[_ Old Earth _] Isn't it funny.....

[Pale^Rider**]

Because it's all nonsense without any logical proof. How do you know that Islam is not the right religion? Why not convert to Islam? It could be right, so you shouldn't take a chance

Why would I convert to something that has not been proven to me. This Awesome Book HAS been proven to me....and like I said in the very beginning of this thread, this amazing Book has proven things (scientific things) that it took scientists many, many more years to figure out. Since my Bible is right about these things; I, an educated man, will believe in all held within It. The Bible was written by an all-knowing Creator; a Creator of everything we see and will see. That's plenty enough for me...and whole heck of a lot better than believing in nothing.

 

[Asimov]

Because it's all nonsense without any logical proof. How do you know that Islam is not the right religion? Why not convert to Islam? It could be right, so you shouldn't take a chance

Why would I convert to something that has not been proven to me. This Awesome Book HAS been proven to me....and like I said in the very beginning of this thread, this amazing Book has proven things (scientific things) that it took scientists many, many more years to figure out. Since my Bible is right about these things; I, an educated man, will believe in all held within It. The Bible was written by an all-knowing Creator; a Creator of everything we see and will see. That's plenty enough for me...and whole heck of a lot better than believing in nothing.

Right....things that you just made up that loosely fit science....so AMAZING!!!!!


grasping.....for......straws.....you almost have them.....

 

[Pale^Rider**]

How could I have "made them up"? I cited the scripture and the dates each chapter was written and then proved how "scientists" were centuries behind. I'm not artistic enought to "make them up".
Try again.....

 

[Asimov]

How could I have "made them up"? I cited the scripture and the dates each chapter was written and then proved how "scientists" were centuries behind. I'm not artistic enought to "make them up".
Try again.....

Haha...

*closes Pale^Riders box*

 

[Pale^Rider**]

you closed what? :-D

 

[Pale^Rider**]

Oh, now I see....you fall under that classification of: "I'm taking my ball and going home."..... :P

 

[aiki]

Hello. I just scanned quickly the posts on this thread and a couple of things came to mind.

ONe: Why does scripture refer to the "circle of the earth"? Why not say "the square of the earth", or "the triangle of the earth", or whatever? Why circle? It seems obvious to me that the point of calling the earth a "circle" was not to suggest that it was flat, but to indicate that it had a circular quality. But how would this be known way back then? There was no means at the time by which to observe the earth at such a distance as to see this. How, except for divine illumination, would the writer of this phrase have known that the earth does, indeed, have a circular quality. It is an atheistic deflection strategy to become preoccupied with the business of the word "circle" implying flat. While the word "circle" may not go so far as to mean "spherical", it is, nonetheless, amazing that the writer in that time knew that the earth had a circular quality.

Two: Asimov, I think, ridiculed Pale Rider's comments about the winds moving "according to his circuits". He said anyone with a weather vane would know this. A weather vane, however, only indicates a change of wind direction. How exactly would one infer a circuitous quality to the wind's overall movement from that? I have seen weathervanes pointing steadily South one minute and the next point just as steadily North. I can't, though, recall ever seeing a weathervane rotate gradually like the second hand on a clock through every point on the compass (tho' I expect it would move like this, but much faster, in a tornado -- but who would be taking note of this right then?). Weathervanes, for the most part, point along the line down which the wind is blowing, not round and round. Suggesting, then, that one could discern the circuits of the wind's movements from the actions of a weathervane seems to me a dismissive and thoughtless remark.

Three: The assertion that the Bible says the Sun revolves around the earth based on Ecclesiastes 1:5 is specious reasoning at best.

"The sun also arises, and the sun goes down, and hastes to his place where he arose."

It is an assumption on the part of reader to say that the writer of this verse intended to say that the sun revolves around the earth. Nothing in this verse provides a clear basis for asserting this. The writer, in plainly poetic form (ie. "he" and "hastes to his place"), describes the movement of the sun in the sky. It comes up; it goes down; it comes up again where it did before. This verse doesn't speak to the matter of the earth's planetary movement relative to the sun, but to the repetitive rising and falling of the sun from and to the horizon. IN context, the writer of Ecclesiastes was simply emphasizing the repetitive nature of man's existence and the tiresome oldness of it. Verse 10, a summary of the passage in which verse 5 appears, says, "Is there anything whereof it may be said, 'See, this is new?' it has been already of old time..." Verse 5, then, wasn't intended to be a scientific observation on the sun's path through outer space, but part of a cynical observation about the life men live. Therefore, what Asimov has said should be read into this verse is, in light of these things, quite unfounded, I think.

Don't be unsettled by your detractors, PaleRider. Their case is not nearly as solid as they'd like you to think it is.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Pale^Rider**]

Thanks, aiki...and very well said....you, like me, have all the proof you need in that Special and Awesome Book :wink:

 

[aiki]

reznwerks:

You made a series of assertions about scripture that I'd like to respond to:

Psalm 104:5 - "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever."

You stated that this verse meant that the earth is fixed and motionless in space.

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionary defines "foundations" as, "properly a fixture, that is, a basis;generally a place, especially as an abode..."

What this verse is actually saying is that God set the earth in its place in space and it will not be moved from that place. This verse doesn't discount the rotation of the earth on its axis, nor its orbit around the Sun. The position of the earth, relative to the other planets in our solar system and within its established orbit around the Sun, remains fixed. Were there to be any significant variation to this position and orbit we would be destroyed. But, just as this verse indicates, the earth remains "unmoved" from the "foundation", or place, God has given it in space.

The Earth has Edges?! The wicked might get shaken off of it and fall off in
space?!

Please show me what verse(s) you're referring to here. What verse says that the wicked might be shaken off the edges of the earth and fall into space?

Isaiah 11:12 mentions the "four corners of the earth", as does Revelations 7:1. You make no specific observation about these verses, so I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make from them. I suspect, since you capitalized the phrase "four corners of the earth", that you think these verses are actually positing literal corners to the earth. Naturally, as an atheistic person looking for the smallest reason to denigrate the Bible you would grasp at this as an opportunity to do so. :roll:

The expression "four corners of the earth" is not literal, as I'm certain you already know, reznwerks. The dispersed Jews mentioned in Isaiah 11:12 are said to gather together from the four corners of the earth, or, as we might say today, "from all over the earth." The idea behind the phrase is that the Jews came together from every direction and from far-ranging locations. This is clearly figurative language, not intended to express the real nature of the earth's shape or structure.

The four angels in Revelations 7:1 are also said to stand "at the four corners of the earth", which is suggestive of the four directions of the compass. It may also be indicating that the angels each held view over one of four equal quadrants into which the earth could be divided. Certainly, this is a more reasonable understanding of the verse than the specious assertion that it is teaching that the world is square.

I'll not say any more for now. Gotta' go! :D

Pale Rider:

Thanks, aiki...and very well said....you, like me, have all the proof you need in that Special and Awesome Book

YOur welcome! And, yes, I do. :-D

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Asimov]

It seems obvious to me that the point of calling the earth a "circle" was not to suggest that it was flat, but to indicate that it had a circular quality.

The earth doesn't have a circular quality, it has a spherical quality.

But how would this be known way back then?

It's not known, Isaiah believed the earth was disc-like. Many cultures did believe that. The Greeks figured out the earth was spherical by observation. They noted that a ship appeared mast first...on a flat earth of any shape, that is impossible. They also looked at the moon and the way the earth cast a shadow on the moon. If it was flat, then it would cast a shadow different from that of a sphere.

It is an atheistic deflection strategy to become preoccupied with the business of the word "circle" implying flat. While the word "circle" may not go so far as to mean "spherical", it is, nonetheless, amazing that the writer in that time knew that the earth had a circular quality.

It's not amazing, he was wrong, and the Greeks figured it out.

Two: Asimov, I think, ridiculed Pale Rider's comments about the winds moving "according to his circuits". He said anyone with a weather vane would know this. A weather vane, however, only indicates a change of wind direction. How exactly would one infer a circuitous quality to the wind's overall movement from that?

If your life depends on seasons, you pay attention to these things. Humans have been aware of wind circuits for a long time. That doesn't mean the wind can't come from other places, it just means that the wind predominantly blows from a certain direction for a certain period of time. How did the Egyptians do brain surgery? Ooooh...

Don't be unsettled by your detractors, PaleRider. Their case is not nearly as solid as they'd like you to think it is.

Haha, ok.

 

[Asimov]

Oh, now I see....you fall under that classification of: "I'm taking my ball and going home."..... :P

No...there's just no point in arguing with you anymore.

 

[aiki]

Asimov:

The earth doesn't have a circular quality, it has a spherical quality.

This is like saying a cube doesn't have a square quality. But it does, on six sides! Likewise, a sphere has a circular quality on every "side".

It's not known, Isaiah believed the earth was disc-like

I know you want to believe this, but you have yet to prove it.

Many cultures did believe that.

Is this your reason for assuming Isaiah thoght this way? The one fact doesn't necessarily establish the other.

It's not amazing, he was wrong, and the Greeks figured it out.

Again, you want to think Isaiah was wrong, but you haven't given me any good reason to do so. I think it is amazing that Isaiah knew that the shape of the earth was not square, or triangular, or trapezoid, but circular in quality -- especially in the time and circumstances under which he made this statement.

The reality is that Isaiah wasn't intending to make his remark about the "circle of the earth" a definitive, scientific statement about the matter. His emphasis was spiritual and moral in the passage in which this verse appears, not scientific. So, when Christians push the science of this remark too much and the anti-God crowd responds in kind, both groups major on a minor and miss the point of the verse entirely.

If your life depends on seasons, you pay attention to these things. Humans have been aware of wind circuits for a long time. That doesn't mean the wind can't come from other places, it just means that the wind predominantly blows from a certain direction for a certain period of time. How did the Egyptians do brain surgery? Ooooh...

I live in Winnipeg and predominantly the wind blows North to South, or West to East. Sometimes it will blow from a Southerly direction and even more rarely from the East. This is just my observation, however. I've no idea what path the wind follows once it leaves my realm of observation. It could go anywhere -- and does. But I've no idea if its path is, overall, circular, or figure eight, or of no particular shape at all. Meteorologists know now, though, that, generally, the wind blows in a circuitous manner --just like scripture says.

How did Egyptians do brain surgery? Carefully, I expect.

What's the sarcastic "Ooooh" for? Kinda' childish, Asimov.

In Christ, Aiki

 

[Asimov]

Childish? So now we're insulting children?

This is like saying a cube doesn't have a square quality. But it does, on four sides! Likewise, a sphere has a circular quality on every "side".

No...a cube has a cubic quality. A square isn't a cube. A sphere isn't a circle. If you say circle, then you are saying a 2-dimensional object.

Prove what? That Isaiah is saying that "it is he who sittith upon the circle of the earth, and stretcheth out the heavens like a tent to dwell in."

Hmm...sounds like a disc....with a dome....

 

[aiki]

Asimov:

Childish? So now we're insulting children?

Why do you assume that I meant an insult when I called you childish? :wink: :P :-D

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Pale^Rider**]

Aiki......all asimov will do is "take his ball and go home" when he can't win...his excuse:

No...there's just no point in arguing with you anymore.

It all means the same......

We stand in agreement.....God knows all!!!!

 

[Asimov]

pale rider: go back and read the last 5 pages, where I responded to everything you wrote, where I refuted everything you wrote, and where even other Christians refuted what you wrote.

now it's clear that you live in some fantasy world, because you act as if you are victorious??? Ooooooook, I admit defeat...the big pale rider has vanquished me in debate.

Oh woe is me. I am nothing without pale riders concession.

 

[reznwerks]

proof

Because it's all nonsense without any logical proof. How do you know that Islam is not the right religion? Why not convert to Islam? It could be right, so you shouldn't take a chance

Why would I convert to something that has not been proven to me. This Awesome Book HAS been proven to me....and like I said in the very beginning of this thread, this amazing Book has proven things (scientific things) that it took scientists many, many more years to figure out.
Like what? The bible has many scientific errors in it as well. The order of creation itself is in error. The great flood has no evidence of being true. I guess I just proved the bible to have errors and if you have just one error then the whole book is suspect. Here are some links to scientific facts discovered without God and before Jesus. Man must be just as powerful as God if he can come to these great discoveries on his own.Did you ever notice that the only people wailing about the accuracy of he bible in science are only theists looking to validate their faith. All the other time theists are constantly thumbing their nose at science but let just one little fact agree with science and all of a sudden the theists want to be invited to the dinner. Sorry no way no how.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosoph ... sopher.htm

"Famous enough were the water pumps of Archimedes that used a big turning screw in a pipe to pull the water as high as he wanted. The same method was used in mines until recently."1Archimedes' Screw, Archimedes (287 - 212 B.C. 3rd cent. B.C).

First Steam Ball, Heron (The dates of his birth and death are unknown;
conjecture places them between the 2nd cent. B.C. and the 3rd cent. A.D.)

The Antikythera Device 82bc

Measurement of the earth radius, Eratosthenes (c.276-c.196 B.C.)

Democritus and atomic energy, Democritus (c.460-c.370 B.C.)

Pythagoras' Theorem, Pythagoras (c.582-c.507 B.C.)

Prediction of the eclipse, Thales (c.636-546 B.C.) 585 B.C.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:vY ... c%22&hl=en
Here is a link to an ancient Greek computer more than 2000 years old.
http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert/ky ... thera3.htm
So as you can see there is a load of significant scientific discoveries made by man outside and more importantly without the aid of God. I should also point out that these discoveries are far more important and far more complicted and in depth than taking some obscure text in the bible which at one point says the earth is round and ignores the part that says the earth is flat and then uses the first part to proclaim the whole bible must be true. This is self delusion to the utmost.


Since my Bible is right about these things; I, an educated man, will believe in all held within It. The Bible was written by an all-knowing Creator; a Creator of everything we see and will see. That's plenty enough for me...and whole heck of a lot better than believing in nothing.
If the bible was written or caused to be written by a creator he would have caused it to be written without errors or contradictions. It would be written so all would understand it to mean the same thing. Surly if an all powerful creator originated the universe this would have been the simplest of chores. If the creator wanted to impart scientific knowledge he would have given us far more valuable facts to work with than the obscure suggestions the earth is at least flat or maybe round or that rabbits maybe or maybe not chew their cud.

 

[aiki]

reznwerks:

You wrote:

The bible has many scientific errors in it as well.

The verses you've posted on this thread in an attempt to establish this have been shown to have quite reasonable and superior alternative meanings than the ones you've given them.

The order of creation itself is in error.

That's how it might seem to someone who has only a passing familiarity with scripture -- and an axe to grind.

The great flood has no evidence of being true.

Man, you seem to have no clue! You just throw this remark out like its actually true. Check out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

I guess I just proved the bible to have errors and if you have just one error then the whole book is suspect.

Yes, well, it is this kind of foolish thinking and arguing that is going to hinder rather than help your case.

Man must be just as powerful as God if he can come to these great discoveries on his own.

Please explain how discovering something makes one as powerful as God.

All the other time theists are constantly thumbing their nose at science

Which theists, exactly, are you talking about?

but let just one little fact agree with science and all of a sudden the theists want to be invited to the dinner. Sorry no way no how.

Fortunately, you don't determine who may or may not be "invited to the dinner." You may not like theists operating in the realm of science, but that isn't going to keep them from it.

So as you can see there is a load of significant scientific discoveries made by man outside and more importantly without the aid of God.

To make this statement legitimately you must first prove conclusively that God did not aid in the discovery.

This is self delusion to the utmost.

This comment is opinion to the utmost.

If the bible was written or caused to be written by a creator he would have caused it to be written without errors or contradictions.

And He did.

It would be written so all would understand it to mean the same thing.

The only way all of us could come to any written text like the Bible and take from it exactly the same meaning would be for all of us to think exactly alike. The discrepancy in interpretation of the Bible is a testament, not to its ambiguity, but to the individuality of human beings.

Surly if an all powerful creator originated the universe this would have been the simplest of chores.

All things are simple for God. But a things simplicity doesn't make it, necessarily, a priority on God's "To Do" list.

If the creator wanted to impart scientific knowledge he would have given us far more valuable facts to work with than the obscure suggestions the earth is at least flat or maybe round or that rabbits maybe or maybe not chew their cud.

The Bible is not first and foremost a scientific text. It is a spiritual and moral book. God has imparted scientific knowledge to us by way of our reasoning faculties, our observation skills, and the capacity to theorize. He has given spiritual, philosophical, and moral Truth to us through His Word.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Pale^Rider**]

now it's clear that you live in some fantasy world, because you act as if you are victorious???

Whoa now, calm down little fella....no sense in getting your undies bunched....I didn't mean to get you riled.
It's not a fantasy world I live in...its the promise of a tomorrow....and yes, I AM victorious, but it has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with that awesome Book......written by the hand of the Creator.

 

[reznwerks]

meanings

reznwerks:

You wrote:

The bible has many scientific errors in it as well.

The verses you've posted on this thread in an attempt to establish this have been shown to have quite reasonable and superior alternative meanings than the ones you've given them.
Why can't the bible ever say what it means? The only way the bible ever makes sense is to impart the readers imagination and somehow claim "THEY" know the mind of God himself.

[quote:ce49f]The order of creation itself is in error.

That's how it might seem to someone who has only a passing familiarity with scripture -- and an axe to grind.
No it's not. A statement is a statement is a statement. Either it means what it says or it means nothing.

The great flood has no evidence of being true.

Man, you seem to have no clue! You just throw this remark out like its actually true. Check out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp
Been there done that. 98% of all scientists schooled in the science of archeology conclude that a world wide flood did not happen. The evidenced is not there. Ask your friends in AIG how many of their claims have ever been published in any meaningful scientific journal.
Touche:http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

I guess I just proved the bible to have errors and if you have just one error then the whole book is suspect.

Yes, well, it is this kind of foolish thinking and arguing that is going to hinder rather than help your case.
I don't think it's foolish thinking. When I find a mistake in a book I sit up and look for more and am usually not disappointed.

Man must be just as powerful as God if he can come to these great discoveries on his own.

Please explain how discovering something makes one as powerful as God.
You tried to point out Gods guidance in some biblical science and I just pointed out other societies had their own remarkable discoveries without God which proves that man can be just as powerful as God when it comes to science.

All the other time theists are constantly thumbing their nose at science

Which theists, exactly, are you talking about?
To make it simple any Christian that takes the bible literally.

but let just one little fact agree with science and all of a sudden the theists want to be invited to the dinner. Sorry no way no how.

Fortunately, you don't determine who may or may not be "invited to the dinner." You may not like theists operating in the realm of science, but that isn't going to keep them from it.
I'm not trying to keep theists from science. I'm trying to give them so much science they get fat on it. The more science they consume the better their thinking and reasoning abilities will improve. Instead of believing in stories without basis they will ask how, why, when, where, and most important whether the evidence can be counted on to be credible.

So as you can see there is a load of significant scientific discoveries made by man outside and more importantly without the aid of God.

To make this statement legitimately you must first prove conclusively that God did not aid in the discovery.
No you must prove conclusively that a God exists. So far no one has done that. My statement is more true than yours since I didn't include a God in the discovery you did. Remember you can't prove a negative.

This is self delusion to the utmost.

This comment is opinion to the utmost.
No delusion is the correct word.

If the bible was written or caused to be written by a creator he would have caused it to be written without errors or contradictions.

And He did.
That explains the 1400 different denominations of Christianity and still growing.

It would be written so all would understand it to mean the same thing.

The only way all of us could come to any written text like the Bible and take from it exactly the same meaning would be for all of us to think exactly alike.
An all powerful God could do that. He could make us all understand it equally the same. To consider less is an insult to the creator.

The discrepancy in interpretation of the Bible is a testament, not to its ambiguity, but to the individuality of human beings.
No its a testament to the creator to be unable to get him message across to those he is trying to reach. When a message is not understood it is seldom the recievers fault.

Surly if an all powerful creator originated the universe this would have been the simplest of chores.

All things are simple for God. But a things simplicity doesn't make it, necessarily, a priority on God's "To Do" list.
Well either man is not a top priority or he is. Which is it. To say not communicating with his crown creation was not a priority then why did he supposedly send his own son to die for us? I think you have some major contemplaition to consider.

If the creator wanted to impart scientific knowledge he would have given us far more valuable facts to work with than the obscure suggestions the earth is at least flat or maybe round or that rabbits maybe or maybe not chew their cud.

The Bible is not first and foremost a scientific text. It is a spiritual and moral book. God has imparted scientific knowledge to us by way of our reasoning faculties, our observation skills, and the capacity to theorize. He has given spiritual, philosophical, and moral Truth to us through His Word.
He could of made us perfect from the beginning and gone on to other things. What loving creator would hide meaningful scientific knowledge from us that would do us good? What perfect being would create imperfect beings? He could have made us brilliant one and all. He could have made us morally perfect. Why didn't he if he could?

In Christ, Aiki.[/quote:ce49f]