to them, she tries to preserve them from falling into errors contrary to Divine doctrine, and from overstepping their own boundaries and throwing into confusion matters that belong to the domain of faith.  The doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not placed before the human mind for further elaboration, like a philosophical system; it is a Divine deposit, handed over to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared.  Hence, the meaning once given to a sacred dogma by holy mother Church is to be maintained forever and not to be departed from under pretext of more profound understanding.  Let knowledge, science and wisdom grow with the course of times and centuries, in individuals as well as in the community, in each man as in the whole Church, but in the proper manner, i.e., in the same dogma, in the same meaning, in the same understanding."  (Declaration of the Vatican Council [Sess. III, de fide, c. 4])

http://www.billygraham.com/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=86
http://www.billygraham.com/MyAnswer_Art ... cleID=1662
http://www.billygraham.com/MyAnswer_Art ... cleID=3134
http://www.billygraham.com/MyAnswer_Art ... cleID=3952
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm

[Scully]

What are these "facts" in the Bible of which you speak?

You do realize that it was MAN who was the author of the Bible, don't you?

[Electric Monk]

Have you ever asked yourself where those laws of nature came from?

Yes, I have. It turns out that they are essentially just the simplest way that a universe can be put together, a result of underlying symmetries. I recommend this book, The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do The Laws of Physics Come From? by Dr. Victor J. Stenger.

--James

[Chachacha]

Lord knows nobody's perfect, but I prefer not to consider anything that Billy Graham says after reading this:

Selected Oval Office tape recordings surrendered by Nixon in August 1974 confirmed his culpability in the Watergate scandal, leading to his resignation. In later years, more tapes have been released, the latest on February 28 by the National Archives. In one tape, the noted evangelist shares sharp anti-Jewish observations with Nixon. Longtime acquaintances of Billy Graham said they were stunned and disappointed by his words. The White House discussion came after a prayer breakfast in February 1972.

In the taped conversation, Graham was agreeing with Nixon's earlier comments on Jews when he said, "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain."

"You believe that?" Nixon asked in response.

"Yes, sir," Graham replied.

"Oh boy. So do I," replied Nixon. "I can't ever say that but I believe it."

"No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something," Graham responded. (The Watergate Hotel burglary of the Democratic national headquarters took place on June 17, 1972. Nixon was reelected that November.)

The evangelist also described Jewish friends in the media who "swarm around me and are friendly to me. Because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth." But he added, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them."

Nixon then advised him, "You must not let them know."

When asked recently about his statements, the 83-year-old Graham said that although he could not recall the discussion, "I deeply regret comments I apparently made in an Oval Office conversation with President Nixon and Mr. [H. R.] Haldeman some 30 years ago. They do not reflect my views and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-84434041.html

Graham has repeatedly said how disappointed he is in Nixon's betrayal of his confidences.   Isn't that what that other preacher said about the female prostitute he used to see AND the other preacher about the male prostitute he used to see and the other preacher who raped that woman?

[snooziums]

Science itself points to an all-wise and all-powerful Creator.

Really?  No, science does not point to any divine force.

Have you ever asked yourself where those laws of nature came from?  They didn't just happen by chance; they were established by God.  In other words, God not only created the physical "stuff" of the universe; He also established the laws that govern it.  

Then who created "God," and who created the laws that God lives by?

Then again, which "God"?

Faith hinders reason.  Reason is questioning existence, and looking for answers.  That is incompatible with faith.

Thus far, there have been no scientific discoveries that even suggest the existence of a "higher power."

[Articulett]

Thanks cha...

I suspect the commentary holds true for many Christians...

AOL frequently quotes Graham... He's very indoctrinated.  It's scary that people think that faith and the faithful are speaking "truths".  People clearly believe some very crazy things not supported at all by evidence.  And it wouldn't be quite so scary, but it is immune to logic and they demonize those who do not believe as they do in order to keep the faith.

[Chachacha]

Thanks cha...

I suspect the commentary holds true for many Christians...

It's a love/hate thing.  Many of them still hate Jews for "killing Jesus" but they support Israel because Jews must be in Jerusalem to tear down the Mosque and rebuild the temple for Armageddon to occur.

[Chachacha]

By the way, Anchor of Life, thank you for citing all your sources.  Much appreciated.

[Articulett]

Thanks cha...

I suspect the commentary holds true for many Christians...

It's a love/hate thing.  Many of them still hate Jews for "killing Jesus" but they support Israel because Jews must be in Jerusalem to tear down the Mosque and rebuild the temple for Armageddon to occur.

They always forget the part about it being god's plan for the jews to kill Jesus...that way god wouldn't have to punish people forever for that dang women eating the apple...  !

[Jay Hoover]

Thanks cha...

I suspect the commentary holds true for many Christians...

It's a love/hate thing.  Many of them still hate Jews for "killing Jesus" but they support Israel because Jews must be in Jerusalem to tear down the Mosque and rebuild the temple for Armageddon to occur.

They always forget the part about it being god's plan for the jews to kill Jesus...that way god wouldn't have to punish people forever for that dang women eating the apple...  !

Judas in microcosm.

Jesus needs someone to betray him.  According to an eternal plan, Judas is required to fulfill that role.  Without Judas, it don't happen.  So what is Judas's reward?  Hanged, guts spilled, reviled throughout history.

On its best day, Christianity is weird and insane.

[Chachacha]

Thanks cha...

I suspect the commentary holds true for many Christians...

It's a love/hate thing.  Many of them still hate Jews for "killing Jesus" but they support Israel because Jews must be in Jerusalem to tear down the Mosque and rebuild the temple for Armageddon to occur.

They always forget the part about it being god's plan for the jews to kill Jesus...that way god wouldn't have to punish people forever for that dang women eating the apple...  !

Why do we blame those that are just carrying out God's will? Eve, the people of Sodomy and Gonorrhea, whoever pissed him off when he flooded the world, the Catholics, the Muslims, Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer .... all are just players in God's play, why do we condemn them, why not thank them for following God's direction and applaud their excellent performances?

[ruben lopez]

I got a memo from god saying he was just a figment of our collective imagination.

[Major Malfunction]

When it comes to writing, God's a fantastic physicist.

[ruprecht]

Lord knows nobody's perfect, but I prefer not to consider anything that Billy Graham says after reading this

yeah but he sure put on some good rock concerts down there in San Fran.

[Kahalachan]

The conflicts between science and the Church are not real.  Faith is not an obstacle to research.  Faith is not contrary to the dignity of science.  Faith is not discredited by history.  Science itself points to an all-wise and all-powerful Creator.  There can be no real conflict between the facts of the Bible and the facts of science, since God was the Author of both.  Have you ever asked yourself where those laws of nature came from?  They didn't just happen by chance; they were established by God.  In other words, God not only created the physical "stuff" of the universe; He also established the laws that govern it.  

"Faith and reason are of mutual help to each other: by reason, well applied, the foundations of faith are established, and, in the light of faith, the science of Divinity is built up.  Faith, on the other hand frees and preserves reason from error and enriches it with knowledge.  The Church, therefore, far from hindering the pursuit of arts and sciences, fosters and promotes them in many ways. . . . Nor does she prevent sciences, each in its sphere, from making use of their own principles and methods.  Yet, while acknowledging the freedom due to them, she tries to preserve them from falling into errors contrary to Divine doctrine, and from overstepping their own boundaries and throwing into confusion matters that belong to the domain of faith.  The doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not placed before the human mind for further elaboration, like a philosophical system; it is a Divine deposit, handed over to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared.  Hence, the meaning once given to a sacred dogma by holy mother Church is to be maintained forever and not to be departed from under pretext of more profound understanding.  Let knowledge, science and wisdom grow with the course of times and centuries, in individuals as well as in the community, in each man as in the whole Church, but in the proper manner, i.e., in the same dogma, in the same meaning, in the same understanding."  (Declaration of the Vatican Council [Sess. III, de fide, c. 4])

http://www.billygraham.com/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=86
http://www.billygraham.com/MyAnswer_Art ... cleID=1662
http://www.billygraham.com/MyAnswer_Art ... cleID=3134
http://www.billygraham.com/MyAnswer_Art ... cleID=3952
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm

I have to say a big NO to what you posted.  Science does not point to a creator because that is outside of science.  

Consider all methods we use to determine intelligence.  SETI or archaeological evidence of humans compares uncanny signals to the background "noise" of nature.  We try to find things that stick out.  When assessing all of nature, we'd have to find another non-intelligently designed universe to compare.  We'd have to know these were the only universes and ours isn't ideal because there's tons of universes out there.

Also, how do we assess human intelligence, power, or benevolence?  This is the greatest intelligence we can test.  

Would we give a god an infinite number of IQ tests and have him score perfectly?  Or make god lift weights to demonstrate power?  An MMPI to see how nice his personality is?

Honestly, we're still strugging to understand humans.  Far be it from us to try and claim knowledge through science of something much greater than humans.


Sorry, the Bible has tons of questionable stuff.  Rabbits chewing cud or bats = birds?   No.  It doesn't convince me of a scientific document.

Why do people who believe the Bible is inspired by god try so hard to make it sound scientific?  Could god not be a poet?  Could god not write absurdities like Dr. Seuss or morbid stuff like Edgar Allen Poe?

If you consider maybe the 2nd most powerful collection of literature that impacted society, the works of Shakespeare, maybe god knew we like fictional stories and are moved by them?

Honestly, which is more important to you as far as the Creation story?  A talking snake and a garden guarded by a fiery sword?  Or the lesson that we don't make decisions based on greed and listen to those who know best?

[sciwoman]

"Yet, while acknowledging the freedom due to them, she tries to preserve them from falling into errors contrary to Divine doctrine, and from overstepping their own boundaries and throwing into confusion matters that belong to the domain of faith.

And there's the problem.  Faith wants to tell science what to study, when to study it, and just how far it can go in that study so that it's doctrine will not be challenged.  Let science challenge faith on any level, and faith does everything within it's power to stop science dead in it's tracks.  Fortunately, in the west, that now only means screaming, pitching a fit, and calling in favors from the government officials they have bought.  It used to mean getting the secular authority to persecute, and sometimes kill, those who crossed it.  Science and faith are not compatible.

[mater deum]

Well put, sciwoman.  Heretics everywhere thank you.

[sciwoman]

Thank you, mater.  Someone had to speak up for all the heretics whose sacrifices helped shape the world as we know it today.

[mater deum]

BTW, I really like the first http://www.billygraham.com article.  (sarcasm)

Basically, ol' Billy says that religion isn't anti-intellectual and that the 'proof' of a God is the perfection in the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ".  Uh-huh, an imaginary person who allegedly lived 2000 years ago is 'proof' we all need.

I wonder if people in the future will actually believe in  the literal 'truth' of Harry Potter and his battle against the Dark Lord, Vol-   I mean, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

[ruprecht]

"Yet, while acknowledging the freedom due to them, she tries to preserve them from falling into errors contrary to Divine doctrine, and from overstepping their own boundaries and throwing into confusion matters that belong to the domain of faith.

And there's the problem.  Faith wants to tell science what to study, when to study it, and just how far it can go in that study so that it's doctrine will not be challenged.  Let science challenge faith on any level, and faith does everything within it's power to stop science dead in it's tracks.  Fortunately, in the west, that now only means screaming, pitching a fit, and calling in favors from the government officials they have bought.  It used to mean getting the secular authority to persecute, and sometimes kill, those who crossed it.  Science and faith are not compatible.

I'm interested to know if Dawkins has evidence for his selfish penguins pushing in other penguins as a predator test.

where is Dawkins' evidence on that, or is he asking us to believe a myth, as support for his "science"?

If he is asking us to believe a myth, what's the difference between myth-propagator and myth-propagator ?

Oh, wait  minute...maybe we shouldn't ask those kinds of questions ...maybe we should have faith in this "science".

Do you believe in the selfish penguin myth ? or is it a myth at all...WHERE"S THE EVIDENCE ????? That will tell us if we are swallowing a load of BS or not.

[snooziums]

You know, Richard Dawkins does not represent the entire scientific community, not does he represent the entire atheist community.

And yes, we are to question any scientific discovery/report/review.  That is the whole point of peer-reviewed work.

Yes, "faith" in science can be bad.  The idea is to always question everything you know, and to be open to new possibilities.  That is what it means to have an open-mind.

[IlluSionS667]

Yes, "faith" in science can be bad.  The idea is to always question everything you know, and to be open to new possibilities.  That is what it means to have an open-mind.

Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, the open mind of the late 19th century scientist has become a very rare commodity in today's Orwellian society.

[ruprecht]

I know he does not represent the entire scientific community. He is one of the biggest names in the current battle, though, so it would be very interesting if he is knee deep in the same muck as any other preacher.


Since Sciwoman knows about Dawkins, I thought I would ask about her belief system, as she has so well spoken on the other side's deficiencies.

Then, if we find that the whole thing is  just Dawky make-believe, we are further ahead, knowing the source is not presenting good science in his books, and we also can disillusion ourselves about his method and the care taken to tell the truth - and we should then be very cautious indeed if he is such a BS distributor, not much better than a Breatharian. But much worse in a way, because so many BELIEVE him, and think that  he has thoroughly checked out his information and so on. If it were so, that he is diligent,, then we could reasonably go along with his story.

If we find it is not supported, then we can place him with the other BS who grasp at straws to support their theories, who won't expose their own mistakes, etc etc..

So, most importantly: has he talked about his this ? If this was not factual information, then he can redeem himself by exposing it well.

[ruprecht]

Yes, "faith" in science can be bad.  The idea is to always question everything you know, and to be open to new possibilities.  That is what it means to have an open-mind.

Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, this atittude has become rare in both the scientific community and regular society. The open mind of the late 19th century scientist has become a very rare commodity.

agreed.

[Anchor of Life]

True science is not opposed to the Bible.  In fact, science, properly applied and understood, proves the Bible to be inspired.  The Bible is not a science book.  However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.  The Bible is not a geography book or an archaeology book.  However, whenever the Bible makes a statement relating to these sciences, it is completely accurate.  The Bible is accurate in matters of science, and it is accurate in the matter of salvation.

http://www.tftw2.org/Articles/scienceprovesbible.htm

[sciwoman]

Since Sciwoman knows about Dawkins, I thought I would ask about her belief system, as she has so well spoken on the other side's deficiencies.

I don't speak for Prof. Dawkins.  But I do think that he has made his opinion of faith and religion quite clear.  When it comes to science, his own words, both spoken and written, are also quite clear.

The reason I can speak to the other side's deficiencies is because I used to be on the other side-no one knows the other side like someone who's been there.  If you've seen the documentary Jesus Camp, just imagine one of those kids all grown up and you've got a general idea of what I used to be like.  

As to my belief system, it depends on what you are talking about.  In regards to science, I think it is the best paradigm that humanity has for answering questions-not perfect because we are after all talking about flawed humans who "do" science.  In regards to faith, well, for some it may be useful on a personal level, but overall, it has done little but hold humanity back-roundly condemning every step forward that humanity has ever tried to make.

[ruprecht]

thank you Sciwoman. To answer my question about Dawkins and the penguins does not require you to speak for him, it only requires that you know what he has said about the penguins. Is there evidence that he has presented ? Or NO EVIDENCE ?  ( if you know ).

thanks,
Rupy

look here please  
http://drbeetle.homestead.com/dawkins.html

faith in scientific knowledge is little different than any other faith. the "scientific community" also attacks what is against their belief system. Like this:  

It was in Munich, in 1992, that researchers began a huge project to investigate the contents of mummies. When as part of their studies, they wanted to test for drugs, it was no surprise that they turned to toxicologist Dr Svelta Balabanova for help.

As the inventor of groundbreaking new methods for the detection of drugs in hair and sweat, she was highly respected in her field. Dr Balabanova took samples from the mummies, which she pulverised and dissolved to make a solution. As she'd done countless times before, she ran the samples through a system which uses antibodies to detect the presence of drugs an other substances. Then as a backup the samples were put through the GCMS machine which can accurately identify substances by determining their molecular weight. As the graph emerged with peaks showing that drugs were present, and as the printer spewed out the analysis of just which drugs, something seemed to have gone very wrong.

DR SVETLA BALABANOVA - Institute of Forensic Medicine, Ulm:
"The first positive results, of course, were a shock for me. I had not expected to find nicotine and cocaine but that's what happened. I was absolutely sure it must be a mistake."

NARRATOR:
Balabanova ran the tests again. She sent fresh samples to three other labs. But the results kept being confirmed. The drugs were there. So she went ahead and published a paper. The reaction was a sharp reminder that science is a conservative world.

DR SVETLA BALABANOVA - Institute of Forensic Medicine, Ulm:
"I got a pile of letters that were almost threatening, insulting letters saying it was nonsense, that I was fantasising, that it was impossible, because it was proven that before Columbus these plants were not found anywhere in the world outside of the Americas."

NARRATOR:
From toxicologists to anthropologists - everyone thought the same

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/mummies.htm

[sciwoman]

Ruprecht, off the top of my head, I don't recall what he has said about penquins.  I'll have to do some searching and get back to you.

[ruprecht]

Ruprecht, off the top of my head, I don't recall what he has said about penquins.  I'll have to do some searching and get back to you.

thank you Sciwoman

[Kahalachan]

True science is not opposed to the Bible.  In fact, science, properly applied and understood, proves the Bible to be inspired.  The Bible is not a science book.  However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.  The Bible is not a geography book or an archaeology book.  However, whenever the Bible makes a statement relating to these sciences, it is completely accurate.  The Bible is accurate in matters of science, and it is accurate in the matter of salvation.

http://www.tftw2.org/Articles/scienceprovesbible.htm

Only with post hoc reasoning.

You know of a specific science then look to the Bible to find some poetic or ambiguous phrase that would appear to support it.

It's never done the other way around where people say "The Bible makes this claim" and then tests it to find it true.

Aside from a few historical exceptions like a king Xerxes actually existing and things like that.  

I could do the same with Aesop's fables

The tortoise and the hare didn't literally have a race. You see this shows the scientific fact that tortoises live longer than hares due to a slower metabolism.  So in the race of life Aesop was scientifically correct that the tortoise beats the hare by pacing itself.

[ifort]

True science is not opposed to the Bible.  In fact, science, properly applied and understood, proves the Bible to be inspired.  The Bible is not a science book.  However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.

Err, no. Example:

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

To my knowledge no such creature exists. A triviality, but it does mean that it is non completely accurate.

[Anchor of Life]

True science is not opposed to the Bible.  In fact, science, properly applied and understood, proves the Bible to be inspired.  The Bible is not a science book.  However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.

Err, no. Example:

Some examples of the harmony between science and the Bible:  http://www.tftw2.org/Articles/scienceprovesbible.htm

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

To my knowledge no such creature exists. A triviality, but it does mean that it is non completely accurate.

What is not accurate is the translation that you used.  The King James Version of the Bible is an unreliable, or less reliable edition.  Some scholars working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions regard the KJV as an inferior English translation of the Bible.  For example, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has written:  "The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us!"  More reliable modern English Bibles that you could have used include the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, and the New Living Translation.  "You must not eat winged insects that walk along the ground; they are detestable to you."  (Leviticus 11:20)

[Antipodes]

Anchor of Life said: The conflicts between science and the Church are not real. Faith is not an obstacle to research. Faith is not contrary to the dignity of science. Faith is not discredited by history. Science itself points to an all-wise and all-powerful Creator. There can be no real conflict between the facts of the Bible and the facts of science, since God was the Author of both.

Wow! A man after my own heart.

[ruprecht]

True science is not opposed to the Bible.  In fact, science, properly applied and understood, proves the Bible to be inspired.  The Bible is not a science book.  However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.

Err, no. Example:

Some examples of the harmony between science and the Bible:  http://www.tftw2.org/Articles/scienceprovesbible.htm

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

To my knowledge no such creature exists. A triviality, but it does mean that it is non completely accurate.

What is not accurate is the translation that you used.  The King James Version of the Bible is an unreliable, or less reliable edition.  Some scholars working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions regard the KJV as an inferior English translation of the Bible.  For example, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has written:  "The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us!"  More reliable modern English Bibles that you could have used include the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, and the New Living Translation.  "You must not eat winged insects that walk along the ground; they are detestable to you."  (Leviticus 11:20)

So God allowed things to get messed up in translation, huh ? Many people would be misled by mistranslation. I suppose you are not  of those who think that the writing of the scriptures was guided by the hand of God ? THAT particular translation would not be called accurate. Is it the Bible or not ?...or is it a faulty Bible?

[ifort]

"You must not eat winged insects that walk along the ground; they are detestable to you."  (Leviticus 11:20)

In my language it says four legged bugs. Still, no such creature exists.

[mater deum]

AoL:  Where are the cud chewing hares?  Talking donkeys?  Race of giants?  Proof of god's strength greater than your average unicorn? Etc, etc, etc.

[snooziums]

Bible makes a statement relating to these sciences, it is completely accurate.  The Bible is accurate in matters of science...

Okay, so where are the fossils of the giants that lived before the Great Flood?  If they existed, there would be fossils.

Where is the ruins of the Tower of Babel?  If it is as massive as described in the bible, then its ruins would be easily found.

Where is the evidence that there was a Great Flood?  And if two of every species were taken on the Ark, the Ark would have to be MUCH larger than it is described in the Bible.

And if two of every species was taken, then what about the animal sacrifices that were done just after the flood waters receded?  Where did those animals come from?

[snooziums]

What is not accurate is the translation that you used.  The King James Version of the Bible is an unreliable, or less reliable edition. ...  More reliable modern English Bibles that you could have used include the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, and the New Living Translation.

You must love the Catholic Church, since it was in the process of all of those versions EXCEPT the King James Version.

And if the Bible is truly written by God, then how come he does not just write a new version and have it drop down from the heavens into the Earth?  IN fact, why did not God actually pin the earliest versions of the Bible.

Maybe God is illiterate?

[ruprecht]

And if two of every species were taken on the Ark, the Ark would have to be MUCH larger than it is described in the Bible.

And if two of every species was taken, then what about the animal sacrifices that were done just after the flood waters receded?  Where did those animals come from?

snooz, unfortunately, "two of each 'species' " was not the wording anywhere, and even the bible says perhaps seven or fourteen clean "types" of "beasts".

here's some apologist stuff.

   ‘Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.’

In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.

more http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... nimals.asp  

and...I seem to remember that some "giant" remains have been found...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus

it does seem a bit unfair to expect  the biblers to come up with stuff similar what  scientists can only find very rarely.

[Raskolnikov]

I think Skeptics need to learn their Bible versions. The default text to choose is the New International version, and its also the default version available here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

The NIV gets updated regularly, by a high quality team of translators who report to a multi-denominational committee. Translation ambiguities show up in footnotes, and will flag variations in texts. It isn't completely objective when it comes to interpreting texts, but its far and away the best version out there for English speakers who want an accurate translation.