Changes

::::::::In this case it wouldn't be an eyewitness account, but an ego document. But, under a literal interpretation the books were written by Moses, who lived at some later stage, and was definitely no eyewitness. So, in the end it is just a 3rd person account written way after the fact. Anyway, I am not sure why you keep insisting on discussing these kind of details. I am happy to engage in the intellectual game about who of us can come up with a smarter interpretation of the bible, but it strikes me as pointless. I'd rather prefer that you'd address my actual question, if and why you are so angry with those scientists. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::In this case it wouldn't be an eyewitness account, but an ego document. But, under a literal interpretation the books were written by Moses, who lived at some later stage, and was definitely no eyewitness. So, in the end it is just a 3rd person account written way after the fact. Anyway, I am not sure why you keep insisting on discussing these kind of details. I am happy to engage in the intellectual game about who of us can come up with a smarter interpretation of the bible, but it strikes me as pointless. I'd rather prefer that you'd address my actual question, if and why you are so angry with those scientists. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: If God observed it and He wrote about it, that perfectly fits the definition of an eyewitness account.  A "literal interpretation" refers to how it is to be understood, not who wrote it.  There is a school of thought, that I go along with, that as far as Genesis is concerned, Moses compiled the book from pre-existing documents that would have been handed down to him, and these pre-existing documents were written by eyewitnesses.  So in {{bible ref|Genesis|5|1}} where it says "This is the written account of Adam's line.", this would be the "signature" of Adam at the end of his account, which started in Genesis 2:4 (the chapter and verse divisions are a later innovation).  So there is no reason that Genesis could not be eyewitness accounts by various people from Adam onward.  I continue discussing this because you keep disputing it!  I've already answered about the scientists.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: If God observed it and He wrote about it, that perfectly fits the definition of an eyewitness account.  A "literal interpretation" refers to how it is to be understood, not who wrote it.  There is a school of thought, that I go along with, that as far as Genesis is concerned, Moses compiled the book from pre-existing documents that would have been handed down to him, and these pre-existing documents were written by eyewitnesses.  So in {{bible ref|Genesis|5|1}} where it says "This is the written account of Adam's line.", this would be the "signature" of Adam at the end of his account, which started in Genesis 2:4 (the chapter and verse divisions are a later innovation).  So there is no reason that Genesis could not be eyewitness accounts by various people from Adam onward.  I continue discussing this because you keep disputing it!  I've already answered about the scientists.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 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 can question them from a non-materialist view point as you like. But that unless you provide material evidence, its not science. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::You can question them from a non-materialist view point as you like. But that unless you provide material evidence, its not science. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Yet the same doesn't seem to apply for goo-to-you evolution, which has almost no material evidence.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Yet the same doesn't seem to apply for goo-to-you evolution, which has almost no material evidence.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 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]]

::::::::We know that you think that the old-earth view is atheistic by nature, but there are ample theistic old-earth views. Some are a reaction to bring scientific findings, some out of philosophical considerations. St Augustine already said in 400 AD clearly that it is a folly to reject knowledge about the universe because it contradicts scripture. He said this way before Darwin,  and even though he was a in favor of a young earth. But he rejected the 6-day account, mostly for philosophical reasons. So, the call to "harmonize" scripture with generally accepted knowledge is as least as old as St Augustine. Not sure if you want to argue that this Saint qualifies as atheist origin. And if you don't believe me, the Creation Study Group report for the presbyterian church says explicitly about the old earth view being a reaction to Darwin: ''This is not so, however, as we can clearly appreciate from the discussion under question 3) above where we see that a view open to the possibility of creative days of unspecified length was held by prominent and influential church fathers, some of whom lived long before Charles Darwin. '' (Section IV.B.4) [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::We know that you think that the old-earth view is atheistic by nature, but there are ample theistic old-earth views. Some are a reaction to bring scientific findings, some out of philosophical considerations. St Augustine already said in 400 AD clearly that it is a folly to reject knowledge about the universe because it contradicts scripture. He said this way before Darwin,  and even though he was a in favor of a young earth. But he rejected the 6-day account, mostly for philosophical reasons. So, the call to "harmonize" scripture with generally accepted knowledge is as least as old as St Augustine. Not sure if you want to argue that this Saint qualifies as atheist origin. And if you don't believe me, the Creation Study Group report for the presbyterian church says explicitly about the old earth view being a reaction to Darwin: ''This is not so, however, as we can clearly appreciate from the discussion under question 3) above where we see that a view open to the possibility of creative days of unspecified length was held by prominent and influential church fathers, some of whom lived long before Charles Darwin. '' (Section IV.B.4) [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Yes, Augustine did reject literal days, and not for atheistic reasons, just like modern old-Earth creationists.  But like them, he did so for reasons other than that's what the Bible teaches. Augustine was not a Hebrew scholar, and tended to allegorise almost everything.  He proposed his non-literal days idea because he couldn't believe that God would take so long, not because that's what the Scripture said!  So you are right, attempting to interpret Scripture to mean something other than what it actually says is quite old, but that doesn't justify it.  Nevertheless, the attempts to make the days into ''long'' periods of time are because they are trying to harmonise Scripture with the atheistic idea of long ages.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Yes, Augustine did reject literal days, and not for atheistic reasons, just like modern old-Earth creationists.  But like them, he did so for reasons other than that's what the Bible teaches. Augustine was not a Hebrew scholar, and tended to allegorise almost everything.  He proposed his non-literal days idea because he couldn't believe that God would take so long, not because that's what the Scripture said!  So you are right, attempting to interpret Scripture to mean something other than what it actually says is quite old, but that doesn't justify it.  Nevertheless, the attempts to make the days into ''long'' periods of time are because they are trying to harmonise Scripture with the atheistic idea of long ages.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 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}}

::::::::In science it is all about testability. This doesn't mean that you have to repeat the event, but that you can repeat the observation that support a theory, and that you can predict observations. Supernatural explanation fails in this respect, by you own admission, since you can't study the supernatural. But also this is a digression, and should be discussed on the Philosophy of Science or Creationism pages. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::In science it is all about testability. This doesn't mean that you have to repeat the event, but that you can repeat the observation that support a theory, and that you can predict observations. Supernatural explanation fails in this respect, by you own admission, since you can't study the supernatural. But also this is a digression, and should be discussed on the Philosophy of Science or Creationism pages. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: You can have (and test) observations that ''support'' the theory, but you can't test the theory itself if it was in the past.  Repeatability frequently applies to the test, not the event, but in those cases it is the observation that is being checked, not whether the event happened.  That is, you can repeatedly test the C12/C14 ratio in a sample, but you are checking the ratio, you are not checking how that ratio came to be there.  To study how it came to be there, you would need to repeat the original event, which is, of course, impossible.  So the observation of the ratio is science, but the explanation of how it came to be there is not.  And whilst you can't study the supernatural, you can make predictions based on a supernatural explanation and test those predictions.  And this has been done (i.e. predictions based on the creation model) with the predictions being tested and found to be correct.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: You can have (and test) observations that ''support'' the theory, but you can't test the theory itself if it was in the past.  Repeatability frequently applies to the test, not the event, but in those cases it is the observation that is being checked, not whether the event happened.  That is, you can repeatedly test the C12/C14 ratio in a sample, but you are checking the ratio, you are not checking how that ratio came to be there.  To study how it came to be there, you would need to repeat the original event, which is, of course, impossible.  So the observation of the ratio is science, but the explanation of how it came to be there is not.  And whilst you can't study the supernatural, you can make predictions based on a supernatural explanation and test those predictions.  And this has been done (i.e. predictions based on the creation model) with the predictions being tested and found to be correct.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 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]]

::::::::Actually there were never human eyewitnesses to creation, if we look at it literal. Adam wasn't created yet. But as said, this kind of apologist arguments are intellectually challenging, but I consider them other than that rather pointless. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Actually there were never human eyewitnesses to creation, if we look at it literal. Adam wasn't created yet. But as said, this kind of apologist arguments are intellectually challenging, but I consider them other than that rather pointless. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: God witnessed it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: God witnessed it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 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.

::::::::It seems like your view of science is that of people who write down observations, and that's it. But that is just a very little part of it. Scientists come up with explanations, look for observations that confirm or contradict the explanations. And at some point, it is called a theory. And sometimes a theory gets a complete overhaul, and that is then called a paradigm shift. And you can make theories about the past, and then predict what you should find in the present. There is no need to replicate the actual event in the past, there is only need to be able to replicate the measurements in the present, that support a theory about the past. As an aside, you repeated the comment about scales evolving into feather numerous times, and I didn't comment before, but just to let you know, you comment shows an incomplete understanding of the theory of evolution. At no time did something evolve that had no purpose other than that it would be useful in the future. This kind of reasoning would be either teleological or lamarickism. The scales/feathers were always functional parts of a complete animal. But this is an aside, and I won't discuss it. This is something for the talk on ToE. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::It seems like your view of science is that of people who write down observations, and that's it. But that is just a very little part of it. Scientists come up with explanations, look for observations that confirm or contradict the explanations. And at some point, it is called a theory. And sometimes a theory gets a complete overhaul, and that is then called a paradigm shift. And you can make theories about the past, and then predict what you should find in the present. There is no need to replicate the actual event in the past, there is only need to be able to replicate the measurements in the present, that support a theory about the past. As an aside, you repeated the comment about scales evolving into feather numerous times, and I didn't comment before, but just to let you know, you comment shows an incomplete understanding of the theory of evolution. At no time did something evolve that had no purpose other than that it would be useful in the future. This kind of reasoning would be either teleological or lamarickism. The scales/feathers were always functional parts of a complete animal. But this is an aside, and I won't discuss it. This is something for the talk on ToE. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: My "view of science" that I've put is a rather simplified version, and I basically agree with the expanded description that you've provided.  As I've just posted above, predictions can be made on the creationist model, and have been, successfully.  So does that mean that the creationist model has been "proved"?  The point is that although these predictions and tests can be used to ''support'' an idea, they are basically circumstantial, as you can't really rule out that there might be a different explanation for the phenomenon that you successfully predicted.  And you can't test the past event itself, just the predictions that you make from it.  I fail to see your point about the scales evolving into feathers.  I agree that, according to evolution, it had to be useful at each step, but I don't see how that means that I have an incomplete understanding of evolution.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: My "view of science" that I've put is a rather simplified version, and I basically agree with the expanded description that you've provided.  As I've just posted above, predictions can be made on the creationist model, and have been, successfully.  So does that mean that the creationist model has been "proved"?  The point is that although these predictions and tests can be used to ''support'' an idea, they are basically circumstantial, as you can't really rule out that there might be a different explanation for the phenomenon that you successfully predicted.  And you can't test the past event itself, just the predictions that you make from it.  I fail to see your point about the scales evolving into feathers.  I agree that, according to evolution, it had to be useful at each step, but I don't see how that means that I have an incomplete understanding of evolution.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 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)