Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 18, 2011 at 8:53 pm
(January 18, 2011 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(January 15, 2011 at 3:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: It appears that Waldorf Salad has dropped off the radar.
HO ho ho.
Nah, I am still here. There was just a lot to respond to and I had a lot going on this last week since my furnice decided to go on the fritz. I'll have a reply up by this afternoon PST.
Why don't you pray to your deity to fix your furnace? No sense spending money to fix it if you don't have to.
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm (This post was last modified: January 18, 2011 at 9:09 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(January 18, 2011 at 8:53 pm)Thor Wrote:
(January 18, 2011 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(January 15, 2011 at 3:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: It appears that Waldorf Salad has dropped off the radar.
HO ho ho.
Nah, I am still here. There was just a lot to respond to and I had a lot going on this last week since my furnice decided to go on the fritz. I'll have a reply up by this afternoon PST.
Why don't you pray to your deity to fix your furnace? No sense spending money to fix it if you don't have to.
Because my furince breaking and being fixed is the means to a pre-ordained ends Scooter.
(January 18, 2011 at 8:08 pm)Of_Tomato Wrote:
Took me 1,2 hours to read. Your patience with this c*** should give you all the nobel prize.
Showed this thread to the colleagues and they all agreed, Waldorf is the funniest guy since Napoleon.
I am sure myself and some of my colleagues would get equally as much amusement from your atheistic views, so that doesn't really get us anywhere.
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 18, 2011 at 10:32 pm
(January 18, 2011 at 8:08 pm)Of_Tomato Wrote:
Took me 1,2 hours to read. Your patience with this c*** should give you all the nobel prize.
Showed this thread to the colleagues and they all agreed, Waldorf is the funniest guy since Napoleon.
Quote:They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).
Only you would call creationist shitheads "scientists."
Actually so would the dictionary. Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain knowledge about the physical world. This by definition makes them scientists. If you want to be arbitrary and change the definition to fit your beliefs then do it, but I simply cannot agree with you for intellectual and logical reasons.
[/quote]
I'll stick with the Supreme Court if its okay with you...or even if it isn't.
Quote:The court found that the Louisiana Legislature's actual intent was "to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief."
Creationists are religious shitheads....not scientists. Sorry if you don't like reality but for a guy who believes in a big fucking ark that isn't so much of a surprise.
[/quote]
The United States Supreme Court decides your science for you!? LOL. Well then you must believe that tomatoes are vegetables since the US Supreme Court decided that, even though those of us in the scientific community are well aware they are scientifically classified as fruit. You keep on letting people with law degrees decide your science for you; I will stick to actual definitions.
Ashendant;113288 Wrote:No the dictionary is a interpreter of the human language, in English, a fact is
Quote:something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
or truth, since we know that the universe is a fact(the universe it exists) it's true if the universe would contradict itself
Quote:assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial. or a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
the opposite of truth is false since the universe exists, it can't be contradictory or false
I agree with you that truth does not contradict itself, but you have not told me using your worldview why this is the case. So you are going to have to come up with a better reason than, “Just because.”- I am sorry.
Quote: Because then it would be false which is not truth because false is the opposite of truth, you can't be opposites at the same(ex i can't be a animal and a plant at the same time because animals don't have the ability to photosynthetise and plants do)
Again, this is just a circular argument. “Truth can’t contradict itself because then it wouldn’t be truth.” You have to tell me why it can’t, I understand that it can’t, and I have an actual reason as to why it can’t. You apparently cannot come up with one.
Quote: I doubt the bible divine status but admit it that it has it's historical value, i'm not aware of any atheist that doubt the historical exodus(if i remember exactly the exodus was a historical event)
Well then I have more respect for you. I have actually met many atheists who do not accept the historical accounts in the Bible, including the exodus out of Egypt. I am sure there are even a few on this website.
Quote: Religions evolve to save their own behinds, the pope came from a need for the church to have a figure head.
I don’t really care where the Pope came from; I do not accept his authority on such matters. Scripture alone is the final authority on these matters.
It's not a natural science, even your own argument refutes itself, because it studies the supernatural, and the supernatural is
Quote:a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
Since it's outside of the natural order it's not natural, so it's not natural or physical, since the definition of science is
Quote:any of the branches of natural or physical science.
It's not science since scientist require to be
Quote:an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.
Therefore there's no such thing as a creationist science or scientist
...
Did i just disprove creationist as science with a dictionary...
[/quote]
Actually your just displayed your ignorance as to what Creation Science is. It is not the study of the supernatural. Creation scientists do not sit around and study God, they study the natural world. They just believe that the accounts of creation and other accounts in the Bible are completely accurate. Nowhere in the definition does it say that a scientist must believe in natural origins to the natural world he studies, he just has to study the natural world. I completely believe that guys like Newton, Bacon, and Kepler were indeed scientists. Again, you are just committing the “No true Scotsman” fallacy when you try and play these semantic games; though I do enjoy the debate my friend.
Quote: I really feel sorry for the time you guys are wasting trying to humor this creationist shit head by pretending he is somehow theoretically capable being put within reach of scientific enlightenment
Says the man who is wasting his time telling others they are wasting their time. If you don’t like the discussion don’t take part in it. Pretty simple.
Quote: ... yes... all the science that Answers in Genesis can "research."
None of which are compliant with modern physics. A few of those would even break the universe if not just the solar system.
Ultimately, to acknowledge any of these 'hypothosis', you'd have to essentially dump physics out the window.
Also, since coming from youtube instantly invalidates everything:
The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention outright violates relativity becuase it relies on observer-centric anisotropic synchrony convention. There's no saving that one because relativity is so thoroughly proven correct over the past century that's it's perhaps as irrefutable as heliocentrism and gravity. This is why people often compare and elevate Einstein to the same degree as Newton or Galileo.
The Gravitational Well Model is a direct result of not understanding how gravity works. If this were the case, it would be easily observable. Also: A stable solar system could never exist in a well so heavily distorted by gravity because it would either be blown apart or crushed becuase the time dilation would have to be strong enough to rush the universe forward 1 million years for every year passed in our solar system. Also - we have the ability to detect gravitational distortions. It how we confirmed relativity and now we use it ALL THE TIME.
The Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model suffers from the same problem as the gravitational well model. Different method but the same result.
I am quite certain that all of these points (among others) were refuted in the above video.
Oh brother. You obviously still do not understand the ASC. It does not violate relativity at all, it’s actually greatly supported by it. Einstein himself said there is no “true” measurement of time. So to say that there is and the ASC violates the true measurement of time is in itself violating Einstein’s work.
As to the gravitational well, saying that its founder does not understand gravity and you do is ridiculous. He has had over 30 peer reviewed articles published in the most prestigious secular journals and works at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico as a Nuclear Physicist and received the “Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.” I think the guy knows a thing or two about physics.
Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model is also a completely valid model despite what you think. I am sure you are well aware that Carmeli was not a Creationist; his model just solves the distant starlight problem for creationists.
Quote: A roll of a '1'.
There were plenty of other words they could have used and plenty of other verses that ('ball' comes to mind), when taken in-context and read as though they were from the same book, they still add up exactly as I described them. That's why I didn't post ONE quote, instead opting to post several.
They could have also chosen several other words to mean that the earth was something other than a 'circle' - but no - they chose the term circle and later specifically referred to other properties that do not define a spherical planet.
Why would they? The intent of the verse was not to inform the reader about the shape of the planet. It’s talking about God’s relation to man.
Quote: '5'
So god is truth, except when conveying prophecies about one's own life in prophecy.
The shape of the earth is consistent in all areas in the bible except in this vision sequence that's supposed to properly portray King Nebuchandnezzar as a tree that nearly reaches heaven?
Even if the tree never happened in the proper cannon of the bible, it still describes the tree's height in proper context with the rest of the earth and heaven.
If you believe the Bible is trying to inform its readers about the shape of the Earth during a symbolic dream then there is not much I can do for you. The fact of the matter is that I caught you, because you didn’t realize this was a symbolic dream until after you posted it. Or else you would have not used it as an example.
The shape of the earth is consistent everywhere in the Bible except for this passage? I have already pointed out that you have pointed to some verses you believe talk of a flat circular earth like a coin, and other verses talk of corners and edges. Of course these are all metaphors so we would expect this, but your claim that all of the descriptions are consistent is of course false. So you still need to get your story straight, did people in Bible times believe the earth was circular and flat or square and flat?
A better answer is that people in Bible times were well aware of the actual shape of the earth, thus why they use metaphors to convey points rather than to inform the reader of the earth’s shape.
Quote: Yeah... about 'they went up there' and 'never says they show all of the kingdoms from the mountain top':
Again, reading something into the text that is not there. It just says they went up there and Christ was shown all the kingdoms. Never says they had to be up there in order to see all the kingdoms. Bad exegesis.
Quote: "1"
"Sunrise" is when the sun rises above the horizon.
"Sunset" is when the sun lowers below the horizon.
Please note that none of those definitions (linked above) have any flat-earth connotions.
Well I am sure you are aware the sun does not actually “rise” above the horizon, it just looks that way because it is the Earth that is moving. So these are descriptive terms used by everyone because they make sense even though they are not scientifically accurate. So I see no issue with them being used in scripture. Job is also a poetic book; we know this from the Hebrew verb usage. So to interpret it otherwise is again poor exegesis.
Quote: J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a fantasy book that uses metaphor and other literary techniques to tell a fantastical story in a poetic manner.
The Bible uses poetic, metaphoric, and other literary elements just as Tolkien did. It’s a shame you give him a pass but not the Bible. Special pleading. Keep in mind Tolkien’s books are not fantasy and fiction because they use these forms of writing, so the Bible is not necessarily fantasy or fiction because it uses similar writing elements. Writing elements themselves do not determine what is and what is not true.
Quote: Indeed, but the fact that you think it's beautiful does nothing to detract from the obvious falsehood of this biblical 'fact.'
So you are suggesting you can indeed move the Earth from the relative perspective of the Earth? Wow, I think you should read a physics book.
Quote: Be that as it may... I don't care what commenters say, I care what the bible literally states. God did not refer to pillars being people or representing people or pillars being like people or people being like pillars (like 'pillars of a society'). It just says that the pillars of the earth are the lords and who he'll protect and who he won't protect before moving onto another topic. The passage clearly simply annoints that these pillars are god's and no one else's and that he set the world on them.
You’re right; you probably should not have tried your hand at biblical exegesis. Be that as it may, the context of this verse is very clear; the pillars being discussed are people. Just like “pillars of the community” is a reference to people, not physical pillars.
Let’s apply your silly little standards to some well known authors and see how they’d fair in your eyes.
“This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;”
- Edgar Allen Poe’s The Raven
Oh no! Poe must have thought that Ravens actually had eyes filled with fire since he used the term “fiery eyes”! Looks like he also believed our chests were like some sort of fruit that had physical cores. What an idiot! It sure is a good thing that nobody thinks Poe was a literary genius or anything like that!
Let’s use your standards again shall we?
"I got the drunk up the stairs somehow. He was eager to help but his legs were rubber . . . "
- Raymond Chandler’s The Long Goodbye
Oh no! Chandler must actually believe that our legs are made of physical rubber! What a moron!
This is kind of fun, let’s look at another one…
““A fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat
into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens,
where ashes take the forms of houses and
chimneys and rising smoke and finally, with a
transcendent effort, of men who move dimly
and already crumbling through the powdery air.”
- F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby
Oh no! Looks like Fitzgerald could be the biggest idiot of them all, using your same standards. He really believes that trees can magically take the form of houses and chimneys? Not to mention he thinks men can move and crumble through powdery air? What a freaking Moron, it’s a good thing nobody thinks he was a literary genius or anything like that haha.
It’s a shame you seem to be completely blind to figures of speech in writing. If you could recognize them even half the time you’d realize that the bible is a beautifully and eloquently written book with lots of different elements and literary complexities. Oh well, it’s your loss.
Quote: "The floodgates of heaven open and the foundations of earth shake" is a statement and not a metaphor.
Oh really? According to whom? You? When people say, “wow that shook the very foundations of our country!” Are they talking about the US being built on physical foundations? Nope. The verse is using descriptive metaphor to give the reader an idea of the sheer magnitude of the flood event.
Quote: Plenty of other words to describe the absence of anything.
A convenient excuse to somehow have 'waters' to somehow mean 'airless void.'
Even without a true meaning for 'infinate space' - Hebrew has more than enough words to describe space in a manner more befitting its actual properties since space is entirely different from 'waters'.
Just because you don’t like the metaphor used does not amount to anything. In fact, judging by your sheer ignorance of figures of speech and metaphoric language I think you’d be the last person I’d look to for advice.
Quote: So the allmighty created two lights to rule the cycles of night and day.
Looks like it huh?
Quote: The people who wrote this book clearly were ignorant of the earth's shape.
That’s a myth that apparently you were just gullible enough to believe. Like I pointed out, it was perpetuated by Washington Irving. People in ancient times were well aware of the Earth’s shape.
Quote: I'll give you an exmaple.
If a book I was reading had a sentence that stated
"The air in the room was thick, a slow moving syrup"
I would know that this is a metaphor because it is phrased exactly like a simile without the word 'like'.
"The air is a thick syrup." is not a metaphor. It is a statement.
If you can't tell the difference, then don't tell me what is and is not a metaphor.
Seriously? There is no rule that a metaphor has to be constructed just like a simile minus the “as” or “like”. You obviously just made that up. Nor is there a rule saying a metaphor can’t be constructed like a statement. That is made clear by the dictionary definition which uses an example that is built exactly like the “The Air is thick syrup” example you gave.
Metaphor- –noun
1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god.”
Of course using your silly little rules, you’d have to say their example is not a metaphor and the fortress really is our god since this is constructed like a statement.
Quote: Indeed this is a simile. Let me know when you figure out how this negates the reason why I posted this quote, which was to prove that the biblical cosmology is wrong since the sky dome to heaven this time can open and lower something like a large sheet by its four corners.
Otherwise you're just dismissing my point without addressing it, which so far appears to be the vast majority of your responses in this post.
What? Since it is a simile why would you take it as a literal description of cosmology? If I say, “Wow, the stars look like campfires in the sky!” does that mean that I believe the stars are really campfires? Uh no, because it’s what we call a simile.
Quote: I've never heard a meteorologist state anything that ridiculous. Clouds drop rain, they don't 'open up' and drop rain.
I have heard them say it, and I am pretty sure that they still know how rainfall actually works. They are just using descriptive language, just like the Bible does.
Quote: Thanks for proving how little you know about genetics. If you weren't a bonefied creationist before, you've just served your credentials and one of its main necessary requirements.
Yet you fail to point out how this would be wrong. The aging of our organs and cells is determined by the length of our telomeres. So death from old age is always determined by our telomeres or by mutations in our genomes. So longer telomeres and genomes devoid of most mutations would have led to much longer lives. I can draw you a picture if you’d like.
“Cawthon's study found that when people are divided into two groups based on telomere lengths, the half with longer telomeres lives five years longer than those with shorter telomeres. That suggests lifespan could be increased five years by increasing the length of telomeres in people with shorter ones.”
- University of Utah’s research website
Quote: The bible says otherwise unless 'reaching salvation' and 'being saved' are two wholly different things. Though not being able to choose my own salvation sort of defeats the purpose of being judged for the worthiness of salvation, does it not? (Cue a roll of the dice in 3.. 2... 1...)
You are judged for your sins, not because you were not given saving grace. When a death row inmate is executed, he is executed for his crimes, not because he didn’t receive a pardon from the governor.
Quote: Ah. I keep forgetting the inherant design flaw that god introduced to us and then punished us through multiple genocides for - Sin. Yes, babies, animals, and even the staunchest of believers in this religion none are truely innocent.
... poor babies who were never baptized or believed in Jesus. I'm sure there's a day care center in hell for all those poor sinful children.
When Adam fell we all fell, he was our representative, so it is not a design flaw at all. God has just as much freedom in saving babies as He does anyone else. I feel it is consistent with His character that all babies are given saving grace. The Bible does not tell us either way, so that is more just my opinion.
Unfortunately for you, given your worldview, babies are just cosmic accidents that really have no value or purpose. So you are really just borrowing from my worldview when you say their lives have any value at all.
Quote: I'd believe that if god hasn't personally murdered nearly every human in the world at least once and multilpe cities on multiple occasions. He's responsible for more untimely deaths than Satan.
Well murder only applies to humans killing other humans. God has the right to destroy His creation, and to pass judgment upon it (Romans 9). We should just all be glad we get better than we actually deserve.
Quote: People don't use the term 'falling star' anymore because we figured out that those were meteors and not stars, which was well after biblical times. At the time this bible was written, the term was still valid in this respect and this is consistent with the other related quotes I've pulled up on this topic - particularly from Genesis.
Actually most people still use the terms “Falling Star” and “Shooting Star”.
Quote: oh... if only the verse stated or described an eclipse. Instead you have to infer that based on...
Guesswork? Usually, when an eclipse happens, the moon covers the sun, the stars don't fall, and the 'powers in heaven' don't shake.
An eclipse describes when the moon covers the sun, but the verse doesn't specifically describe that or anything like that. You're generalizing so much that you could be describing a super-cell thunderstorm. (and no, the passage doesn't describe that either. It states what it literally states and nothing else.)
Where did I say the verse was describing an eclipse? Nowhere. I was just point out that they do darken the sun from the earth’s perspective; this does not mean that is what the verse is talking about.
Quote: ... the same way most christians are christians despite not knowing or understanding everything written in the bible or the same way you can have reputable christian scientists by not taking the bible at its word.
Oh yes! The old “Newton and Kepler were idiots!” argument. Newton actually spent more time studying the Bible than he did math and science. I think he understood scripture, at least better than you. I do not mind being in the same category as these men, if they didn’t see any issues with scripture’s divine inspiration claim then I guess I can’t really see any issue with it then either.
Quote: It was a good try though. I got you to committ a no true scotsman fallacy that basically said that the entire catholic church wasn't following the bible when they pursecuted him.
That actually was not a fallacy. I think I made it very clear that they objected to Galileo for reasons that are not in the Bible. Well unless you can show me where in the Bible it says that moving the earth out of the center of the universe is a means of glorifying it, which of course you can’t because it’s not in there. So my claim that they were objecting on non-biblical grounds is completely accurate, and not fallacious.
Quote: See? All the quotes. Not just some of them and the other half addressed seporately.
Pulling a smattering of quotes out of the Bible and trying to compare them all is bad exegesis, every Bible scholar knows not to do this.
Quote: Statler - being unsatisfied with your creation at a later time is inconsistent with any idea that god is omnicient. You can't say he knows the future of anyone or anything AT ALL if he can change his damn mind about somthing like that and the bible is littered with examples of this.
Quote: You keep telling yourself that.
This is how the speed of light can be measured.
So... yeah... it's not only been done multilpe times, but it's been possible for around 300 years.
The first link has ten people that did this very thing. The whole 'anisotropic' or whatever has already been easily disproven thanks to knowing that physics doesnt' at all work that way.
You just proved my point! The article you pointed me to talked of calculating the one way speed of light by measuring two way speeds off of the mirror on the moon. This of course is not directly measuring the one way speed of light; it is calculating the one way speed of light by measuring the two way speed of light. So my original claim stands un-refuted, it is impossible to directly measure the one way speed of light due to relativity.
Quote: No one said the vatican is infallible, Statler. The point is that the Vatican observatory is a well respected scientific organization that conducts a broad range of astrononimcal research which is peer reviewed in respected scientific journals. And like every other astronomical observatory on the planet (none of which are run by creationists), they subscribe to the big bang theory and the fact that the universe is very very old.
Again, scientific fact is not and never will be established by consensus. You should know better.
Quote: As for the Apollo Space program, even if that were true, so what? Administrators at NASA aren't necessarily scientists, and they don't set space science policy. Congress does.
Ignorance tsk tsk. Wernher von Braun was not just an administrator. As your guys’ beloved source Wikipedia would say, “Braun would later be regarded as the preeminent rocket engineer of the 20th century in his role with the United States civilian space agency NASA” You really need to read up a bit before you make such foolish claims bud.
Quote: Perhaps you could enlighten us as to who, exactly, these creationists are who have worked at some of the most prestigious labs and observatories in the world.
Well there are quite a few actually. One great example would be Dr. Russel Humphries who has worked at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico since 1979. Another example would be Michael Trigges who is a Senior Aerospace Engineer at NASA Johnson Space Center. You’d think you’d guys would stop making these silly claims about Creation Scientists after I have proven so many of them to be flat out wrong, but oh well.
Quote: And Statler, actually, none of those models work because there is no evidence for any of them. Why? Because they need facts, they need to be verifiable/repeatable, and none of those "theories" fit the prerequisites for sound science. And Statler, distant starlight is actually a death sentence for YEC. Frankly, that you would even bother to try to promote such nonsense is just sad.
Actually all of the models do work; it’s obvious you just haven’t read up on any of them. You had better hope they work because the “Big Bang” has its own background radiation vs. time problem that could be solved by any one of these three models.
Quote: This is a false statement. The entire argument of creationism can be boiled down to "God did it". And there is nothing physical or scientific in making such an unsupportable axiomatic declaration.
Read up on what Creation Scientists really believe before you weigh in on the matter. Thanks.
Quote: The anisotropic bullshit(sorry, theory) has already had so many holes shot in it that I'm amazed that you even bothered to regurgitate it here again.
As to the gravity well theory , the obvious(and ultimately disastrous) consequences of being in the gravitational field of a blackhole appear to escape the attention of its proposer
Moshes Carmeli's theory merely eliminates the need for dark matter so I don't see how you can use it to justify a young earth theory.
Next.......
You act as if you proved something with this post, that’s kind of scary. ASC actually has not had any holes shot in it by anyone who actually understands the model. That is probably why you didn’t shoot any holes in it here either.
You obviously don’t understand the gravitational well model, so I suggest you read up on it too before you weigh in on it. Dr. Humphries book, “Starlight and Time” would be a good place for you to begin
Well if you were familiar with Carmeli’s model you would realize that clocks on the outer edges of the universe would tick up to a trillion times faster than clocks towards the center due to the 5th dimensional expansion of time and space.
Quote:
orogenicman;113438 Wrote:Statler, please describe how YEC explains away the fact that paleomagnetism and other evidence demonstrates that the ocean floors are vastly older than can be accounted for by the Genesis account of the age of the Earth.
Actually paleomagnetism is not a problem for the catastrophic plate tectonic model because its old ages are based off of radiometric dating. Which of course is not accepted by young earth creationists for numerous and I feel legitimate reasons. Paleomagnetism also has many other problems of its own such as remagnetization. So if you think you are coming up with something that the Geologists on the creation side of the aisle are not fully aware of, you’re mistaken.
Quote: [quote=TheDarkestOfAngels;113630]
Ahh. To sort of sum up everything I've said in the past few posts in regard to the biblical view of earth.
A handy visual aid to those who wonder what the Earth and cosmos of the bible looks like.
Like a spitting mirror image of reality.
Yeah that’s a great reference for people like you who are completely ignorant of literary elements and figures of writing. Great job! For the rest of us who know what metaphors are, I find that illustration rather laughable.
Quote: Yes, scientists look at the Grand Canyon and, using a variety of disciplines, they conclude the Canyon was carved by the action of the Colorado River over a very long period of time (i.e., millions of years).
Despite the fact that they have never observed a river carve out a canyon and the fact that there boulders at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that are far too large for the Colorado River to move even in flood season. This also ignores the fact that the Kaibab Upheaval suggests that most of the strata in the canyon were deformed while it was still saturated with water, and not over millions of years. Of course you can just ignore all of these facts and continue with your fallacious interpretation of the evidence.
Quote: There is nothing "scientific" about the supernatural. And do you really want scientists wasting their time considering "possible answers" that involve the supernatural? Suppose you have crushing chest pains and are rushed to the hospital. Would you want the doctor to "consider" the possibility that your chest pain is being caused by a demon sitting on your chest? Would you want him to run around looking for holy water so he could sprinkle it on your chest and see if that relieves your pain because the demon has been chased away? Or would you rather have him assume you're having a heart attack and administer appropriate treatment? Or would you consider such action by the doctor to be "not objective"?
Creation Scientists don’t invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences, so this whole analogy is ridiculous.
Quote: So you want to rip science because when it makes advances, what was previously thought to be true is shown not to be? Then I suppose science shouldn't ever make new discoveries.
Huh? No, I was just showing you why you should not appeal to consensus. Apparently you missed the whole point.
Quote: You are confusing science with philosophy. Science does not seek "truth". Science looks for the best answer given the available evidence.
Where did I say science was the pursuit of truth? I just pointed out that if you are making scientific progression it should be in the direction of truth not untruth. You are right, science does not determine truth.
Quote: And if there are invisible angels pushing the planets around the solar system, Newton's laws of motion were not a progression at all. Also, evolution has nothing to do with how old the planet is.
Again, the operational sciences. Creationists do not invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences. Hence, why Newton could be a creationist and still do very good scientific work.
Actually evolution is closely tied to the age of the earth. It needs old ages, hence why Darwin was such an advocate of the uniformitarian movement.
Quote: Wrong.
Baseless assertion, claim stands un-refuted.
Quote:Wrong again.
Assertion, claim stands un-refuted.
Quote: Because you're comparing a living being to non-living material.
So? The laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to living matter? I think they very much do.
Quote: Yeah, if I was a complete fool.
Well you apply this same foolish reasoning to the age of the earth so…..
Quote: And here is where you demonstrate how well you comprehend what I write. I did NOT talk about how the Grand Canyon was formed! I talked about the ROCK LAYERS at the Grand Canyon! Have you ever been there? I have. And you can see the different rock layers that have been laid down over time. They are composed of different materials, fossils vary depending on the layer, and the layers are even different colors! These layers are stacked one atop the other (much like a layer cake) and total up to a mile deep. The idea that these layers piled up to that depth in the space of a just a few thousand years is absolutely laughable.
Actually you are right; it doesn’t have to take thousands of years. The Little Grand Canyon in Washington State is 1/40th the size of the actual Grand Canyon (about 100 feet deep). It is completely stratified just like the Grand Canyon and even has a new stream running down the middle of it just like the Grand Canyon. The only problem is…it was formed in one day!! The canyon was formed by the sediment run off caused by the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The only problem is, it displays everything you just listed above as evidence for an “old” canyon and yet we know it is very young.
Quote: Read my question again, genius. I did NOT ask how the Grand Canyon was formed. I asked you to explain the ROCK LAYERS. Care to try again?
As I pointed out above, the Little Grand Canyon also has rock layers; it’s a natural phenomenon that is caused by the different grain sizes and densities. It does not prove age at all. I find it rather unbelievable that a semi-intelligent person could believe what you believe in spite of the observed evidence to the contrary.
Quote: Anything with the word "Creation" in its name does not qualify as a legitimate scientific organization or publication. So please stop trotting out this garbage.
Well it fit the criteria you gave me. So it’s obvious you are just committing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Keep it up.
Quote: Also, who exactly "peer-reviewed" the conclusions of the creation journals? Other creationists? This is the same as other Nazis "peer reviewing" the conclusions of Nazi researchers. Epic fail.
Actually it is the same as only evolutionists peer reviewing the articles that are submitted to Nature and Science lol. Can you name one scientist on the peer review board for either one of those journals who does not believe in evolution? So it is obvious you are just engaging in special pleading when you expect Creation Journals to be peer reviewed by non-creationists. Epic fail.
Quote: And obviously you don't understand the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Well I certainly should considering you have given me about a dozen fine examples of it to learn from.
Quote: Would you consider the "Nazi Journal" to be an "historical source" in matters concerning the Holocaust? If not, then (according to you) you are imposing an "arbitrary definition".
I believe in judging science upon its merits, so point me to an article from this Nazi Journal and I will read it and let you know what I think.
Quote: Except their "systemic approach" is tainted by their assumption that some deity created the universe. This poisons anything they may conclude
Well I guess the laws of Gravity are tainted because they were discovered by someone who believed God created the earth and universe about 6,000 years ago! Bummer!
Quote: You still want to insist the DNA evidence is "circumstantial"?
DNA evidence is by definition circumstantial evidence yes. Hence why OJ Simpson was not convicted for murder criminally despite the fact they had DNA evidence to support the DA’s charges. This was because the jury believed (wrongfully I believe) that the DNA evidence was planted.
Quote: And we can observe those rock layers at the Grand Canyon...
Yes you can, so you can say you have strong empirical evidence that there are rock layers at the Grand Canyon. I would not argue with this at all, especially since I have seen them myself.
Quote: And do you have any evidence to suggest that the rates are in error? I mean other than just saying "it's prone to error".
The fact that these methods can’t date correctly of rocks of known ages is pretty strong evidence that the rates are not constant. If the method can’t work when used on material of known age there is no reason at all to believe it all of the sudden works on materials of unknown ages. I am sorry.
Quote: Clearly unlike you I do not use the as yet incomplete research into C14 dates as any evidence whatsoever therefore I have no burden; YOU DO HOWEVER, and these dates reveal that the earth WAS NOT created 6k years ago. If you use this to support your argument, then you are disproving the YEC model you have put forward in that argument. Not my problem but ceratinly yours. Your position is now totally incoherent having proposed a model and disproved it, but you are now thrashing around again saying "well it disproves your model as well and by more". Agian, before you twist anymore just to repeat I am content to wait for the research, where the conjecture is that these dates are due to contamination within the mineral structures. You either have to back off using such research or deny YEC, which is it? Again, it isn't my model but the model supported by the scientific community
I think your view on this matter is a prime example of intellectual laziness. I could very well be just as lazy and say, “Well I don’t accept evolution because I am sure there is some pending research that will disprove it.” Of course I do not believe this is an acceptable argument when I use it anymore than when you use it.
I am sure you are also well aware that the 40,000 year date is what we would call an “upper limit”, so the fact that 6,000 years falls under this “upper limit” is really no problem for the YEC side of the aisle. Unfortunately for you, the fact that you believe in a date that is thousands of times higher than that upper limit does provide some very serious problems for your side of the aisle.
Quote:
I have already rebutted the ‘missing’ coelacanth point twice before. If you do not accept it then fair enough, but to convince others (including myself) all you have to do is do some research get it peer reviewed and into a scientific journal. I think you’ll find my explanation consistent with published research.
Ahh, it’s the old, “All legitimate science appears in secular peer-review journals” canard. I am sure you are also aware that Crick and Watson’s work on the DNA double helix was never peer-reviewed; I guess DNA does not exist then! This is a silly game you are trying to play. You never really addressed my Coelacanth point, you just threw a fit and side stepped the point. So the fact of the matter is that when an animal doesn’t appear in the fossil record sometimes it means it really didn’t exist (sea urchins), but other times it means the animal was just not fossilized (Coelacanths) and you get to just arbitrarily pick which case it is. I like the creation viewpoint that just not all animals were fossilized; it is so much more consistent with the evidence.
Quote: Sea urchins are bottom feeders, they are found only in late Tertiary sediments onwards. Your explanation is again incohrent. However these animals died or came to be in there present position, your argument is that they are found where they are becuase it is a record of death and burial over 6000 years. In which case the animals which are marine bottom feeders would be found only in the lowest sedimentary layers. You still have not explained why these bottom feeders are not found in the bottomost sediments? 3 times I've asked, 3 times no answer, just obviscation; keep trying!
Actually many such animals are found in the bottom most layers. The fact that Sea Urchins are not just means their bodies came to rest higher up where they were fossilized. It’s really not as complicated as you are trying to make it. Fossilization is a rare event, we know this.
Quote: Using the current worldwide measurments of mountain building rates, it takes 10's of millions of years to form such chains.
Yeah keyword here is “current”. I think this uniformitarian line of thinking has been disproven time and time again and even secular geologists today don’t ascribe to it due to many lines of evidence that mountain ranges have up heaved at far greater rates in the past.
Creationists actually do have a catastrophic plate tectonics model that works perfectly and has been published in both creation and peer-reviewed journals and has been shown off and conferences nationwide. I would suggest you look at some of the published work on this model.
Quote: Science is not infallible, but it is the best we have for truth seeking. You trust in science over religion everyday. If you or your loved ones are ill do you go to a doctor, or eschew it and pray to Jesus? Just because you have an inbuilt bias, do not try and paint everyone with the same brush. As for a worldview, you clearly have one.
Science is the best we can do for truth seeking? How do you know this claim is true then? Did you scientifically prove that science is the best we can do for truth seeking? That’s a self-refuting argument.
Nowhere in scripture does Christ say to not go to the doctor. To the contrary God has given man dominion over His creation and encourages him to pursue knowledge and discovery; hence why the Christian Reformation led to modern science as we know it. So your straw-man argument is really just that, a straw-man.
Quote: I don't have to, and I don't have to do your work for you, and I'm not the one with the lack of evidence. All these sciences have established well tested facts, they are available and open to the public. Scientific papers in these fields are peer reviewed, and grow by 100's of thousands every year. These sciences are fully explained and lead to predictions with reference to the ToE. All validate the ToE. YEC to the extent it can form a model doesn’t fit. Your response was as embarrassing as Behe at the Dover trial, where he proclaimed that the human blood clotting cascade was irreducibly complex and then the opposing attorney just brought out paper after paper refuting his claims slapping them down in front of him asking him if he had read them. Behes response was no he hadn't but it didn't matter becuase they wouldn't provide enough evidence. I am not the one who has my work cut out, I am not making the claims - YOU ARE; you'd better get going!
This is just more intellectual laziness. So I have provided 25 lines of evidence confirming an earth created 6,000 years old, you have provided zero. This is a pretty easy discussion then.
Besides, you are just practicing exactly what you damn Behe (not a creationist btw) for doing. Have you read every single peer-reviewed article published in the creation journals? Nope! Yet, somehow you know that they cannot provide any evidence that would persuade you to believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Hypocrite.
Quote: I noticed you committed the fallacy of appealing to authority, called you out on it; then like so many other things you deny it. I gave you 2 alternative conjectures. You cannot use OEC to validate YEC, nor did you refute the conjecture of the Raelians and you have chosen to ignore them. Disproving evolution does not prove YEC; it is still a bifurcation.
Well if you had actually read my posts you’d realize that I said that the only two options were special creation and naturalistic creation so you have done nothing to refute this claim since you really just gave me more examples that fall into either one of these categories (OEC and Raelians). Of course Evolutionary Theory is the only serious naturalistic method proposed for life on earth and the universe itself (big bang cosmology), so evidence against it is logically evidence for special creation. Special creation of course has several branches (YEC, OEC, and ID being examples), but once you admit that special creation has to be the answer then we can discuss why it has to be YEC. Right now however you are just being completely illogical, “Well I know the answer has to be an even number, but since I don’t know which even number it is I will pick an odd one!” So my point still stands.
Quote: No you haven’t moved any goalposts, neither have you constructed any to move; hence the problem. You have not defined information, because you can't and the response below is woefully inadequate to even start a debate. It would be useful to your argument, otherwise this is bluster.
So first I was moving goalposts, now I have not even built any? I guess you are at least being consistently inconsistent.
Quote: At the moment I fell distinctly underwhelmed (not overwhelmed) by "information theory". Replacing the word “Information” with "specifed complexity" adds exactly what to a definition of “Information”? I’ll help you on this one; it does nothing at all to define what you mean by Information, nor does it quantify it, nor does it explain why it is important, nor does it explain how much a human nor other types of animal have, nor does it explain what "information" is contained in coding as compared to non-coding DNA structures. You are the expert summarise succinctly these points for us. All this is currently, is just a set of words not backed by data, trying to masquerade as science. “Specified complexity” which is another meaningless term, unless defined. Try again.
The evidence I gave you for evolution (contrary to your hysterical assertion that I hadn't provided you with any) was specific and included complexity (ie mutations which were additional bestowed enhancements to human biology improving survival, attractiveness etc.). Does this count? That may not be right (according to your definition), nor good enough for you, so why isn’t it?, what is “Information”?, how do you quantify it? etc etc. Just answer the questions and we’ll move forward.
Its almost like you have given up!
Maybe what I previously wrote on information just went over your head. I will quickly point it out again, you quantify Shannon information, you do not quantify semantic information. DNA contains both, we can quantify the Shannon information in the genome, we have to measure the semantic information by quality not quantity. I gave you the option of checking out a book on the subject written by one of the world’s leading information theorists and you seem to not care enough to give it a look (as I pointed out, it is available for free online). However, it is a well established law that semantic information cannot arise devoid of a mental source. So to suggest it does this not just once but millions of times over is quite foolish. In fact it would destroy our ability to infer that anything was created by humans in the past. We would look at the pyramids and say, “Well we know that they contain specified complexity, but since the evolutionists insist that nature not only can but does produce specified complexity over and over again I guess we can infer that these buildings were not built by the Egyptians but by natural processes.” I feel that would be a huge step in the wrong direction.
Quote: You have missed the point (again). In the context of this debate the distinction you are proposing adds no value whatsoever. You have not answered (again) which scientist proposes supernatural theories to explain observable facts that has gained acceptance by the scientific community. Your response is to make an arbitrary distinction between origins and operational science and then say, well its OK in origins science. It isn't OK, and I have yet to hear a single published scientist claim otherwise, nor a single scientific theory claim otherwise. Perhaps you'd like to answer a question?
You proved my point, thanks! Observable facts are [b]only[/] dealt with by operational science! So of course you won’t even find any creation scientists who use supernatural explanations for observable facts because they believe God upholds His creation in a predictable and uniform manner (nature). This being said, the earth and universe’s origins are not observable. So proposing supernatural explanations for these is completely legitimate and has been done by some of the greats today and some of the greats in the past like Newton, Bacon, and Kepler. So you see, the distinction is not only appropriate but crucial.
Quote:
Well , well, well. You made an unfounded assertion, invented goalposts for me then moved them on my behalf (some threads ago I might add), and make an argument such as the one above. You know NOTHING of my background and have not the good grace to retract.
You are right; I do not know anything about your background. I was making an inference to the best possible explanation. The best explanation I can think of for someone who does not know the difference between two basic concepts like operational and origins sciences is that they did not receive a proper scientific education. Maybe you did receive one but you just forgot it all? I guess that would be another possible explanation.
Quote:
Twisting my words again Statler. Check my posts I didn’t say I accepted the hypothesis; just that I was willing to wait for the research. You on the other hand latch on and claim it is evidence and that diamonds are impermeable making contamination impossible (when the hypothesis being tested is that its contamination from within the mineral not extant to it). Again you have ignored that point."
That’s really just an ad hoc hypothesis. There is no evidence whatsoever that the contamination could come from within the diamond itself. Even if this were the case (despite there being no evidence to suggest it is), this would not solve the problem because you’d also have to explain the C14 levels found in fossilized wood, coal, and oil. Maybe the flying spaghetti monster snuck around planting C14 in places it does not belong?
Quote:
....the ToE has never stated that animals that we think are extinct wont be found again.... and if you believe it has; find just one published scientific paper stating it.
Missing the point (again). It is the fact that supporters of the ToE use certain animals absences from the fossil record to claim that they did not exist. Yet when certain animals are supposedly absent from the record for millions of years but then show up alive today it proves that you can’t use the fossil record as evidence for when animals first did and did not exist and when they first “appeared” on earth.
Quote:
However because of the fossil record is as good as it is we are able to trace whole lineages through large tracts of time (inc. coelocnaths when they are preserved and located in strata). There has never been a present day or near present day hominind let alone a human found in the Cambrian, our ancestral lineage as far back as the first proper mammals only goes back only to the Cretaceous, where our truly mammalian branch took hold. Therefore finding a human in the Cambrian would falsify Human evolution (at least), and probably most of mammalian evolution."
Well I guess I can just use your lines of logic here. Since Coelacanths were never fossilized during the past 65 million years, and their fossils have never been found alongside whales even though we know they coexist. I guess the absence of human fossils alongside Cambrian organisms just means humans were not fossilized with them even though they coexisted with them. That was easy. I can leave you with this little nugget about the fossil record though, since you seem to love to use it as supposed evidence for your theory.
““Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
- West, R. “Paleontology and Uniformitarianism” Comapss Vol. 45
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 19, 2011 at 7:07 am (This post was last modified: January 19, 2011 at 7:36 am by Of_Tomato.)
Quote:I am sure myself and some of my colleagues would get equally as much amusement from your atheistic views, so that doesn't really get us anywhere.
That really dont bother me much since you and you colleagues believe in fairytales.
"We came from the sea originally, now we're going back in it. Don't go in it, unless you're in a boat."
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 19, 2011 at 7:42 am (This post was last modified: January 19, 2011 at 7:44 am by TheDarkestOfAngels.)
Statler-
So instead of responding to any points with concise points of your own, you've apparently decided to spend an enormous amount of time responding to every single statement in a giant block of horrendously disorganized text which I can only assume took you an enormous amount of time to write up, to ultimately still provide so very little of substance?
... this is disappointing but I may as well respond to anything worth responding to.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually so would the dictionary. Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain knowledge about the physical world. This by definition makes them scientists. If you want to be arbitrary and change the definition to fit your beliefs then do it, but I simply cannot agree with you for intellectual and logical reasons.
Creation scientists do not use the scientific method and will ignore results and evidence that contradict their worldview. That is what makes them not actual scientists.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually your just displayed your ignorance as to what Creation Science is. It is not the study of the supernatural. Creation scientists do not sit around and study God, they study the natural world. They just believe that the accounts of creation and other accounts in the Bible are completely accurate. Nowhere in the definition does it say that a scientist must believe in natural origins to the natural world he studies, he just has to study the natural world. I completely believe that guys like Newton, Bacon, and Kepler were indeed scientists. Again, you are just committing the “No true Scotsman” fallacy when you try and play these semantic games; though I do enjoy the debate my friend.
Seriously? .... No... Seriously? Are you even trying anymore?
For someone who has frequently cited how ignorant we are for this and that, the amount of stupid in the above statement is staggering. There's no way to sugarcoat this.
Yes, what you call "creation scientists" study the natural world. I can accept that there are people with this worldview who do the thing you described.
Here is where they are different from scientists because apparently telling you about this the all the previous times didn't quite make it through;
Scientists study the natural world through the use of the scientific method.
"Creation Scientists" decided on a worldview and constantly look for science that this worldview is accurate.
Scientists don't have preconcieved beliefs about the natural world. All of their views on the natural world is because the natural world evidenced their conclusions and these conclusions have been building up for centuries.
"Creation Scientists" I'm sure have a great deal of who-ha in the world of theology but unless they moonlight with the secular scientists and discard their preconcieved notions at the door, they only tend to splash with like-minded people.
You keep referring to Kepler, Bacon, and Newton as though they were in the second branch, yet you've no evidence from anywhere to actually point out how their contributions to science wasn't itself secular in nature. No one here denies that there are scientists with faith around. They're not nearly as numerous today as they were in the past, but all the same their science was a result of good use of the scientific method, independant of their beliefs. Even so, they recieved grief from the church because of this and all the attempts to rewrite history isn't going to change what happened.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh brother. You obviously still do not understand the ASC. It does not violate relativity at all, it’s actually greatly supported by it. Einstein himself said there is no “true” measurement of time. So to say that there is and the ASC violates the true measurement of time is in itself violating Einstein’s work.
As to the gravitational well, saying that its founder does not understand gravity and you do is ridiculous. He has had over 30 peer reviewed articles published in the most prestigious secular journals and works at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico as a Nuclear Physicist and received the “Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.” I think the guy knows a thing or two about physics.
Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model is also a completely valid model despite what you think. I am sure you are well aware that Carmeli was not a Creationist; his model just solves the distant starlight problem for creationists.
That's cute that you believe that, but I've read all the papers I could find on the topic on the internet (since that's the only place this can be found) and despite that theory (nor any of the others) not appearing at all in any of the astronomy circles I frequent this is still brought up in some creationist circles, this has as much plausibility as Elvis and Charlie Chaplin not being dead and married to one another in a hidden island in the Galapagos. I've already discussed all this at length with another creationist who had a similar penchant for stating facts but never actually backing them up.
Yes, a lot of people have stated that ASC does indeed not violate relativity but those who do have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of relativity.
Relativity plainly states that the speed of light is the same. everywhere and to all observers.
Quote:the speed of light in any one direction is not necessarily constant.
and...
Quote:The act of choosing a synchrony convention is synonymous with defining the one-way speed of light. If we select Einstein synchronization, then we have declared that the speed of light is the same in all directions. If we select ASC, then we have declared that light is essentially infinitely fast when moving directly toward the observer, and ½c when moving directly away. Under ASC, the speed of light as a function of direction relative to the observer (θ) is given by cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer.
special relativity Wrote:1.The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity),
2.The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.
The ASC paper gets funnier the more you read it when I realized that this person lacks a basic understanding of astronomy by stating that because there are young stars, the universe must be young. Anyone who has casually read an astronomy book can correct this mistake. In any case, ASC is a joke.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The shape of the earth is consistent everywhere in the Bible except for this passage? I have already pointed out that you have pointed to some verses you believe talk of a flat circular earth like a coin, and other verses talk of corners and edges. Of course these are all metaphors so we would expect this, but your claim that all of the descriptions are consistent is of course false. So you still need to get your story straight, did people in Bible times believe the earth was circular and flat or square and flat?
The description of the earth in this passage is no different than any of the others. I didn't find the reason it was mentioned as such as relevant because the circumstances and reasons for the mentions throughout the bible are quite different from passage to passage.
In short, the passage gave me no reason that this particular passage represents the earth in any way, shape, or form, as different from the manner to which the bible has already and later continues to establish in terms of its shape and scope.
You managed to 'catch' me on something I found wholly irrelevant to the overall point I was making.
Second, I never mentioned the earth being flat and square. Just flat and circular. Both the bible and I have been quite consistent with this and despite the fact that you keep saying that all these are metaphors, you've done nothing to provide evidence otherwise. Flat objects like coins by definition have corners. It's harder to concieve of because coins are so much smaller than this theoretical flat-earth but once you start scaling a coin-shaped object upward, the corners become rather clear.
Or you could find a coin and look at it edge on since things with edges have corners quite by definition. Either way, this has been rather consistent.
Third, in regards to metaphors, neither you nor the bible have not satisfactorily demonstrated "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance" or "something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol" according to the literal definition of the term in all instances in terms of every quote I posted being the same metaphor.
Furthermore, you keep going on about J.R.R Tolkien's work and other examples in regard to literary metaphors. Metaphors are often used to provide a great deal of atmosphere to a tale and give information to a reader. In your 'the Raven' example,
The Raven, by Edgar Allen Poe Wrote:But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore -
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking `Nevermore.'
This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!
Interestingly, the passage I highlighted also cross-referenced a few other points:
Job 38:4-6 Wrote:4"Where were you (A)when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Psalm 75:3 Wrote:3"The (A)earth and all who dwell in it [a]melt;
It is I who have firmly set its (B)pillars. Selah.
Psalm 104:5 Wrote:5He (A)established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not [a]totter forever and ever.
So... the thing about metaphors like how Tolkien and Poe and others use it is that they use it in a way for a particular purpose. Poe, in the above example, used it in a way to tell a story that described how the main character saw the raven itself. What Poe did do is remain consistent within the individual story with the metaphors to describe the internal and external torment of the tormented character.
The bible is a collection of stories from different authors during different time periods telling their stories in different ways but keeping all of the details in the same in the sense that whether we're talking about someone's dream sequence or a definative statement of what's happening, the details in regard to the Earth's shape is remarkably consistant upon all 'metaphors' despite differing authors and contexts of several passages, such as the ones above, that don't connote that the shape of the earth is different in any way as to how they describe it. In other words, the bible has given me no reason that the depictions of the earth are, itself, a metaphor for something else in all instances.
As such, this does not fit the definition as described in any dictionary I could find, nor the ones I typically refer to on the internet.
Forth, you, personally, have not provided me any reason of any kind to believe that your objections are valid. You were quick to provide counterevidence of weather systems that I honestly thought weren't in the bible and I was proven wrong on that point, but you've been silent on everything else... other than, of course, your word, which isn't good enough by itself. I have provided, to the best of my ability, the proper context and necessary points I needed to make my case and I've linked every source I've used but you've done nothing but tell me that I'm wrong.
You've not made the case nor have you provided any evidence to the contrary of most of my points.
I can only conclude that you don't because you can't.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: A better answer is that people in Bible times were well aware of the actual shape of the earth, thus why they use metaphors to convey points rather than to inform the reader of the earth’s shape.
I'm sure it's better in the sense that it helps explain your point of view better, but until you find a part of the bible that mentions the earth as something other than what I've described it as, then don't bother.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Again, reading something into the text that is not there. It just says they went up there and Christ was shown all the kingdoms. Never says they had to be up there in order to see all the kingdoms. Bad exegesis.
I didn't read into the text at all. I quoted word-for-word which states, clear as day, exactly what it said and nothing else.
So far, you're the only one stretching and lawyer-interpreting the bible to say something other than what it literally says.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I am sure you are aware the sun does not actually “rise” above the horizon, it just looks that way because it is the Earth that is moving. So these are descriptive terms used by everyone because they make sense even though they are not scientifically accurate. So I see no issue with them being used in scripture. Job is also a poetic book; we know this from the Hebrew verb usage. So to interpret it otherwise is again poor exegesis.
Actually, the Sun does rise above the horizon. If you had bothered to check the definitions for those terms, you'd understand why. I even linked them and everything.
Either way, nice way to totally avoid addressing the actual topic. Given that I've already sort of addressed all of your responses in general, I'm just going to skip all of these non-answers of yours since you're clearly just eyeballing the answers and speeding through as fast as you can anyway.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The Bible uses poetic, metaphoric, and other literary elements just as Tolkien did. It’s a shame you give him a pass but not the Bible. Special pleading. Keep in mind Tolkien’s books are not fantasy and fiction because they use these forms of writing, so the Bible is not necessarily fantasy or fiction because it uses similar writing elements. Writing elements themselves do not determine what is and what is not true.
The thing about other literary authors is that as EE Poe wrote about an actual raven and even though he used metaphor to describe things like its fiery eyes and piercing gaze, he didn't keep describing these exact traits over and over and over again in the story as though they were actual traits of this bird. Instead it's an actual raven haunting a man that was driving himself into insanity over the loss of his wife.
The bible contains metaphor, no doubt, but if the authors of the bible knew the actual shape of the earth and the other examples were all literary metaphors, then these metaphors should be used as a figure of speech that is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance or used as a symbol or a representation of something else.
None of the metaphors that you described as metaphors do this. EE Poe's and Tolkien's and the others all do, in fact, this exact thing.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So you are suggesting you can indeed move the Earth from the relative perspective of the Earth? Wow, I think you should read a physics book.
I suggested that the earth is moving regardless of what 'frame of refence' you have: a notion that completely contradicts the passage I quoted.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh really? According to whom? You? When people say, “wow that shook the very foundations of our country!” Are they talking about the US being built on physical foundations? Nope. The verse is using descriptive metaphor to give the reader an idea of the sheer magnitude of the flood event.
... which would be true if
a) the rest of the entire passage of Isa 24 gave any inclination that this was the case
b) there weren't numerous other passages describing literal pillars of the earth throughout the bible (which goes back into what I've already said above)
and c) there is nothing at all in the entire passage that gives the sense that this particular passage is anything other than a description as opposed to a descriptive metaphor.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Seriously? There is no rule that a metaphor has to be constructed just like a simile minus the “as” or “like”. You obviously just made that up. Nor is there a rule saying a metaphor can’t be constructed like a statement. That is made clear by the dictionary definition which uses an example that is built exactly like the “The Air is thick syrup” example you gave.
Simile and Metaphor in Descriptive Writing Wrote:What is a Metaphor?
A metaphor also compares two things, but a metaphor does not use the words like or as. Instead, the metaphor makes a comparison as if the two things are one and the same. The simile examples above are turned into metaphors by changing a few key words.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What? Since it is a simile why would you take it as a literal description of cosmology? If I say, “Wow, the stars look like campfires in the sky!” does that mean that I believe the stars are really campfires? Uh no, because it’s what we call a simile.
because the quote stated that whatever was descending from heaven was like a large sheet because it was clearly describing the shape and look of the manner to which this object descended from heaven. That was the simile.
The fact that it was a bonefied simile doesn't magically make the fact that something large and sheet-like came out of an opening in heaven and was lowered (didn't merely descend, but something actually lowered it from heaven) by its four corners.
This doesn't remove the fact that this passage described something about the biblical cosmology that is totally unlike reality and is one of many passages that describe the solid dome that covers the circle of the earth that can open or close to reveal heavenly beings or watery death.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I have heard them say it, and I am pretty sure that they still know how rainfall actually works. They are just using descriptive language, just like the Bible does.
Then you're clearly the only one of the two of us who have heard it used.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yet you fail to point out how this would be wrong. The aging of our organs and cells is determined by the length of our telomeres.
... I clearly should have explained myself further, because this totally wasn't the reason I responded the way I did. I know about telomeres.
What you don't know and aren't, as a Y-E creationist, are willing to acknowledge in regard to genetics in terms of 'we used to live for hundreds of years at a time' is that if we, at some point in time in the past, used to generally live for centuries thanks to 'longer telomeres' and 'pure genetics' then this sort of thing tends to show up when researching genetics.
People are, in fact, as I've proven in earlier posts, pretty damn good at this sort of thing to the point to where we can use genetics to trace ancestry - whether it's as a particular family lineage or for the entire species.
... but, well, you know, if you kept up with genetics at all, you'd find a distinctive lack of evidence that our genes were different in the manner necessary to, in the past, allow for lives that were in the order of ten times as long as our lives today with modern medicine.
There is also the matter that in order to believe something like that, you'd have to believe in evolution.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You are judged for your sins, not because you were not given saving grace. When a death row inmate is executed, he is executed for his crimes, not because he didn’t receive a pardon from the governor.
... not what the bible says, but good try all the same.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: When Adam fell we all fell, he was our representative, so it is not a design flaw at all. God has just as much freedom in saving babies as He does anyone else. I feel it is consistent with His character that all babies are given saving grace. The Bible does not tell us either way, so that is more just my opinion.
You realize that your view of God's character is at odds with his actions in the bible, right?
Further, he is continually punishing all of humankind for something that god himself introduced to us in the bible. That is not the work of a moral character.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Unfortunately for you, given your worldview, babies are just cosmic accidents that really have no value or purpose. So you are really just borrowing from my worldview when you say their lives have any value at all.
That's your interpretation of what an atheist believes. It's a caricature of a fantasy you and others like you have concocted about people who don't believe in the fantasies you do.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well murder only applies to humans killing other humans. God has the right to destroy His creation, and to pass judgment upon it (Romans 9). We should just all be glad we get better than we actually deserve.
Murder is murder, regardless of who is doing the killing.
Definition of Murder Wrote:the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
It's that kind of thinking like you stated above that makes me think that your religion worships someone whose consideration and empathy for human life is essentially zero.
If god were a regular shmuck who treated his children this way, he'd be sitting in prison assuming he wasn't formally executed by the state.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Where did I say the verse was describing an eclipse? Nowhere. I was just point out that they do darken the sun from the earth’s perspective; this does not mean that is what the verse is talking about.
You stated that this verse didn't have any issues because an eclipse could describe something like this as one of a number of ways and you closed by saying that there were no issues with this verse (because of things like your example.)
Clearly, shooting down your example for clearly being nothing like what was described did nothing to persuade you.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh yes! The old “Newton and Kepler were idiots!” argument. Newton actually spent more time studying the Bible than he did math and science. I think he understood scripture, at least better than you. I do not mind being in the same category as these men, if they didn’t see any issues with scripture’s divine inspiration claim then I guess I can’t really see any issue with it then either.
Ah. Another strawman.
I'm sure they studied the bible plenty. I'm also sure that the bible and it's teachings weren't involved at all with the contributions they made to the scientific community. If you have evidence of any kind to the contrary, please, don't be bashful.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That actually was not a fallacy. I think I made it very clear that they objected to Galileo for reasons that are not in the Bible. Well unless you can show me where in the Bible it says that moving the earth out of the center of the universe is a means of glorifying it, which of course you can’t because it’s not in there. So my claim that they were objecting on non-biblical grounds is completely accurate, and not fallacious.
The Trial of Galileo: An Account Wrote:The Admonition and False Injunction of 1616
In 1613, just as Galileo published his Letters on the Solar Spots, an openly Copernican writing, the first attack came from a Dominican friar and professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, Father Lorini. Preaching on All Soul's Day, Lorini said that Copernican doctrine violated Scripture, which clearly places Earth, and not the Sun at the center of the universe. What, if Copernicus were right, would be the sense of Joshua 10:13 which says "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven" or Isaiah 40:22 that speaks of "the heavens stretched out as a curtain" above "the circle of the earth"? Pressured later to apologize for his attack, Lorini later said that he "said a couple of words to the effect that the doctrine of Ipernicus [sic], or whatever his name is, was against Holy Scripture."
That sounds like bible-based reasons to me.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Pulling a smattering of quotes out of the Bible and trying to compare them all is bad exegesis, every Bible scholar knows not to do this.
Indeed. It might show the clear and obvious contradictions, like the one I highlighted.
Bad exegesis might be a good reason for you to not think critically about your fantasy story the way you would other books, but clearly that's not a hang up I care to indulge.
Way to avoid the point of that whole exercise, btw. You're clearly quite able to weasel out of any discussion through misdirection of the topic.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No not a problem at all. I’ll let Dr. Sproul answer this one since he is more of a Biblical Scholar than either of us…
[url] http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/number...god-how-c/[/url]
Yeah, let me now when he actually answers my statements because there clearly was no answer in that article.
(January 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You just proved my point! The article you pointed me to talked of calculating the one way speed of light by measuring two way speeds off of the mirror on the moon. This of course is not directly measuring the one way speed of light; it is calculating the one way speed of light by measuring the two way speed of light. So my original claim stands un-refuted, it is impossible to directly measure the one way speed of light due to relativity.
It is sooOOOoo cute when you think you've gotten a one-over on me.
Science clearly isn't your strong suit.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
Quote:Historicity debateBiblical scholarship identifies the Exodus narrative as a founding myth intended as the history of the relationship of the God of Israel and his chosen people, the Israelites,
Quote:it is best seen as theology set in a narrative framework, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, the Israelites; from this point of view, it is inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt as history.
Quote:Archaeology
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[22] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm
(January 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Because my furince breaking and being fixed is the means to a pre-ordained ends Scooter.
And you know this.... how?
Did you even TRY praying for your imaginary deity to fix your furnace? Maybe if you asked he would magically repair your furnace and save you the time, trouble and expense of getting it fixed yourself.
But, of course, we both know what would happen if you did this. Nothing. So you must have a ready explanation that works for you. Even if it has no foundation in reality.
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm (This post was last modified: January 19, 2011 at 6:26 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(January 19, 2011 at 7:42 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: Statler-
So instead of responding to any points with concise points of your own, you've apparently decided to spend an enormous amount of time responding to every single statement in a giant block of horrendously disorganized text which I can only assume took you an enormous amount of time to write up, to ultimately still provide so very little of substance?
Actually your post didn’t take me much time at all to reply to because it was just a matter of pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding of basic exegesis. Captain’s took a bit more time.
Quote:
Creation scientists do not use the scientific method and will ignore results and evidence that contradict their worldview. That is what makes them not actual scientists.
Oh brother, Creationists developed the scientific method!!! It’s as simple as that, so of course they use it. Hate to break it to you, everyone “ignores” evidence that contradicts their worldview because they use their worldview to interpret the evidence. Go to any scientific convention today and I challenge you to stand up in the middle of the room and shout “Isaac Newton was not a real scientist!” You’ll be laughed out of the room. This is a silly game that has been disproven time and time again. The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is not anymore more valid when you commit it than anyone else.
Quote: Scientists study the natural world through the use of the scientific method.
"Creation Scientists" decided on a worldview and constantly look for science that this worldview is accurate.
You call me ignorant and then you post this? First of all, a Creation Scientist developed the scientific method, you’re welcome.
Secondly, everyone has a worldview, and everyone interprets the evidence according to their worldview. You should study up on the basic nature of evidence before you post things like this.
Quote: Scientists don't have preconcieved beliefs about the natural world. All of their views on the natural world is because the natural world evidenced their conclusions and these conclusions have been building up for centuries.
I am sorry but this is just more ignorant intellectual refuse. Of course scientists have preconceived ideas and presuppositions. I’ll list a few for ya.
1. Their senses can be generally trusted.
2. Their memories are generally reliable.
3. There is expected uniformity in nature; the future will resemble the past generally.
4. If they are naturalists then they believe beforehand that all truth claims can be found in nature alone.
5. There are laws of logic that need to be adhered to.
Of course all scientists hold the above preconceived ideas before they conduct any science, you suggesting they do not is ridiculous.
Quote: "Creation Scientists" I'm sure have a great deal of who-ha in the world of theology but unless they moonlight with the secular scientists and discard their preconcieved notions at the door, they only tend to splash with like-minded people.
Again, more garbage. Creation scientists work at some of the most prestigious labs in the world and have helped with some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in modern history (The Apollo Space Program for example). So keep making these ridiculous claims, they are easy to respond to.
Quote: You keep referring to Kepler, Bacon, and Newton as though they were in the second branch, yet you've no evidence from anywhere to actually point out how their contributions to science wasn't itself secular in nature.
Where do you come up with this stuff? They conducted scientific inquiry using the scientific method when it came to operational sciences, just like every other creation scientist out there. So this in no way makes them secular. When it comes to origins sciences they had no beef at all with believing in a supernatural creation 6,000 years ago just like creation scientists today. I am sorry, but I will let the actual developer of the scientific method determine what is and is not appropriate science rather than your misinformed opinion.
Quote: That's cute that you believe that, but I've read all the papers I could find on the topic on the internet (since that's the only place this can be found) and despite that theory (nor any of the others) not appearing at all in any of the astronomy circles I frequent this is still brought up in some creationist circles, this has as much plausibility as Elvis and Charlie Chaplin not being dead and married to one another in a hidden island in the Galapagos. I've already discussed all this at length with another creationist who had a similar penchant for stating facts but never actually backing them up.
I didn’t realize you were the final authority on what is and is not proper astronomy haha. Since you seem to believe that there are “true” and “false” synchronism conventions despite what Einstein said on the subject; do you also believe there are “true” and “false” measurements of length and weight? Is saying something is a mile long instead of 1609 meters “false” in your view? You are small time man.
Quote: Yes, a lot of people have stated that ASC does indeed not violate relativity but those who do have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of relativity.
Relativity plainly states that the speed of light is the same. everywhere and to all observers.
Using the Einstein Synchronism Convention yes, nobody is disputing that. You just need to read up on synchronism conventions I guess.
Quote:the speed of light in any one direction is not necessarily constant.
and...
Quote:The act of choosing a synchrony convention is synonymous with defining the one-way speed of light. If we select Einstein synchronization, then we have declared that the speed of light is the same in all directions. If we select ASC, then we have declared that light is essentially infinitely fast when moving directly toward the observer, and ½c when moving directly away. Under ASC, the speed of light as a function of direction relative to the observer (θ) is given by cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer.
Yup! Very good. I have no idea why you would apply rules that only apply when using the ESC to the ASC. I think it just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what synchrony conventions really are.
I hope you don’t do this all the time, “No that can’t be one inch long! That violates the metric measurement system! It has to be 2.54 Cm long!” “Well I was using the English measurement system, not the metric.” “What! The English measurement system? That doesn’t even exist!” lol.
special relativity Wrote:1.The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity),
2.The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.
Yup! Guess what synchrony convention that uses!! ESC! Guess what synchonry convention Dr. Lisle is using! ASC. So again, why you would make this silly argument is beyond me. Like Einstein said, there is no “true” measurement of time, therefore as long as you declare which synchrony convention you are using (As Lisle has) you are completely in step with old Albert.
Quote: The ASC paper gets funnier the more you read it when I realized that this person lacks a basic understanding of astronomy.
Yeah because it’s not like he has a Ph.D in astrophysics (graduating top of his class at Colorado), did his graduate work with NASA’s SOHO Spacecraft, and is a member of the American Astronomical Society. I think it’s pretty obvious that it is you who needs to brush up on your physics and astronomy. I don’t even like astronomy and I have been able to point out your errors.
Quote: Second, I never mentioned the earth being flat and square. Just flat and circular. Both the bible and I have been quite consistent with this and despite the fact that you keep saying that all these are metaphors, you've done nothing to provide evidence otherwise. Flat objects like coins by definition have corners. It's harder to concieve of because coins are so much smaller than this theoretical flat-earth but once you start scaling a coin-shaped object upward, the corners become rather clear.
Or you could find a coin and look at it edge on since things with edges have corners quite by definition. Either way, this has been rather consistent.
Ahh! So people during Bible times were “dumb” enough to think the earth was flat, but “smart” enough to know that circular objects have ‘corners’? Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Besides, you atheists can’t ever agree on this point, most atheists I have talked to believe the Bible describes the earth as flat and square. I guess your other question can be turned around on you, how do you know when any author is using a metaphor? Usually you take into account the intent of the piece of writing, just as I have done here. The Bible was never intending to inform its readers about the shape of the earth, as I have pointed out before they were quite aware of its real shape anyways.
Quote: Third, in regards to metaphors, neither you nor the bible have not satisfactorily demonstrated "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance" or "something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol" according to the literal definition of the term in all instances in terms of every quote I posted being the same metaphor.
Furthermore, you keep going on about J.R.R Tolkien's work and other examples in regard to literary metaphors. Metaphors are often used to provide a great deal of atmosphere to a tale and give information to a reader. In your 'the Raven' example,
The Raven, by Edgar Allen Poe Wrote:But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore -
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking `Nevermore.'
This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!
Interestingly, the passage I highlighted also cross-referenced a few other points:
Job 38:4-6 Wrote:4"Where were you (A)when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Psalm 75:3 Wrote:3"The (A)earth and all who dwell in it [a]melt;
It is I who have firmly set its (B)pillars. Selah.
Psalm 104:5 Wrote:5He (A)established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not [a]totter forever and ever.
So... the thing about metaphors like how Tolkien and Poe and others use it is that they use it in a way for a particular purpose. Poe, in the above example, used it in a way to tell a story that described how the main character saw the raven itself. What Poe did do is remain consistent within the individual story with the metaphors to describe the internal and external torment of the tormented character.
The bible is a collection of stories from different authors during different time periods telling their stories in different ways but keeping all of the details in the same in the sense that whether we're talking about someone's dream sequence or a definative statement of what's happening, the details in regard to the Earth's shape is remarkably consistant upon all 'metaphors' despite differing authors and contexts of several passages, such as the ones above, that don't connote that the shape of the earth is different in any way as to how they describe it. In other words, the bible has given me no reason that the depictions of the earth are, itself, a metaphor for something else in all instances.
As such, this does not fit the definition as described in any dictionary I could find, nor the ones I typically refer to on the internet.
What a waste of time. I think it’s beyond obvious when the Bible is using a metaphor and apparently so does every major theologian throughout church history. It’s even more apparent when a person examines the original Hebrew because of the verb usage. Take a look at the example you used about God sitting above the circle of the earth watching over the people below like grasshoppers. Of course God is not actually sitting above the earth and the earth is not actually a flat circle. This verse is using anthropomorphic language to illustrate a point. God is omnipresent and omniscient, so he knows all and is everywhere. So his relationship to man is like he is watching over him from far above where he can see all he does. I thought this was pretty obvious, it’s obvious to me and all major theologians, I am still a bit perplexed as to why it is not obvious to you. Then again, the Bible says it is, you just suppress the truth (Romans 1).
Quote: Forth, you, personally, have not provided me any reason of any kind to believe that your objections are valid. You were quick to provide counterevidence of weather systems that I honestly thought weren't in the bible and I was proven wrong on that point, but you've been silent on everything else... other than, of course, your word, which isn't good enough by itself. I have provided, to the best of my ability, the proper context and necessary points I needed to make my case and I've linked every source I've used but you've done nothing but tell me that I'm wrong.
Well it’s probably because what you request is more of a fool’s errand than anything else. It would be no different than me saying, “Prove to me that Poe really didn’t believe that Ravens had eyes made of fire.” You would go about doing this exactly as I have with the Bible. You would say, “Well the intent of the passage is not to inform the reader about the material that Raven’s eyes are made of.” Or even, “Well it’s pretty obvious this is a metaphor because we know that Raven’s do not have fire in their eyes.” To all of which I could just say, “You are not providing me with any reason to believe that Poe didn’t really believe Ravens had fire in their eyes.” So in short, you are asking for a level of proof that cannot be given no matter what the piece of writing and who the author. I think looking at the author’s intent and the manner in which the terms are used is pretty reasonable.
Quote: I didn't read into the text at all. I quoted word-for-word which states, clear as day, exactly what it said and nothing else.
Oh good, well then you can’t really object to the text then because it just says Christ was taken to the mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth. It never says how he was shown all the kingdoms, so I don’t see any issue with the text. I believe Christ was taken to the mountain and shown all the kingdoms, exactly what the text says happened.
Quote: Actually, the Sun does rise above the horizon. If you had bothered to check the definitions for those terms, you'd understand why. I even linked them and everything.
Either way, nice way to totally avoid addressing the actual topic. Given that I've already sort of addressed all of your responses in general, I'm just going to skip all of these non-answers of yours since you're clearly just eyeballing the answers and speeding through as fast as you can anyway.
Ok, sure, you go ahead and believe the sun orbits the earth; I’ll believe the earth orbits the sun from the framework of the sun.
Quote: The thing about other literary authors is that as EE Poe wrote about an actual raven and even though he used metaphor to describe things like its fiery eyes and piercing gaze, he didn't keep describing these exact traits over and over and over again in the story as though they were actual traits of this bird. Instead it's an actual raven haunting a man that was driving himself into insanity over the loss of his wife.
The bible contains metaphor, no doubt, but if the authors of the bible knew the actual shape of the earth and the other examples were all literary metaphors, then these metaphors should be used as a figure of speech that is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance or used as a symbol or a representation of something else.
You are just making these rules up again. If Poe had described the Raven as having fiery eyes every time we see it in the story I still would not think that Poe really thought Ravens had eyes made of fire. I would still think that he is using a metaphor. You seemed to have also ignored the passage in Luke that talks of day and night happening simultaneously on earth which of course implies a spherical earth. So there are times the Bible implies a spheroid, just not when it is using metaphors to convey different points to the readers.
Quote: I suggested that the earth is moving regardless of what 'frame of refence' you have: a notion that completely contradicts the passage I quoted.
Nope sorry, the earth never moves in relation to itself, just as a car is never moving in relation to the car. Basic physics.
Quote: ... which would be true if
a) the rest of the entire passage of Isa 24 gave any inclination that this was the case
b) there weren't numerous other passages describing literal pillars of the earth throughout the bible (which goes back into what I've already said above)
and c) there is nothing at all in the entire passage that gives the sense that this particular passage is anything other than a description as opposed to a descriptive metaphor.
Again you are just making these rules up. Myself and all the major theologians throughout history think it’s pretty obvious this is a metaphor, but what do they know? They only spent their entire lives studying this book.
Simile and Metaphor in Descriptive Writing Wrote:What is a Metaphor?
A metaphor also compares two things, but a metaphor does not use the words like or as. Instead, the metaphor makes a comparison as if the two things are one and the same. The simile examples above are turned into metaphors by changing a few key words.
That’s not the same rule you were using before. You said the metaphor has to be constructed exactly the same as a simile just minus the “as” or “like”. This definition clearly does not say that, and to the contrary says metaphors can be constructed just like statements (despite what you said earlier) like “The Air is syrup”.
Quote: Then you're clearly the only one of the two of us who have heard it used.
Apparently.
Quote: ... I clearly should have explained myself further, because this totally wasn't the reason I responded the way I did. I know about telomeres.
What you don't know and aren't, as a Y-E creationist, are willing to acknowledge in regard to genetics in terms of 'we used to live for hundreds of years at a time' is that if we, at some point in time in the past, used to generally live for centuries thanks to 'longer telomeres' and 'pure genetics' then this sort of thing tends to show up when researching genetics.
People are, in fact, as I've proven in earlier posts, pretty damn good at this sort of thing to the point to where we can use genetics to trace ancestry - whether it's as a particular family lineage or for the entire species.
... but, well, you know, if you kept up with genetics at all, you'd find a distinctive lack of evidence that our genes were different in the manner necessary to, in the past, allow for lives that were in the order of ten times as long as our lives today with modern medicine.
There is also the matter that in order to believe something like that, you'd have to believe in evolution.
Oh brother, they can trace lineage yes, but they cannot tell from my genes how long my great great great grandfather lived. To suggest that is ridiculous. A shortening of telomeres could have very easily happened at the bottleneck event of the flood, just so happens that we stop seeing such extended lifespans after this event. Has nothing to do with evolution, in fact genetics shows us that we are in fact “devolving” since the number of known genetic disorders and diseases is far greater today than it was in the past, which of course is exactly what we would expect from a biblical point of view. Dr. Robert Carter is a geneticist and has done extensive work with gene sequencing and he sees no problem with people having greatly extended lifespans in early history, I will take his word for it.
Quote: ... not what the bible says, but good try all the same.
Really? Which passage? I noticed you didn’t give one. So my point stands un-refuted. I don’t think you want to enter into a theology discussion with me my friend.
Quote: You realize that your view of God's character is at odds with his actions in the bible, right?
Actually it is very much consistent with God’s actions in the Bible. God is perfection, truth, and determines what is right and wrong so whatever he does is good by definition. To say otherwise shows a basic ignorance of Christian theology.
Quote: Further, he is continually punishing all of humankind for something that god himself introduced to us in the bible. That is not the work of a moral character.
According to whom? You? I am sorry, you do not determine right and wrong for me.
Quote: That's your interpretation of what an atheist believes. It's a caricature of a fantasy you and others like you have concocted about people who don't believe in the fantasies you do.
I noticed you failed to point out how babies are not cosmic accidents without any real value in your worldview. So I guess the point stand un-refuted.
Quote: Murder is murder, regardless of who is doing the killing.
Definition of Murder Wrote:the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
So murder didn’t exist before Noah Webster told us what it was? Besides, it says there it is covered by US Law, of course US Law does not apply to God because it applies to humans only, a point I already made. Go ahead and keep on trying to apply America’s legal definitions to God though, it’s kind of funny. If God really did commit murder maybe you should try and bring him to trial and see how far you get lol.
Quote: It's that kind of thinking like you stated above that makes me think that your religion worships someone whose consideration and empathy for human life is essentially zero.
If god were a regular shmuck who treated his children this way, he'd be sitting in prison assuming he wasn't formally executed by the state.
To the contrary! It’s the Christian worldview that gives humans the highest values since they are created in God’s image. You just believe we are a bunch of animals, so we have no more value than the bacteria in my toilet. God does treat his children greatly; he gives them all saving grace. We are not his children until we are given saving grace, so every one of his adopted children spends eternity in heaven. Do you even read the Bible? Lol.
Quote: Ah. Another strawman.
I'm sure they studied the bible plenty. I'm also sure that the bible and it's teachings weren't involved at all with the contributions they made to the scientific community. If you have evidence of any kind to the contrary, please, don't be bashful.
Actually because the Bible gives us the only basis for the preconditions of intelligibility it is directly responsible for everything we have discovered in science. Without the Bible being true conducting science would not only be a waste of time, but the practice of science and obtaining any knowledge would be impossible. So you should be thankful that we live in a biblically accurate universe where you can do science.
The Trial of Galileo: An Account Wrote:The Admonition and False Injunction of 1616
In 1613, just as Galileo published his Letters on the Solar Spots, an openly Copernican writing, the first attack came from a Dominican friar and professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, Father Lorini. Preaching on All Soul's Day, Lorini said that Copernican doctrine violated Scripture, which clearly places Earth, and not the Sun at the center of the universe. What, if Copernicus were right, would be the sense of Joshua 10:13 which says "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven" or Isaiah 40:22 that speaks of "the heavens stretched out as a curtain" above "the circle of the earth"? Pressured later to apologize for his attack, Lorini later said that he "said a couple of words to the effect that the doctrine of Ipernicus [sic], or whatever his name is, was against Holy Scripture."
That sounds like bible-based reasons to me.
Sounds like a misinterpretation of scripture to me, which is exactly what I was already saying. I don’t know where you get this notion that the Catholic Church is somehow the final authority on scripture. Obviously Galileo didn’t believe scripture taught geocentricism since he believed in the inerrancy of scripture and his heliocentric model. I still haven’t seen the verse saying that the earth is in the center of the universe and that moving it away from the center is a means of glorifying it, which is what the Catholic Church believed.
Quote: Indeed. It might show the clear and obvious contradictions, like the one I highlighted.
Bad exegesis might be a good reason for you to not think critically about your fantasy story the way you would other books, but clearly that's not a hang up I care to indulge.
Way to avoid the point of that whole exercise, btw. You're clearly quite able to weasel out of any discussion through misdirection of the topic.
Nah, I just believe in interpreting things in context rather than out of context like you seem to.
Quote: Yeah, let me now when he actually answers my statements because there clearly was no answer in that article.
Oh bummer, I thought it was a pretty clear answer. That’s one reason I chose Sproul, he tends to write more at a lay person’s level. I am not sure I can find any other theologian to dumb it down more for you.
Quote: It is sooOOOoo cute when you think you've gotten a one-over on me.
Science clearly isn't your strong suit.
Oh bummer again! I was hoping you would come back with some experiment to directly measure the one way speed of light and win yourself a Nobel prize! I guess I expected too much from you huh?
[sarcam] That’s totally why I work as a Scientist, because it is not my strong suit. [/sarcasm]
(January 19, 2011 at 7:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So have any experiments been conducted that prove anisotropic light propagation to be true?
P.s you have yet to explain why god felt it necessary to create supernova remnants and colliding galaxies.
Well actually ASC works with all the experiments done to date because it is just a difference synchrony convention. It is like saying you that you could not do an experiment using Inches as your units instead of Centimeters.
The numbers of observed supernova remnants is actually consistent with a young earth. We have never observed a stage three remnant, where are they all?
[hide]
Quote:
(January 19, 2011 at 2:00 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I doubt the reality of the exodus because, agian there is not actual evidence for it.
Quote:Historicity debateBiblical scholarship identifies the Exodus narrative as a founding myth intended as the history of the relationship of the God of Israel and his chosen people, the Israelites,
Quote:it is best seen as theology set in a narrative framework, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, the Israelites; from this point of view, it is inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt as history.
Quote:Archaeology
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[22] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute
National Geographic actually had a special on this recently that disagrees with your wikipedia article. They are a bit more of a scholarly source in my humble opinion
(January 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm)Thor Wrote: [quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='114728' dateline='1295399204']
Because my furince breaking and being fixed is the means to a pre-ordained ends Scooter.
And you know this.... how?
Did you even TRY praying for your imaginary deity to fix your furnace? Maybe if you asked he would magically repair your furnace and save you the time, trouble and expense of getting it fixed yourself.
But, of course, we both know what would happen if you did this. Nothing. So you must have a ready explanation that works for you. Even if it has no foundation in reality.
Oh come on now :-) Scripture quite clearly says that God uses means to accomplish his pre-ordained ends. Look at Job. It actually cost me nothing, and I learned from the experience, so it wa sno big deal. I have faith it will all work out for good in the end, and thus far it has. By the way, how have you been? I am looking forward to reading your reply my friend.
![[Image: best_thread_ever.thumb.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=gallery.rennlist.com%2Falbums%2Fgreatthread%2Fbest_thread_ever.thumb.jpg)
![[Image: 943179244d1247668385-abuse-request-double-facepalm.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=forum.i3d.net%2Fattachments%2Fcounter-strike-source%2F943179244d1247668385-abuse-request-double-facepalm.jpg)
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
