nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 517:
Line 517: − + Line 524:
Line 524: + + + + + + + + + − + +
→"Many" atheists edit: More on what the Bible says, and other things.
Philip, your answer touches quite a few subjects, so I'll restrict myself to a few aspects. First, you should at some point decide what an "eyewitness" is. While you demanded first that events had to be observed in the present, you now call anybody an "eyewitness" who measures indirect evidence in the present. This is so broad a definition, it covers any human observation. And you also seem like to underestimate the value of archeology, and overestimate the value of eyewitness accounts. But thats an aside.
Philip, your answer touches quite a few subjects, so I'll restrict myself to a few aspects. First, you should at some point decide what an "eyewitness" is. While you demanded first that events had to be observed in the present, you now call anybody an "eyewitness" who measures indirect evidence in the present. This is so broad a definition, it covers any human observation. And you also seem like to underestimate the value of archeology, and overestimate the value of eyewitness accounts. But thats an aside.
But the important point in your reply is the last point. From you wording it seems like you take personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of tB'[3ONLhe bible. And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal. And I am not just talking about the parables. The bible is not a book that lends itself for literal reading. Sometimes it is difficult to know if something is a parable at all. But more important, sometimes a literal reading of the book leads to inconsistencies and absurdities. Take the differences between the two creation accounts, or when it talks about the "sons of god", or god losing against Jacob. There have been books been written by apologists about why these are not inconsistencies and absurdities. And the apologists might even be right. But if you could read the bible literally, there would be no need for apologists telling us how read it. The book itself would be sufficient.
But the important point in your reply is the last point. From you wording it seems like you take personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible. And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal. And I am not just talking about the parables. The bible is not a book that lends itself for literal reading. Sometimes it is difficult to know if something is a parable at all. But more important, sometimes a literal reading of the book leads to inconsistencies and absurdities. Take the differences between the two creation accounts, or when it talks about the "sons of god", or god losing against Jacob. There have been books been written by apologists about why these are not inconsistencies and absurdities. And the apologists might even be right. But if you could read the bible literally, there would be no need for apologists telling us how read it. The book itself would be sufficient.
Anyway, you seem to be angry with the scientists for proposing an old earth. However, 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. And over the centuries even Christian scientist had to accept that the bible is not a great book when it comes to science. It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions. There is no accurate prediction of the background radiation, it doesn't explain electromagnetism, nor a useful classification of mammals, it is silent on prime number factorization, etc. Attempts at biblical science might be an intellectual stimulating subject, but even the biblical scientists looks first at the observed facts and then into the bible if he can reconcile the facts with scripture, and not the other way round.
Anyway, you seem to be angry with the scientists for proposing an old earth. However, 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. And over the centuries even Christian scientist had to accept that the bible is not a great book when it comes to science. It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions. There is no accurate prediction of the background radiation, it doesn't explain electromagnetism, nor a useful classification of mammals, it is silent on prime number factorization, etc. Attempts at biblical science might be an intellectual stimulating subject, but even the biblical scientists looks first at the observed facts and then into the bible if he can reconcile the facts with scripture, and not the other way round.
: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 eyewitness reports is useless when everything is an eyewitness report. [[User:Order|Order]]
::Your insistence on eyewitness reports is useless when everything is an eyewitness report. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: The claims of scientists regarding the Big Bang, fish turning into amphibians, dinosaurs into birds, and a whole host of other such claims are ''not'' eyewitness reports. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:"''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]]
::What you demand of these scientists is to subject themselves to your beliefs, even though they do not share your beliefs. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: No, but I expect them to recognise and acknowledge that they are ''beliefs'', not ''scientific facts'', and therefore not claim, whether explicitly or implicitly, that the Bible is wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 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 they assume to be wrong? No, they follow it, because they think that it is the right interpretation. Anything else implies that they are kind of insane. [[User:Order|Order]]
::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 they assume to be wrong? No, they follow it, because they think that it is the right interpretation. Anything else implies that they are kind of insane. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: How does anyone know how any language should be understood? How do you understand what I'm typing here? You familiarise yourself with the way words are used and sentences are constructed. In Genesis, the word for day (''yom''), when used with a number, or with the word morning, or with the word evening (and it is used with all three in Genesis) ''only ever'' means an ordinary day. And the Hebrew experts agree on this (see [[Creation Week]]). Furthermore, the believers in an old Earth acknowledge that they do so for extra-biblical reasons: see [[Old Earth Creationism]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:"''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]]
::Thanks for explaining that there is no contradiction under this interpretation. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: Well, you have not provided any evidence of any contradictions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:"''...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. [[User:Order|Order]]
::Thanks, for telling us under which interpretation this is correct. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: That's reading it the way it was meant to be read. It's not an optional "interpretation". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:"''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 it is only correct given a certain interpretation rather than under a straightforward literal reading.[[User:Order|Order]]
::Yes, and they can claim this, because it is only correct given a certain interpretation rather than under a straightforward literal reading.[[User:Order|Order]]
::: No, they claim it because they want to find fault with the Bible. I've seen so many absolutely ridiculous arguments... They are searching for any possible contradiction or discrepancy that they will argue from silence, read metaphor literally (and accuse us of being the literalists!), etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:"''...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 as ulterior motives to bring down god. Darwin did not 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 very well.
::Yes, this is exactly what I am claiming. You claim that scientists have as ulterior motives to bring down god. Darwin did not 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 very well.
::: Then you have an impossibly-high opinion of scientists as being totally objective, and are wrong, as I already mentioned that even evolutionists admit that this was Darwin's motive. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:"''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 had 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. Scientists really tried hard to make it work, but they couldn't.[[User:Order|Order]]
::Even Christian had 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. Scientists really tried hard to make it work, but they couldn't.[[User:Order|Order]]
::: Catastrophism lost out because people such as Hutton ''deemed'' it to be wrong, and the ''evidence'' has led to a partial return to catastrophism. So you have that back to front. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:"''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. And the knowledge in it is patchy. It doesn't tell us how the moon sun or starts were made, only that it happened. Is say not much about geology, nothing about how rock formations, clay, granite, minerals, natural resources were formed. And physics is mostly absent, just like mathematics. [[User:Order|Order]]
::No, sometimes it is correct, sometimes its incorrect. And the knowledge in it is patchy. It doesn't tell us how the moon sun or starts were made, only that it happened. Is say not much about geology, nothing about how rock formations, clay, granite, minerals, natural resources were formed. And physics is mostly absent, just like mathematics. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: Oh, where, pray tell, is it "incorrect"? It does tell us how they were made; by God's Word. I agree that it doesn't go into a lot of detail, but the question was whether or not it was incorrect. It does say, in general terms, how many of the rocks were made—by a global flood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 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.''": 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)
::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)
::: I didn't say that the atheists ''believed'' it, rather, the opposite, that their views contradict their "reading" of it. That is, just like me, when the Bible says that God made the world in six days, they believe that it means six ordinary days. We both agree on that. What we disagree on is whether or not that is correct. I believe that it is; they believe that it isn't. In contrast, the old-Earth creationists believe that the "six days" is wrong, so "interpret" the "six days" to mean "millions of years" so that they can thereby continue to think that the Bible is correct. I'm not impugning their intentions; I'm criticising their presumptions and methods. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Philip (and Order), while not directly relating to this subject, I see that you are interested in the Bible and in knowing what other people think. I suggest you go to www.vatican.va : it is a wealth of information. While I understand people may not like Catholicism or the Pope, Catholic Church is not only about the Pope. Centuries of theologians and christian scientists (just consider the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) have studied both the Bible and the World around us, and they have accumulated an incredible wealth of knowledge, even if both non Catholic Christians and Atheists obviously disagree with some of their conclusions. It is really worth, for everybody. I don't dispute that some Christians prefer to read the Bible by themselves, but reading what others have done with passion for years can't be bad, can it? And no, I am not taking a stance in this diatribe between you and [[User:Order|Order]].[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:58, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Philip (and Order), while not directly relating to this subject, I see that you are interested in the Bible and in knowing what other people think. I suggest you go to www.vatican.va : it is a wealth of information. While I understand people may not like Catholicism or the Pope, Catholic Church is not only about the Pope. Centuries of theologians and christian scientists (just consider the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) have studied both the Bible and the World around us, and they have accumulated an incredible wealth of knowledge, even if both non Catholic Christians and Atheists obviously disagree with some of their conclusions. It is really worth, for everybody. I don't dispute that some Christians prefer to read the Bible by themselves, but reading what others have done with passion for years can't be bad, can it? And no, I am not taking a stance in this diatribe between you and [[User:Order|Order]].[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:58, 4 December 2007 (EST)
: Whilst I appreciate your intentions and tone, what you've done is known as "elephant hurling", in referring to an entire website to make a point. If you want to link to a specific article on that site, I'll have a look at it, but otherwise I'm not going to bother. And for the record, I'm basing what I'm saying not just on my own reading of the Bible, but on that of many others who have studied this issue in great detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
==Tides and the earth-moon distance==
==Tides and the earth-moon distance==