Changes

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.  

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)

::::::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)

::::::: Even where the account was not witnesses by its human authors, it was witnesses by God, the ultimate author of the Bible, so it still ''all'' qualifies as eyewitness account.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: Even where the account was not witnesses by its human authors, it was witnesses by God, the ultimate author of the Bible, so it still ''all'' qualifies as eyewitness account.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 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]]  

::::::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)

::::::: If only it was.  But materialists do not allow (to the extent that they can stop it, such as in secular scientific journals) their views to be scrutinised and questioned from a non-materialist point of view.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: If only it was.  But materialists do not allow (to the extent that they can stop it, such as in secular scientific journals) their views to be scrutinised and questioned from a non-materialist point of view.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 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'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)  

::::::: Perhaps I've not been sufficiently clear.  The old-Earth paradigm is atheistic in its origins and in principle (for reasons already explained), but I'm not accusing compromising Christians of trying to promote atheism.  Rather, I'm accusing them of trying to harmonise Scripture with what they ''believe'' to be solid science, but which is really atheistic philosophy, and doing so by reading Scripture in a way that is not how it was meant to be understood.  As some creationists have said, why is it that in trying to harmonise the Bible and old-Earth views, it is the Bible that gets "interpreted".  To put it another way, why do they "interpret" the six days of creation in the Bible to actually mean millions of years rather than "interpret" the millions of years to actually mean six days?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: Perhaps I've not been sufficiently clear.  The old-Earth paradigm is atheistic in its origins and in principle (for reasons already explained), but I'm not accusing compromising Christians of trying to promote atheism.  Rather, I'm accusing them of trying to harmonise Scripture with what they ''believe'' to be solid science, but which is really atheistic philosophy, and doing so by reading Scripture in a way that is not how it was meant to be understood.  As some creationists have said, why is it that in trying to harmonise the Bible and old-Earth views, it is the Bible that gets "interpreted".  To put it another way, why do they "interpret" the six days of creation in the Bible to actually mean millions of years rather than "interpret" the millions of years to actually mean six days?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 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}}

::::::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)

::::::: I was generalising; I recognise that there are exceptions, although the archaeological exceptions that you mention are generally not ones that go against the materialistic paradigm.  Why won't they look at the explanation?  Well, you tell me, if you think it's something else.  They do say that they won't consider it because it invokes the supernatural, and science can't study the supernatural.  Now it is true that science can't study the supernatural, but it doesn't follow from that that science can't consider a supernatural explanation.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: I was generalising; I recognise that there are exceptions, although the archaeological exceptions that you mention are generally not ones that go against the materialistic paradigm.  Why won't they look at the explanation?  Well, you tell me, if you think it's something else.  They do say that they won't consider it because it invokes the supernatural, and science can't study the supernatural.  Now it is true that science can't study the supernatural, but it doesn't follow from that that science can't consider a supernatural explanation.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 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]]

::::::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)

::::::: No doubt he could, but as the human eyewitnesses are long dead, they can no longer be asked.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: No doubt he could, but as the human eyewitnesses are long dead, they can no longer be asked.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 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.

::::::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)

::::::: If it doesn't restrict itself to things in the present, how does it observe, measure, test, etc. those things?  I'm not suggesting that past events are totally off limits to science.  Science can be used to throw some light on past events.  But no more than that.  For example, showing that scales can easily be transformed into feathers is something that science could (hypothetically) do, and if this happened, it would considerably strengthen the case for reptile-to-bird evolution, but it would still not scientifically demonstrate that this actually happened, and there is still no way that science could observe, measure, test, or replicate the past event.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: If it doesn't restrict itself to things in the present, how does it observe, measure, test, etc. those things?  I'm not suggesting that past events are totally off limits to science.  Science can be used to throw some light on past events.  But no more than that.  For example, showing that scales can easily be transformed into feathers is something that science could (hypothetically) do, and if this happened, it would considerably strengthen the case for reptile-to-bird evolution, but it would still not scientifically demonstrate that this actually happened, and there is still no way that science could observe, measure, test, or replicate the past event.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 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)

:::::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)

:::::: As I hope I've clarified above, attempts to harmonise the Bible with long ages is not motivated by a desire to promote atheism, even though the long ages themselves were atheistic in origin.  I do accept that people can have alternative views with good intentions, but not that these reasons are legitimate.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: As I hope I've clarified above, attempts to harmonise the Bible with long ages is not motivated by a desire to promote atheism, even though the long ages themselves were atheistic in origin.  I do accept that people can have alternative views with good intentions, but not that these reasons are legitimate.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==