Changes

::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::::: Continuing around the circle...  No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible.  I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism.  And I'm not calling everything else atheistic.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::::: Continuing around the circle...  No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible.  I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism.  And I'm not calling everything else atheistic.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.

::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.

::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed.  Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago.  The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time.  Time itself began 6,000 years ago.  It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins.  That's nonsense.

::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed.  Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago.  The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time.  Time itself began 6,000 years ago.  It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins.  That's nonsense.

::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical.  And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical.  And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer.  I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc.  I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer.  I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc.  I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago.  The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable".  So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.

::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago.  The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable".  So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.

::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events.  This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events.  This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says.  If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it?  Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?

::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says.  If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it?  Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?

::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs.  I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it.  Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible.  You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent.  Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.

::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs.  I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it.  Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible.  You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent.  Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.

:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday.  I observed it yesterday.  That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''.  But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday.  I observed it yesterday.  That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''.  But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==