2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 523:
Line 523: − + + + + + + + + + +
→"Many" atheists edit
When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down. ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it. So it is ''your'' problem to reconcile both sides, but not ''theirs''. Although your feelings are understandable, it is unjust for you to be angry with the scientists for causing you problems. They don't do it because they are evil, but because it part of the job description of what scientists do. They'd probably like you when they'd meet you.[[User:Order|Order]] 03:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down. ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it. So it is ''your'' problem to reconcile both sides, but not ''theirs''. Although your feelings are understandable, it is unjust for you to be angry with the scientists for causing you problems. They don't do it because they are evil, but because it part of the job description of what scientists do. They'd probably like you when they'd meet you.[[User:Order|Order]] 03:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:I fail to see your point about eyewitnesses. Surely "any human observation" is essentially synonymous with "eyewitness" (ignoring that one refers to the act and the other to the person).
:I fail to see your point about eyewitnesses. Surely "any human observation" is essentially synonymous with "eyewitness" (ignoring that one refers to the act and the other to the person).
::Your insistence on eyewitnesses is uselesspkoaeRHFV
::Your insistence on eyewitness reports is useless when everything is an eyewitness report. [[User:Order|Order]]
:"''From you wording it seems like you take personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''": What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.
:"''From you wording it seems like you take personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''": What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.
::What you demand of these scientists is to subject themselves to your beliefs, even though they do not share your beliefs. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:02, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:"''And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal.''": I don't read all of it literally because it wasn't meant to be read literally! If I read it the way that it was meant to be understood, how does that make it "my" reading?
:"''And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal.''": I don't read all of it literally because it wasn't meant to be read literally! If I read it the way that it was meant to be understood, how does that make it "my" reading?
::How do you know how it should be understood? You do it by interpretation. Do you think that old earthers decided to go for an interpretation which the assume to be wrong? No, they follow it because they think it is the right interpretation. Anything else inplies that they are kind of insane. [[User:Order|Order]]
:"''Take the differences between the two creation accounts...''": What so contradictory about them? One is written as a chronological sequence of creation week events, the other as a non-chronological look at the first family. There's no contradictions.
:"''Take the differences between the two creation accounts...''": What so contradictory about them? One is written as a chronological sequence of creation week events, the other as a non-chronological look at the first family. There's no contradictions.
::Thanks for explaining that there is no contradiction under this interpretation. [[User:Order|Order]]
:"''...or when it talks about the "sons of god"...''": Yes, reading a metaphor or euphemism literally can cause problems, which is why I don't do it.
:"''...or when it talks about the "sons of god"...''": Yes, reading a metaphor or euphemism literally can cause problems, which is why I don't do it.
::Thanks, for telling us under which interpretation this is correct.
:"''But if you could read the bible literally, there would be no need for apologists ...''": The reason there are apologists is not because of contradictions, but because of people claiming that it says things that it doesn't.
:"''But if you could read the bible literally, there would be no need for apologists ...''": The reason there are apologists is not because of contradictions, but because of people claiming that it says things that it doesn't.
::Yes, and they can claim this because if you take it is only correct given a certain interpretation rather than a literal reading.
:"''...scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see.''": Are you seriously claiming that atheistic scientists (i.e. the subset that is atheistic) have no motive to find explanations that exclude God? Even evolutionists will admit that Darwin's motive was to eliminate God, and this was also the motive of people like Hutton and Lyell.
:"''...scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see.''": Are you seriously claiming that atheistic scientists (i.e. the subset that is atheistic) have no motive to find explanations that exclude God? Even evolutionists will admit that Darwin's motive was to eliminate God, and this was also the motive of people like Hutton and Lyell.
::Yes, this is exactly what I am claiming. You claim that scientists have ulterior motives to bring down god. Darwin did travel around the world because he was angry with god, but because he was curious. He didn't propose his theory because he wanted to debunk the bible, but because lamarckism and catastrophism didn't explain what he saw well.
:"''And over the centuries even Christian scientist had to accept that the bible is not a great book when it comes to science.''": Only the ones that have been taken in by the atheistic ideas of Hutton, Darwin, etc.
:"''And over the centuries even Christian scientist had to accept that the bible is not a great book when it comes to science.''": Only the ones that have been taken in by the atheistic ideas of Hutton, Darwin, etc.
::Even Christian has to accept that. Catastrophism, for example, lost out in an almost 100% Christian environment because it didn't explain the observed facts very well, not because people turned atheist. Scientist really tried hard to make it work, but they couldn't.
:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.
:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.
::No, sometimes it is correct, sometimes its incorrect.
:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.
:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.
:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''": Which scientists are you talking about? In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive. That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.
:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''": Which scientists are you talking about? In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive. That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 4 December 2007 (EST)
::This is kind of absurd. Atheists really do not believe that the bible is the infallible word of god. They think that it is a myth. And none of their findings contradicts this view. And when it comes to Christian Old Earthers, they also do not discover anything that contradict an old earth interpretation. All that they do is propose theories that contradict your views. But you assume that they do it for some ulterior motive, propose something that they know is wrong, just to discredit god. Why is is so difficult to accept that people who do not share your belief can have good intentions? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:02, 4 December 2007 (EST)
==Tides and the earth-moon distance==
==Tides and the earth-moon distance==