Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: 10 Q's for Laurie Appleton ( No peeking Laurie! )
- On 1 Feb 2003 at 5:38, sabl0s@... wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, Dave OldridgeNo, just not very remarkable in that respect.
> <doldridg@h...> wrote:
> > On 30 Jan 2003 at 22:41, Doug Matulis backyardastronom wrote:
> > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Tom" <>
> > > > Doug:Written BY men, yes, BUT, under direct inspiriation of
> > > himself.
> > > > Basically, as if God HAD written the Bible himself.
> > > >
> > > > Tom: Then "God" is an idiot. Have you read the bible? How can
> > > make such a ludicrous statement?
> > >
> > > I can't prove to you that the bible is inspired, however, there
> > > evidence that it was, for example the fulfillment of very detail
> > > prophecies. Then there are the
> > > The proof is there in the bible. Fulfilled prophecies for
> > > and very accurate prophecies.
> > >
> > > Then there is the biblical description of the physical world that
> > > writers could not possibily had any knowledge of. For example
> > >
> > > 1. The Shape of the Earth
> > > "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people
> > > like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
> > > spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).
> > > This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape
> > > the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat.
> > This is still consonant with Babylonian cosmology, which seems to
> > that of most of the Old Testament.
> > >
> > > 2. The Earth is suspended in nothing
> > > "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he
> > > the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV).
> > > This is particularly interesting considering that the cosmology
> > > other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in
> > > nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals.
> > Depends when you think Job was written. Some think it very
> > others think it a late rendition of an old story. The style is
> > similar to plays of the 1st and 2nd century BCE and that's late
> > enough for Alexandrian science, which knew about the earth being a
> > sphere.
> > > 3. The Existence of Valleys in the Seas
> > > "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the
> > > laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from
> > > nostrils" (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV).
> > Hardly conclusive, since these could be observed during a Tsunami.
> > > 4. The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas
> > > "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day
> > > the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep
> > > burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened"
> > > 7:11, NIV). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28.
> > A strong case can be made for treating this as metaphor. Certainly
> > there are no "floodgates" in the heavens.
> > > 5. The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas
> > > "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the
> > > I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and
> > > stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler
> > > the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the
> > > birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the
> paths of
> > > the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV).
> > Interpretation and reification of metaphor again.
> > > 6. The Hydrologic Cycle
> > > "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not
> > > under their weight" (Job. 26:8, NIV).
> > Curious. What do YOU suppose is the weight of a cloud?
> > > "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the
> > > streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers
> > > fall on mankind" (Job. 36:27-28, NIV)
> > And why WOULDN'T ancient observers notice that it scarcely EVER
> > when it is not cloudy?
> > > "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and
> > > it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the
> > > yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from,
> > > they return again (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
> > An interesting insight, whether or not the author knew the
> > (Which is not really described here).
> > > > Doug: There are also numerous differing interrpretations of
> > > evidence
> > > > that support the Genesis account and a young earth, literal 6
> > > > creation.
> > > >
> > > > Tom: There is no disagreement in mainline science as to the
> > > of the earth.
> > >
> > > I didn't say there was, only that there are other possible
> > > explainations.
> > That's just it. There ARE no other scientific explanations. They
> > all turn out to be either fibs or questionable claims of special
> > miracles.
> > > > Tom: Why Doug, what about the millions of Christians that
> > > that evolution occurred? Do they not worship God? Or is "Doug"
> > > sole arbiter of who is or isn't a Christian?
> > >
> > > No! A belief in evolution does not negate ones belief in God or
> > > their salvation through Jesus Christ. I can't not truely judge
> > > whether one is saved or not. What I am saying is that their
> > > is wrong about what the Bible says about creation, and how we
> > > the diversity of the species we have. It is not explained
> > > by evolution.
> > And you know this because some self-anointed exegete in a three
> > suit told you and you liked his looks?
> > Dave Oldridge
> > ICQ 1800667
> Dave, I usually respect your objective and sensible reasoning, but
> here your counter-arguments are generally weak and riddled with bias.
> 1. Just because Babylonian cosmology more or less observed the same
> thing, does that make the biblical account less reliable or more
> 2. Job's point wasn't whether the earth was spherical or not, butAnd MY point is that Alexandrian cosmology DOES have it suspended in
> rather that it was suspended in space attached to nothing. This was
> quite contrary to other cultures' versions of how the earth was
> 3. Have you tried observing a tsunami lately? Try getting closeIf you stand on a reasonably good hill, you will see the water recede
> enough to make out the trenches and valleys at the floor of the sea.
> And then write about it.
first, baring the whole bottom for a long ways out and then come
> 4. The point was captioned "The Existence of Springs and Fountains inAnd the actual piece is more or less metaphorical rather than
> the Seas" which is what the biblical account in Genesis was refering
> to, and which we know exist.
> 5. Interpretations or no, it did say "paths of the seas". I don'tThe migration routes of salmon, eels and turtles?
> know anything else in the sea that can be described as a "path".
> 6. The weight of a cloud is pretty much equal to the weight of waterYes, but they also DO burst. Where do you think the term cloudburst
> that falls from the cloud. Try catching all the rain that fell from a
> moderate shower. How about a heavy shower? In case you didn't know,
> it's extremely heavy.
> How WOULD the ancient observers notice drops of water going up in theActually it's not that hard on a cool morning near the water to see a
> first place? Try looking at vapor.
mist moving upward.
> I think the mechanism was pretty well explained above. Every aspectWhat I'm trying to get across to you is that ancient science is not
> of the water cycle is already described here.
> I'm sorry you didn't look at the post with a more objective mindset.
> Plus it seems uncharacteristic of you to resort to judging an
> explanation as "fibs or questionable claims of special miracles"
> without even thinking through the person's post.
to be discredited. Herodotus made a fair attempt at a geologic
estimate of the age of the Nile delta in the 6th century BCE.
Eratosthenes measured the earth's size, the distance to the moon and
made an attempt at measuring the distance to the sun in the 2nd
century BCE. And was quite succinct in his opinion that the sun was
not a god at all, but a huge ball of fire at some fairly large
distance from the earth (not an exact description but a lot better
than what some others were peddling).
And there is not ONE instance of a prophet actually revealing science
AS science. In point of fact, if one were to conclude anything from
the Bible's "science" one would conclude that God does not wish us to
learn our science by divine revelation, but rather by investigating
nature for ourselves.
I'm sorry. I've seen just as cogent a set of claims made for the
Qur'an and they have just about the same credibility. They are a
mixture of ancient science that actually DID get included and gross
misinterpretations of other passages.
- Did Doug ever respond to this?- Brian----- Original Message -----From: TomSent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:33 PMSubject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: 10 Q's for Laurie Appleton ( No peeking Laurie! )
<snip creationist junk>
Doug:The bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of
detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God
throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the
Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this
can be verified from archaeology. So far, however, there isn't a
single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.Tom: What a joke! You don't have a clue do you? Did the walls fall for Joshua at Jericho? Did the Israelites conquer Canaan as described? Archeology says no. There are many occurrences in the bible that are not verified by archeology.