Conservapedia

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Moon"

Active discussions
(→‎"Many" atheists edit: Replies to Order)
(→‎Statement lacking in examples: Sorry, I most be blind!!!)
 
(180 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
 
I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.
 
I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.
  
−
: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it.  You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)
+
: "[[Tidal locking]]" doesn't explain it.  You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)
  
 
: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars.  Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)
 
: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars.  Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Line 95: Line 95:
  
 
:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
The second paragraph from the top of the article has a confusion of phases of the Moon with eclipses.  The phases of the moon are because of the shadow of the Moon, not the Earth.  Or, in other words, parts of the visible Moon are dark because it's local night there. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 07:18, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 +
: Fixed, thanks.  It's not locked; you could have fixed it yourself.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:40, 2 November 2008 (EST)
  
 
== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==
 
== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==
Line 337: Line 340:
  
 
::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding:  Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements.  I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have.  However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding:  Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements.  I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have.  However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::::: Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear.  I'm sure no pope has contradicted that.  But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed.  It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::::Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.
 +
:::::::Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::::: Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope ''endorsing'' evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.
 +
:::::::: Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself).  I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.
 +
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::::::Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) [[User:Order|Order]] 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness.  The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence:  "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... '''on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points'''"  Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today.  This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows.  Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!"  The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
::It further goes on to state: ''Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'' i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.
 +
::''The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.''
 +
::In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.
 +
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
:::Andy your argument is  that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that '''you''' deem to be inconsistent with '''your''' understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need '''papal''' evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that ''Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith'' points the other way.  [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
:::: Folks, maybe [[Wikipedia]] is a better place for your misinformation.  The [[Pope]], I assure you, accepts one [[Adam]] as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what [[Peter]] said as quoted above.  The [[Old Earth]] is contrary to that, and thus is rejected.  Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of [[atheists]] who reject everything the [[Pope]] stands for anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That '''you''' think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::: Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to [[faith]].  Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from?  What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false.  The Old Earthers reject the [[Flood]] circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does.  Let's be up-front about that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::::The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to '''your''' faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? [[User:Order|Order]] 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::::: User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here.  You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views.  The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the [[Flood]] occurred as described in the Bible.  Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that.  You won't be able to.  Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said.  You can't.  So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::::::I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm .  Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion.  --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
::::::::Here is quote from [[Pope Benedict]]: ''This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.'' [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html]
 +
 +
::::::::Additional sources: [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm Truth Cannot Contradict Truth], [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp Message from the Pope, 1996], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html EVOLUTION AND THE POPE], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html The Pope and Evolution], [http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns269.html POPE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION]
 +
 +
::::::::Were you looking for something more specific, or professional, or clear-cut, though? Or perhaps these speeches have been misinterpreted, or just wildly spun and taken far out of context by the [[liberal]] media? Anyway, I hope these help.[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
 +
::::Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment  I suggest you rewrite the article [[Pangea]], its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the  [[:Category:Geology]], there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the [[:Category:Astronomy]] also need rewritten. In the article [[Universe]], a meticulous Old Earthist  explanation is set against a marginalised,  weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously. 
 +
::::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
::::: DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here.  You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
::::: DaleHill, thanks for drawing attention to those articles that need some work.  I'll have a go at them myself, subject to time and me remembering.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::: I have updated the two specific articles that DaleHill mentioned, [[Pangea]] and [[Universe]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 2 December 2007 (EST)
  
 
== Primeq's edits ==
 
== Primeq's edits ==
Line 402: Line 448:
 
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe.  {{unsigned|Order}}
 
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe.  {{unsigned|Order}}
 
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::: I think we are going around in circles now.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::: Continuing around the circle...  No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible.  I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism.  And I'm not calling everything else atheistic.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::: There are ''Christians'' who hold such views, but it is not a part of ''Christianity'', which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::::This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
 
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
 
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed.  Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago.  The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time.  Time itself began 6,000 years ago.  It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins.  That's nonsense.
 
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed.  Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago.  The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time.  Time itself began 6,000 years ago.  It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins.  That's nonsense.
Line 409: Line 462:
 
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
 
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
 
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::: I didn't think that you ''intended'' it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history.  Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago.  It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop".  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical.  And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer.  I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc.  I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::: Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader.  So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor.  I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly.  And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago.  The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable".  So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
 
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago.  The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable".  So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
 
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Line 415: Line 474:
 
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry.  Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them.  And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time.  For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
 
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry.  Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them.  And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time.  For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
 
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past.  The only things I can observe are in the present.  Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them.  If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
 
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past.  The only things I can observe are in the present.  Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them.  If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
 +
::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}
 +
::::::::: Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the ''present'' within any meaningful understanding of the word.  That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events.  This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::: True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science.  So I would ''assume'', and therefore ''believe'' that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::::According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says.  If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it?  Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
 
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says.  If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it?  Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
 
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs.  I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it.  Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible.  You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent.  Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
 
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs.  I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it.  Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible.  You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent.  Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
−
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
+
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang).  What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory.  Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils.  [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::: No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred.  For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.
 +
::::::::: And scales ''evolving'' into feathers is something ''happening'', and you don't see something ''happening'' on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph.  Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.
 +
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion?  [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
: By observing them as they are happening.  Your point?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday.  I observed it yesterday.  That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''.  But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::: With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness.  And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness).  Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.
 +
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::: Generally speaking, I don't claim to know for certain.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::Just like the rest of us. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::::::If only!  Unfortunately, many people insist that evolution, long ages, etc. are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::The problem with that statement is that there are many other people who insist that creationism, short ages, etc are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses for that either. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 17:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::: That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there ''have been'' eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth.  How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::: It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds.  The same applies to the geology.  No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history.  Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness".  If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::::That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is my opinion that believing a book written thousands of years ago has more knowledge of the earth and the universe than researchers who have the advantage of all modern technology to aid in their research is absolute nonsense. It is equally nonsense, in my opinion, to claim that people in a book written thousands of years ago are eyewitnesses. Sure, scientists did not witness all 4.5 billion years of the earth's history, but they have conducted all sorts of experiments to prove the age of the earth. All you know about your supposed eyewitnesses is what the Bible says about them. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 10:42, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::::::::::::: What exactly is my opinion?  And what's wrong with my opinion?  Simply dismissing my ''argument'' like that is the resort of someone with no answer.  It is ''not'' opinion that scientists haven't ''observed'' those things—you have yourself now admitted that.  Come on, actually ''refute'' my argument or admit that you can't.
 +
:::::::::::::::: Your opinion about the Bible is not based on any evidence.  Why should the age of the book have any bearing on it's veracity?  Is this an example of chronological snobbery?
 +
:::::::::::::::: Your next opinion is contrary to logic.  Why is it "nonsense" to claim that people who lived thousands of years ago would be eyewitnesses to events that occurred ''at the time''?  Because that is the argument, and whilst you no doubt don't believe the premises, the conclusion based on those premises is entirely logical, so is not "nonsense".
 +
:::::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:08, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::::::::::::Yes, all we know from our "supposed eyewitnesses" is what the Bible says about them, for these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write. God said He created the earth and everything in it in six days. Your version of events went through various changes over a period of nearly two hundred years because your "emminent scientists" couldn't agree on how it was done. What's the latest excuse today? Is it life was created after lightning hit a swamp? To me, the people you worship will come up with theory after theory after theory...as long as it doesn't include God. You need to prove God doesn't exist first before you start telling the rest of mankind as to how life was created, especially when you have no absolute proof of that whatsoever. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:05, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::::::Not sure where to start with that. First of all, you just hit on a key difference between science and religion. I do not worship scientists, nor do I take what they say as fact without questioning it and deciding for myself first. Second, I said nothing about the existence of non-existence of any god. Third, I'm not telling mankind anything about how life was created, I am merely pointing out that PJR's own arguments can be applied against him. Fourth, while I have no intention of trying to prove that god doesn't exist, I can assure you that any attempt to do so would fail because those who would need to be convinced would reject any evidence provided since it "goes against the bible" or whatever they like to call it. Fifth, I doubt that anyone can prove definitely the existence of a god, which is why religions rely so much on faith. In fact, now that you mentioned it...you say that "these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write." What real proof do you have for that, other than it says so in the bible?--[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 11:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::::::::::: And I'm not sure where to start in replying to that, but one thing I'll mention is that you are incorrect about what our response would be and about what "faith" is.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:08, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::::::::::::There's plenty of evidence out there that confirms the existence of God: in nature, in the historical record, and in the archaeological record. You said plenty in your above posting that it is a personal choice by anyone whether to accept such evidence or reject it. If someone says that Napoleon was a girl, no amount of evidence to the contrary will make him change his mind. The same thing applies to you. No amount of evidence that we can muster in support of God will cause you to change your mind about it. With all due respect, that's the sign of a closed mind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::::::::::::::::::With all due respect to you as well, I would appreciate you not making assumptions about me. I do have an open mind, and I would absolutely love to see your evidence. I would argue that those who start all of their discussions with "the bible is fact, now let's work from there" is more a sign of a closed mind. I did say that it is a choice to accept or reject evidence, but it should be accepted or rejected based on its merits, not based on whether or not it supports your pre-existing beliefs. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 12:27, 2 December 2007 (EST) 
 +
::::::::::::::::::::::BillOhannity, those are not assumptions I made about you; they are facts about you that you have given to us. As to evidence, we have some in the various articles on this site. There is much more out in print as well as the internet. By saying that you demand to see evidence from us, we have met that demand; it is your choice that you refuse to see it. The only thing further to say now is that since you insist on making this debate endless, I'm going to invoke the 90/10 rule. Please contribute to the positive content of the articles or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:37, 2 December 2007 (EST) ::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have.  Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope).  For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be).  Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.
 +
::::::::::: Scientists will claim/admit (depending on the circumstances) that nothing in science can be absolutely certain, but when it comes to evolution and long ages (among other things), they ''effectively'' say that it is certain.  Evolution is no longer a "theory" (in the layman sense of "uncertain"), but "fact", and no alternative view (creation or intelligent design) is allowed to be considered.
 +
::::::::::: I agree that you can't (shouldn't) apply the principles of religion to science, as "religion" claims certainty because it is the revelation of the omniscient and infallible God, which science isn't.  So why does science claim that God got it wrong?
 +
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 +
Philip, your answer touches quite a few subjects, so I'll restrict myself to a few aspects. First, you should at some point decide what an "eyewitness" is. While you demanded first that events had to be observed in the present, you now call anybody an "eyewitness" who measures indirect evidence in the present. This is so broad a definition, it covers any human observation.  And you also seem like to underestimate the value of archeology, and overestimate the value of eyewitness accounts. But thats an aside. [[User:Order|Order]]
 +
<sub>split into two sections, continues below</sub>
 +
===Intentions===
 +
But the important point in your reply is the last point. From you wording it seems like you take  personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible. And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal. And I am not just talking about the parables. The bible is not a book that lends itself for literal reading. Sometimes it is difficult to know if something is a parable at all. But more important, sometimes a literal reading of the book leads to inconsistencies and absurdities. Take the differences between the two creation accounts, or when it talks about the "sons of god", or god losing against Jacob. There have been books been written by apologists about why these are not inconsistencies and absurdities. And the apologists might even be right. But if you could read the bible literally, there would be no need for apologists telling us how read it. The book itself would be sufficient.
 +
 
 +
Anyway, you seem to be angry with the scientists for proposing an old earth. However, scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see. And over the centuries even Christian scientist had to accept that the bible is not a great book when it comes to science. It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions. There is no accurate prediction of the background radiation, it doesn't explain electromagnetism, nor a useful classification of mammals, it is silent on prime number factorization, etc. Attempts at biblical science might be an intellectual stimulating subject, but even the biblical scientists looks first at the observed facts and then into the bible if he can reconcile the facts with scripture, and not the other way round.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
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)
 +
:I fail to see your point about eyewitnesses.  Surely "any human observation" is essentially synonymous with "eyewitness" (ignoring that one refers to the act and the other to the person).
 +
::Your insistence on eyewitness reports is useless when everything is an eyewitness report. [[User:Order|Order]]
 +
::: The claims of scientists regarding the Big Bang, fish turning into amphibians, dinosaurs into birds, and a whole host of other such claims are ''not'' eyewitness reports.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::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)
 +
::::::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)
 +
::::::::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)
 +
::::::::::A literal interpretation means that you interpret it literal, and not how it supposed to be understood, unless you have guidelines how it is supposed to be understood.  Otherwise you are just guessing how it is to be understood. If god made the creation, him writing about it is not an eyewitness account, it is an ego-document. At the sixth day he could have told Adam anything, and there would have been no witness, to confirm the event. That is what eyewitness are for. It is traditionally  believed that Moses wrote the first five books. That according to "some" schools of thought there are older sources, is just one of many explanations, and unless you have evidence that these sources existed, is is just an unsupported assumption. And for these other sources also need evidence with respect to the authorship. If your only evidence is that there is no reason why it couldn't be a eyewitness report, then you only claim that it is possible to be an eyewitness report. But what you need to show is that it is necessary.  Necessary from evidence, and not necessary to save your interpretation. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::: I'll rephrase my comment:  ''A "literal interpretation" refers to how you understand it, not who wrote it''.  You were claiming that reading it literally meant that it was written by Moses, and it was that point that I was disagreeing with.  As for how one is ''supposed'' to understand it, you can usually determine that from things like the style of wording and how it was or would have been understood by the author's contemporaries.  So you are not "just guessing".
 +
::::::::::: "Eyewitness account" means that it was seen by someone there.  Whether or not that person was also involved with what happened is a separate issue, so that God was the Creator does not negate that he was also an eyewitness to it.  I presume that your use of "ego-document" is a pejorative way of saying "autobiographical account", and is meant to imply that it is therefore unreliable.  But in this case we are talking about the infallible God Who cannot lie, so that implication is incorrect.  Now you quite likely don't accept that characteristic of God, but again, that is a separate issue to the point in question, whether or not there was an eyewitness to the events.
 +
::::::::::: "''unless you have evidence that these sources existed, is is just an unsupported assumption''":  The evidence is in the literary use of "colophons", such as the "signature of Adam" that I referred to.  This was the style of ancient documents, and this style is recognisable in the various sections of Genesis.  So it is not an "unsupported assumption".  Either way, whether God told just Adam or God told a lot more to Moses, it is still an eyewitness account, and by the infallible God Who cannot lie.
 +
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 +
Defining "literal meaning"  as how people understood it at the time when it was written, is useful, so lets stick with it. However, I didn't claim that Moses wrote the the Pentateuch, I said that this is the traditional view. Modern scholars are  looking at style, word choice, and historic context, and came to the conclusion that the Pentateuch was compiled from a few earlier sources quite some time after Moses died. So, neither Adam nor Moses would be the main author, it would have been from a collection of sources, and Moses might or might not have been one of them. But if we look at the bible as contemporaries understood it, they did believe that the books were written by Moses. And both you and the modern scholars disagree with this traditional view.
 +
 
 +
Call the creation account auto-biography if you like that better. However there is no account how the auto-biography was transferred into written form, it might be Adam, it might be Moses, it might be someone else, and we do not only not know who it was, we don't even know if he is reliable. It was been said that Moses wrote down the laws, but for the rest on the Pentateuch it is mostly unclear who wrote it. When police makes a record of an eyewitness account, they make sure that they got a signature of witness and interrogator. A report of a person claiming to have heard an eyewitness account isn't an eyewitness account anymore.
 +
 
 +
And the colophon that you mentioned doesn't say that it was written by Adam, it simply says that it was about Adam and his line. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:"Modern scholars" are rejecting that the Bible is what is says it is and think that they know better.  The idea that it wasn't written by Moses started with, among other things, the idea that writing hadn't been invented then, which has since shown to be wrong.  It also assumes that different terminology means different authors, rather than (a) different purpose by the same author, or (b) the same author changing his style over time.  In other words, those ideas that it was written later than Moses don't hold water.  I don't really disagree with the traditional/biblical view.  The Bible refers to the Pentateuch as "the books of Moses", and whether he is the original author or the editing compiler they are still his books.
 +
: Under the Moses-as-compiler idea, the author of the creation account (Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a) could be God Himself, Who might well have written that part and handed it to Adam with the instruction to keep the history going.  In any case, God was the ultimate author of the entire Bible (using various human "ghost writers"), and by definition He is reliable.  They didn't have police in those times, or more to the point, they didn't have the same practices as today.  But that doesn't mean that they don't qualify as eyewitness accounts.
 +
: The colophon was, as I said, like the "signature" of the writer.  So when it says that this is the account of Adam, it means that it's Adam's account; that Adam is the author of it.
 +
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)
 +
The colophon says "this is the written account of Adams line", which it is, and it is not an "account by Adam". This wouldn't make much sense anyway because this account is really an "account of Adams line". It describes the line that starts with Adam and his sons, and ends with the sons of Noah, a few hundred years after Adams death.
 +
Of course do modern scholars propose different interpretations because they thing they know better. They do exactly the same as you, when you look at style, wording, context to determine the meaning. You also think that you know better than the traditional interpretation. Asserting that a different style might be explained by a single author changing his style, is an unsupported assertion, and given the fairly substantial differences multiple authorship is at least as believable. You explanation has quite a few "could haves" and "mights", and is not exactly convincing or necessary.
 +
And there is still more evidence that Moses wasn't the only author. For example that the Pentateuch describes his death, and events that happened afterwards, and the fact that the books use names for biblical places that weren't used in the time of Moses, but only centuries later. However, we work as agreed to work under the assumption that the audience at the when it written was able to understand it, which means it should have been written when those names were actually used. Of course, we cannot go back in time an check it, nor do we have eyewitness accounts, but neither have you.
 +
And you can claim that there were ghostwriters, you should be a bit more specific. An eyewitness account which is passed down  through works of unknown a ghostwriters isn't an eyewitness account anymore. If you explanation would be anymore vague, it could also apply to urban legends. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:31, 10 December 2007 (EST)
 +
: The colophon can be translated in a number of ways.  Regardless of the precise wording, the ''purpose'' was apparently as a signature, indicating that the account was by Adam.
 +
: I mentioned that the colophon was at the ''end'' of the account.  The line from Adam's sons to Noah is the ''next'' account, not Adam's account.
 +
: I don't think that I know better than the traditional view, generally speaking.  As a creationist I believe that Adam was created perfect and that we, his descendants, have accumulated a host of genetic errors and have deteriorated.  So he was smarter than us, although we have the benefit accumulated knowledge.  As a rule, therefore, I defer to the sources nearer the original than the present, unlike many modern scholars who, adopting an evolutionary assumption, think that man has improved rather than deteriorated, and that we therefore are more likely to come up with the correct answer than those that went before us.
 +
: Claiming that a given author might change his style over time I consider to be self-evident, because I myself have done it!  And that's over a space of fewer years than Moses was leading the Israelites.
 +
: Clearly Moses didn't write the part about his own death, but that says nothing about him not writing the rest.  That very argument (that he didn't write his death) was used by Thomas Paine in ''Age of Reason'', yet Paine himself admitted in a later edition of his book that the previous edition of his book contained something that he didn't write!  That is clearly a silly argument.  The Pentateuch describes nothing or next to nothing after his death.
 +
: I believe that the claim that the books use names that were only in use later is probably fallacious, just as the claim that writing wasn't invented at the time was fallacious.  If you give me specifics, I'll try and check that out further.  There is the possibility, though, that a later editor did update some place names.
 +
: The "ghostwriters" (note that I put it in quote marks) were people like Moses, who wrote under God's inspiration.  It was their own words and style, but with God's guidance and guarantee of accuracy.  The term "ghostwriters" in this case does not mean that their names are not known.
 +
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 10 December 2007 (EST)
 +
Thanks for admitting that the colophon can be translated in a number of ways. So you do admit that there is not only one valid interpretation. What the purpose was can clearly be disputed, and you know perfectly well that the colophon view is a minority view. But eitherway, we established that the colophons can be translated in more than one way.
 +
Of course an author can change his style. You are right. But you have to prove that this author has changed his style. Of course, maybe the author changed his style. Maybe it is a literal device. Who knows. You don't either. So what you do is guessing.
 +
Why should I tell you the name of a city that wasn't name, if you already tell me that you will discount any such name with the argument that " a later editor did update some place names."
 +
Your theory about the ghostwriters is very nice theory, but it doesn't even come close to be a scientific theory, since you got neither proof, nor evidence, and certainly no eyewitness accounts. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:02, 15 December 2007 (EST)
 +
: I had never indicated that the colophon could only be translated one way, and I had at least implied that there is more than one valid view.  My point was always that there is some evidence (even if not conclusive) that all of Genesis (apart from chapter 1) could have been written by human eyewitnesses, and that any claim that it was was not recorded by eyewitnesses because the events predated Moses was an invalid argument.
 +
: Why is the onus on me to prove that he changed his style?  The claim has always been that Moses was responsible for the first five books, and surely if someone want to claim otherwise, the onus on them is to show that he didn't change his style, especially given your acknowledgement that an author could do this.
 +
: I didn't say that I ''would'' discount any such city name as a later editorial update.  I merely pointed out that this might be a possible explanation.  I also notice that you didn't dispute that this might be possible.  If you are acknowledging that this is possible, it follows that city names unknown in Moses' time cannot therefore be used as evidence that it must have been written later than Moses' time.
 +
: Your last comment about ghostwriters seems to reject my argument by requiring a standard that could not be met by any theory, and begs the question by declaring that there were no eyewitness accounts, the very point in contention.
 +
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:29, 16 December 2007 (EST)
 +
A lot of things are possible, and of course you can have many alternative possible explanations. But the interesting ones are the likely explanation. Given the inconsistencies, it might be caused by a single person changing his style, but it could also be due to an editor compiling from different sources, especially since it is very likely that someone edited the text anyway some time after Moss death. It is argued that the changes are too big for a single author. While possible, it is not considered to be the most likely explanation that there were at least two stories, before an editor went to work. Anyway, point is there a lot possible, but that doesn't make it likely. A explanation becomes more likely, the more supporting evidence you have, and evidence can come in different shape and forms. The eyewitness standard was set by yourself, and indeed I think it is a bit unreasonable. If you defend an explanation that is just possible, you should at least have the courage to admit, that other explanations are considered more likely. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 +
: You are wanting me to admit that my view of how the Bible came to be written is just one of several possible explanations.  Okay, I admit that&mdash;because I've never claimed otherwise.  It was you who said that you could argue that it ''wasn't'' an eyewitness account ("I could easily argue that the biblical account cannot be an eyewitness account"), and I was merely countering that argument, by pointing out ''possible'' explanations that would allow it to be an human eyewitness account.  If I can show even one ''possible'' explanation (i.e. one that you can't refute as being ''impossible''), then I have succeeded in refuting your assertion that it ''could not have been'' an eyewitness account.  Now you are (unwittingly?) trying to turn the argument around to get me to admit that my explanation is not the only possible one!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 
 +
If you defense is that it is logically possible to be an eyewitness account, you are indeed right, it is logically possible. But also a good work of fiction is logically possible, so this is a fairly weak argument to support your position. That is why I called this kind of argument sophistry. I thought that you were claiming that you had actual evidence to support your position. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:As I said, I was merely trying to refute your claim that it could not be an eyewitness account.  It looks like I succeeded in that.  The only thing I failed in was in not doing what you thought I was doing.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 +
Feel free to declare victory on this point. You are quite far away from your earlier position that your view is the only legitimate view, but now it is merely one view that could be logically possible. If you are happy with such a minimal position, I'd call that a victory too. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 +
: I've never said that "my view is the only legitimate view" in so many words.  That's your spin.  I have said that the young-Earth view is the only legitimate way to understand the Bible, but I never said that the colophon explanation of how Genesis was written was the only legitimate view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)
 +
Your way is only one way to understand the bible, since it may be translated in different ways, understood in different ways, and interpreted in different ways, different theories how the bible came about. And saying that your interpretation might be logical possible, that is not exactly much. There are other interpretations that are logically possible, too. It seem like you are arguing with the desired outcome in mind, namely that the scripture must be correct on a fairly literal level, and with that in mind there indeed only a few possible interpretations. And yours might be one of them. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:Oh dear, we've been over this already.  There's so many unsubstantiated generalisations in that paragraph that I'm not going to repeat myself going over them all again.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:49, 21 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 
 +
===Scientific Claims===
 +
:"''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]]
 +
::: No, but I expect them to recognise and acknowledge that they are ''beliefs'', not ''scientific facts'', and therefore not claim, whether explicitly or implicitly, that the Bible is wrong.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::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)
 +
::::::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)
 +
::::::::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)
 +
::::::::::There is no evidence that you accept, but here is quite some evidence, and in addition it is back-up by mathematical models which have been proven to work. That you only accept eyewitness reports is your choice, but you can't blame that other prefer to rely on more reliable evidence than eyewitness reports. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 +
::::::::::: The maths actually work against it, as shown by evolutionists Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.  As for there being some evidence, claiming it without demonstrating it is a non-argument.  There is almost no material evidence.  No, I can't blame others for relying on more reliable evidence, but I'm disputing that the arguments based on materialistic assumptions ''are'' more reliable.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 +
Hoyle and Wrickramasinghe were advocating panspermia, and their argument deals with abiogenisis. We've been over this before. Look at the work of Rechenberg, Fogel, and Holland, who have proven that simple arguments from improbability are not applying to evolution, i.e. they have proven mathematically that evolution is not a random walk. If you want to promote Hoyle's idea of panspermia to solve the problem of abiogenesis, feel free to do so. But this is a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 +
: Evolution is by definition random at heart, because it excludes design.  Yes, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were talking about abiogenesis, so that was a bad example.  That they were promoting the idea of panspermia is irrelevant, though.  Evolutionary computations do not prove that the mathematics of evolution work, because they are not trying to do that, and they are not actually models of evolution, but [[natural selection]].  See the dam example in that link (including in the last section) for further information, and see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5089/ here] for more reasons why the computations are not like evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)
 +
Your f