Changes

::::You admitted before that scientific observations are eyewitness reports. It seem that you reject that scientists make any deduction from these observations. A crime scene investigator can come to the site of an accident and witness that a car is wrapped around a tree, but you don't want them to conclude from this that a car accident happened the day before, because they didn't see it happen. This is no different from archaeologist arriving at an excavation site. I am not sure why you only want to accept eyewitness reports as evidence, and not other kinds of evidence, but for the sake of argument lets assume that nothing can be assumed to have happened unless there is a first person account of the event. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::You admitted before that scientific observations are eyewitness reports. It seem that you reject that scientists make any deduction from these observations. A crime scene investigator can come to the site of an accident and witness that a car is wrapped around a tree, but you don't want them to conclude from this that a car accident happened the day before, because they didn't see it happen. This is no different from archaeologist arriving at an excavation site. I am not sure why you only want to accept eyewitness reports as evidence, and not other kinds of evidence, but for the sake of argument lets assume that nothing can be assumed to have happened unless there is a first person account of the event. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::: I'm not rejecting that scientists can make deductions; I'm rejecting that those deductions have the same veracity as the observations.  I'm rejecting that scientists can claim as scientific fact that dinosaurs turned into birds 65 million years ago yet dismiss biblical records as "religious", when the reality is that the Bible contains what are strongly arguably eyewitness accounts whereas the bird evolution is not an observation, but a deduction based more on ideology that observation.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: I'm not rejecting that scientists can make deductions; I'm rejecting that those deductions have the same veracity as the observations.  I'm rejecting that scientists can claim as scientific fact that dinosaurs turned into birds 65 million years ago yet dismiss biblical records as "religious", when the reality is that the Bible contains what are strongly arguably eyewitness accounts whereas the bird evolution is not an observation, but a deduction based more on ideology that observation.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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]]  

::::Most will be happy to concede that your statements are "beliefs" and not "scienitifc fact". Isn't it you who doesn't distinguish between belief and scientific fact? Anyway, what gives you the right to demand from them to not present scientific theories that oppose you beliefs? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::Most will be happy to concede that your statements are "beliefs" and not "scienitifc fact". Isn't it you who doesn't distinguish between belief and scientific fact? Anyway, what gives you the right to demand from them to not present scientific theories that oppose you beliefs? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::: I do distinguish between belief and "scientific fact", but I reject that things like evolution are scientific fact: they are belief, but although they, as you say, will be happy to "concede" ("claim" would be more accurate) that my statements are beliefs, they won't admit this of their own statements.  I'm not rejecting their right to propose scientific theories that oppose my beliefs.  I'm rejecting their right to propose atheistic beliefs as scientific facts.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: I do distinguish between belief and "scientific fact", but I reject that things like evolution are scientific fact: they are belief, but although they, as you say, will be happy to "concede" ("claim" would be more accurate) that my statements are beliefs, they won't admit this of their own statements.  I'm not rejecting their right to propose scientific theories that oppose my beliefs.  I'm rejecting their right to propose atheistic beliefs as scientific facts.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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]]

::::You act under the assumption that I want to convince you that your interpretation is wrong. But that is not my intention, so there is no need to go over all the apologist arguments again. I know where to find the answersingenesis site, and you know where to find apologist literature, that goes back to Augustine, contradicting your interpretation of the word "yom". My intention is really not to repeat this apologist argument. My intention is to make you realize that people who disagree  with your interpretation do not do this because they are evil, mean spirited or malicious. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::You act under the assumption that I want to convince you that your interpretation is wrong. But that is not my intention, so there is no need to go over all the apologist arguments again. I know where to find the answersingenesis site, and you know where to find apologist literature, that goes back to Augustine, contradicting your interpretation of the word "yom". My intention is really not to repeat this apologist argument. My intention is to make you realize that people who disagree  with your interpretation do not do this because they are evil, mean spirited or malicious. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::: No, I'm acting under the assumption that you want to convince me that I can't be sure of my interpretation.  No, I don't know where to find apologist literature that contradicts the expert view regarding the word "yom".  Perhaps you could point me to it.  I have already pointed out that I'm not claiming that people who disagree are evil, mean spirited, or malicious.  I'm merely saying that they have those views for the wrong reasons and there arguments are invalid.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: No, I'm acting under the assumption that you want to convince me that I can't be sure of my interpretation.  No, I don't know where to find apologist literature that contradicts the expert view regarding the word "yom".  Perhaps you could point me to it.  I have already pointed out that I'm not claiming that people who disagree are evil, mean spirited, or malicious.  I'm merely saying that they have those views for the wrong reasons and there arguments are invalid.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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]]  

::::See above.[[User:Order|Order]]

::::See above.[[User:Order|Order]]

::::: There's no evidence above, so your claim that there is contradiction fails.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: There's no evidence above, so your claim that there is contradiction fails.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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]]

::::See above.[[User:Order|Order]]

::::See above.[[User:Order|Order]]

::::: Is that the best response you can give?  That's no response.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Is that the best response you can give?  That's no response.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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]]

::::Yes some apologist use flaky arguments, but there also genuine professional apologists who try to make a sound argument. What I object to is not your argument with respect to the bible quote, but your insistence to portray people who disagree with you as malicious. All people I have met that think about the subject, make genuine and honest effort to understand the world around them, and the bible is part of their world, and you are doing unjust in assuming ulterior motives. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)  

::::Yes some apologist use flaky arguments, but there also genuine professional apologists who try to make a sound argument. What I object to is not your argument with respect to the bible quote, but your insistence to portray people who disagree with you as malicious. All people I have met that think about the subject, make genuine and honest effort to understand the world around them, and the bible is part of their world, and you are doing unjust in assuming ulterior motives. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)  

::::: Please show me where I have accused them of being malicious or apologise.  And how am I being unjust in assuming ulterior motives.  There's nothing wrong with accusing them of that if it's true, and you haven't shown that it isn't.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Please show me where I have accused them of being malicious or apologise.  And how am I being unjust in assuming ulterior motives.  There's nothing wrong with accusing them of that if it's true, and you haven't shown that it isn't.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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. {{unsigned|Order}}

::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. {{unsigned|Order}}

::::: I wish you'd tell anti-creationists, including American judges, that intentions are irrelevant.  They reject creationism not because of the evidence, but because of the intentions of those holding to it.

::::: I wish you'd tell anti-creationists, including American judges, that intentions are irrelevant.  They reject creationism not because of the evidence, but because of the intentions of those holding to it.

::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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]]

:::: Yes, that has happened to some extend. There are a fair number of scientist believing that the great mass extinction was caused by an catastrophic event, while others are still skeptical. It is a nice illustration that it is not the intentions that matter in science, but that the scientific community changes its stance based on evidence. Right now some scientist are looking for evidence supporting the theory, while other are looking for evidence contradicting it. And how to correctly interpret the bible plays no role at all in this discussion. Only physical evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Yes, that has happened to some extend. There are a fair number of scientist believing that the great mass extinction was caused by an catastrophic event, while others are still skeptical. It is a nice illustration that it is not the intentions that matter in science, but that the scientific community changes its stance based on evidence. Right now some scientist are looking for evidence supporting the theory, while other are looking for evidence contradicting it. And how to correctly interpret the bible plays no role at all in this discussion. Only physical evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Except that they will not even ''consider'' an explanation that would be consistent with the Bible.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Except that they will not even ''consider'' an explanation that would be consistent with the Bible.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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]]

::::That they were made by his word, only tells you that it happened. With eyewitness accounts you typically require them to very specific on details that can be checked independently. What does Genesis say about the geology of the moon? Geology of the sun? Geology of earth? Can you give an eyewitness account of the sedimentation during the flood, and an eyewitness account of the formation of coal layers? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::That they were made by his word, only tells you that it happened. With eyewitness accounts you typically require them to very specific on details that can be checked independently. What does Genesis say about the geology of the moon? Geology of the sun? Geology of earth? Can you give an eyewitness account of the sedimentation during the flood, and an eyewitness account of the formation of coal layers? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::: I've already agreed, twice I think, that the Bible doesn't go into scientific detail on these things, and is in that sense not a science book.  Rather, I'm simply claiming that on the things that it ''does'' say, it is accurate.  However, your question about more detail about God creating by His Word presupposes that there is more detail to tell.  What if that is a full and complete statement?  How do you know that it isn't?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: I've already agreed, twice I think, that the Bible doesn't go into scientific detail on these things, and is in that sense not a science book.  Rather, I'm simply claiming that on the things that it ''does'' say, it is accurate.  However, your question about more detail about God creating by His Word presupposes that there is more detail to tell.  What if that is a full and complete statement?  How do you know that it isn't?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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.

::::Except for your insistence on eyewitness I see little criticism of scientific methods in your argument, but a lot of criticism of their intentions. You repeatedly said that scientist do not accept a theory because they think that it is consistent with the observed facts, but because of their desire to debunk the bible. If instead your aim is to criticize the scientific method rather than scientists, we should wrap this discussion up and take it to the article on the scientific method. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)   

::::Except for your insistence on eyewitness I see little criticism of scientific methods in your argument, but a lot of criticism of their intentions. You repeatedly said that scientist do not accept a theory because they think that it is consistent with the observed facts, but because of their desire to debunk the bible. If instead your aim is to criticize the scientific method rather than scientists, we should wrap this discussion up and take it to the article on the scientific method. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)   

::::: I have no criticism of the scientific method.  It's a great method for studying things ''in the present''.  I'm criticising their pronouncements about ''unobserved'' things ''in the past'' where there were no witnesses, and where the scientific method of observation, testing, measuring, and repeatability are not applicable.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: I have no criticism of the scientific method.  It's a great method for studying things ''in the present''.  I'm criticising their pronouncements about ''unobserved'' things ''in the past'' where there were no witnesses, and where the scientific method of observation, testing, measuring, and repeatability are not applicable.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 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)

: 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)

:::[[User:Order|Order]] 08:07, 6 December 2007 (EST)

:::[[User:Order|Order]] 08:07, 6 December 2007 (EST)

:::: If you weren't tyring to convince me that my position was wrong, you wouldn't be disagreeing with so much that I say.  You may not be trying to convince me that I'm wrong about 6-day creation, but you are trying to convince me that I'm wrong about 6-day creation being the only correct biblical view to have.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:02, 6 December 2007 (EST)

:::: If you weren't tyring to convince me that my position was wrong, you wouldn't be disagreeing with so much that I say.  You may not be trying to convince me that I'm wrong about 6-day creation, but you are trying to convince me that I'm wrong about 6-day creation being the only correct biblical view to have.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:02, 6 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==