Changes

::::: 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)

::::::With your restricted interpretation of eyewitness account, I could easily argue that the biblical account cannot be an eyewitness account. Much of it is a third person narrative, for a start.  But I can already imagine that your reply will then refer to Moses, etcetera. But that would be sophistry, and as I said before I really do feel like going repeating much of the history of apologetics. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::::With your restricted interpretation of eyewitness account, I could easily argue that the biblical account cannot be an eyewitness account. Much of it is a third person narrative, for a start.  But I can already imagine that your reply will then refer to Moses, etcetera. But that would be sophistry, and as I said before I really do feel like going repeating much of the history of apologetics. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 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]]  

::::: 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)

::::::You should welcome it, because as soon as it is proposed as scientific it is open to criticism and scrutiny. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::::You should welcome it, because as soon as it is proposed as scientific it is open to criticism and scrutiny. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 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]]

::::: 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)

::::::I am fairly sure that you are sure of your interpretation. Instead I try to convince you that others are evenly sure. I assumed you knew about the different interpretations, because you immediately took off to explain the word "yom". A very detailed report outlining a few important interpretations of the creation story can be found in a report by Creation Study Committee for the Presbyterian Churches of America [http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html]. The committee could not agree on any of these interpretations, and agreed to disagree. They all agree that the creation story describes a historical event, but they could not decide how to interpret the account.  [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)  

::::::I am fairly sure that you are sure of your interpretation. Instead I try to convince you that others are evenly sure. I assumed you knew about the different interpretations, because you immediately took off to explain the word "yom". A very detailed report outlining a few important interpretations of the creation story can be found in a report by Creation Study Committee for the Presbyterian Churches of America [http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html]. The committee could not agree on any of these interpretations, and agreed to disagree. They all agree that the creation story describes a historical event, but they could not decide how to interpret the account.  [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 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]]  

::::: 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)

::::::You'll need evidence that they do. And not just anecdotal evidence. You said repeatedly that the motive was the promotion atheism. I happen to know a professional apologist who doesn't share you view on the creation story. And he gives many talk criticizing Dawkins and atheism. Therefore, I have good reasons to believe that he doesn't defend an old earth view because he want to promote atheism. The same holds, I guess, for the members of the creation study group of the presbyterian church. Those who defend the day-age interpretation don't defend it to promote atheism. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)  

::::::You'll need evidence that they do. And not just anecdotal evidence. You said repeatedly that the motive was the promotion atheism. I happen to know a professional apologist who doesn't share you view on the creation story. And he gives many talk criticizing Dawkins and atheism. Therefore, I have good reasons to believe that he doesn't defend an old earth view because he want to promote atheism. The same holds, I guess, for the members of the creation study group of the presbyterian church. Those who defend the day-age interpretation don't defend it to promote atheism. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 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}}

::::: 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)

::::::You might want to look at the reasons why they won't look at the explanation? Is it atheism or something else? And you are a bit too negative. In biblical archeology, for example, scientist are actually quite pleased if the find a site that was already mentioned in biblical times. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::::You might want to look at the reasons why they won't look at the explanation? Is it atheism or something else? And you are a bit too negative. In biblical archeology, for example, scientist are actually quite pleased if the find a site that was already mentioned in biblical times. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 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]]

::::: 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)

::::::We know that you believe that it is accurate in all details. I am really reluctant to go into those details, not because I can't google, but because I think you should google yourself if you want. But of course there is more detail to tell. You insist on eyewitness accounts. So, imagine what you would ask an eyewitness? A soon as something exists you can start questions to your eyewitness. If your eyewitness tell you that there was a moon, he should be at least be able to tell the color, shape and phase. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::::We know that you believe that it is accurate in all details. I am really reluctant to go into those details, not because I can't google, but because I think you should google yourself if you want. But of course there is more detail to tell. You insist on eyewitness accounts. So, imagine what you would ask an eyewitness? A soon as something exists you can start questions to your eyewitness. If your eyewitness tell you that there was a moon, he should be at least be able to tell the color, shape and phase. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 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.

::::: 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)

::::::The scientific method does not restrict yourself to things in the present. You propose an explanation and you look for supporting or conflicting evidence. Things that happen in the past leave traces in the present. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::::The scientific method does not restrict yourself to things in the present. You propose an explanation and you look for supporting or conflicting evidence. Things that happen in the past leave traces in the present. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 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)

:::: 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)

:::::My disagreement was with your claim that anything but YEC is motivated by the desire to promote atheism. I don't think so. And I already told you in my first statement on this matter that I don't feel like debunking the 6-day interpretation, because we all know the arguments for and against. I said "There have been books been written by apologists about why these are not inconsistencies and absurdities. And the apologists might even be right". I don't want you accept alternative views, but to accept that people can have alternative views, for legitimate reasons with good intentions. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

:::::My disagreement was with your claim that anything but YEC is motivated by the desire to promote atheism. I don't think so. And I already told you in my first statement on this matter that I don't feel like debunking the 6-day interpretation, because we all know the arguments for and against. I said "There have been books been written by apologists about why these are not inconsistencies and absurdities. And the apologists might even be right". I don't want you accept alternative views, but to accept that people can have alternative views, for legitimate reasons with good intentions. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==