BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 10:27 AM

I'm without sin.

No, seriously. As theologically leaning people seem to feel sin is a word woven into religion, and as I am not a member of any religious club, I can't sin. A cat eating a bird is not sinning, because cats don't have religion. I don't either.

I'm without sin because the gospels don't affect me, have nothing to do with me and I don't prescribe to them.

So, to stoning, as I appear to be able to carry it out.

I just find the idea of stoning wrong, and I don't need an imaginary friend to guide me on that, just a sense of altruism, same as any other pack animal.

Let he who is stoned cast the first sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 09:45 AM

The thing that concerns me most about Iona' point of view, is that she calls herself a Christian, yet talks about "God's" word about stoning but conveniently ignores Jesus' lesson on stoning and sin which was very clear.

If you take the Gospels literally, then the only stoning you can approve of must be done by people completely "without sin."

But if you take the Gospels literally then you believe that NO ONE is without sin. Therefore, logically, there can be no stoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 09:24 AM

Bruce,

Thanks & also for introducing the concept of 'day'

This cued me into thinking about the 'day god rested shall be called sabbath'

From the old testament, the Jews have their sabbath on Saturdays, while from the new testament, Christians have theirs on Sunday.

Now the deity is supposed to have made all kinds of everything in 6 days, working backwards, did the deity begin on Saturday minus 6 which gives Sunday which is the Christian sabbath on which no-one inc god should do any work?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 08:08 AM

pete,

"no contradiction.the heb for the word translated "kill" in the KJV means "murder""

Well, I fail to see how you can make this statement. The HEBREW word in the discussion of Creation for "day" is NOT the same one as the 24 hour sunset to sunset day- it is a reference to long period of time, such as "the days of our fathers"- ie, an epoch or era. Thus if you accept the Hebrew rather than the KJV English as the literal word of God, Creation could well have taken 4.5 billion of our years, and the whole discussion falls apart.

So which is it? ONLY one can be selected- Either the Hebrew meaning is the closer to the truth, or the English "inspired" word.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 08:06 AM

So the dictionary definition's wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:59 AM

I think the usual distinction made between "kill" and "murder" is derived from the idea that murder is unlawful, and killing can be not only allowed by law, but even dictated by it.

The Old English word from which our word murder derives was rooted in the idea that it was a secret killing, and hence malign in a way that juridical killing, or killing in war was not.

Sad, but there it is. The 10 commandments allow the state to dispose of those it doesn't want. Which is hardly surprising in view of the more particular orders to kill issued by the deity in the OT.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:09 AM

"We stand on earth, therefore we must view the universe from a geocentric perspective."

I'm not so sure about this. Men have stood on the Moon, and now lived in low orbit for years now, and this perspective has been challenged. Although the vast majority of us are confined to the terrestrial biosphere those who have gone beyond can communicate their (often deeply profound) thoughts and observations and pass on this new outlook, the same way explorers have always done.

Also, I think art and science are two sides of the same coin ( I would I suppose, being a graphic artist in the day and a paleontological researcher the rest of the time). Both are concerned with our place in the universe, understanding what it means to be the universe made conscious. Discovery is a serendipitous process sometimes, although there will be a rational process that encourages chance findings. A good scientist will have a very active imagination, they too will favour creativity and whimsy as tools for interpretation and speculation. Think Stephen Hawking, a man whose imagination is broad, deep and essential to his science. Think Galileo and Copernicus, scientists who understood our geocentric view of the world was an age-old misunderstanding by a parochial people.

I see the geocentric view of the universe in the same way as I see the anthropocentric view of life on earth; an outdated concept that is part of our history but not part of our future. A distinction I would make however is that the sort of anthropocentric view of the world encouraged by the Bible is a dangerous idea and engenders the view we as a species were created above and separate to the rest of the world (or universe as is often the case these days); a concept that encourages the plunder of our natural resources and the ill-treatment of the beings we share our planet with.

As for the aesthetic value, no disagreement there :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 06:39 AM

So who is sitting on the fence then, Snail?

Perhaps you could try reading the whole paragraph, Shimrod. Better still read the whole post and make an effort to understand it instead of looking for imagined flaws. Who's point scoring now?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 05:48 AM

pete,[deliberate lower case]

'mr happy-no contradiction.the heb for the word translated "kill" in the KJV means "murder"'

Noun

murder (plural murders)
1.(countable) An act of deliberate killing of another human being.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/murder

So,pete, murder means kill - explain your semantics please

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 04:23 AM

It is curious, however, that the scholars who produced their maps of the geocentric cosmos, did so from a variety of viewpoints outside that cosmos, whether vertically above, or from a position above but to the side. They didn't show what they saw, but what they considered to be the case.

Pete, if God employs Satan to carry out his wishes, that raises far more questions than the apparent conflict between the texts about what is going on. If he wants to punish Israel, why does he need to tempt David into error in order to do it? And the text does not, as Job does, say that Satan was acting as God's agent in this case. In the one Satan is the only actor. In the other, God is the only actor.

And why does God need to employ two sets of writers to produce two subtly different versions of the history? It's very interesting reading the two accounts and seeing what is included in both, and what appears only in one. But in an inerrant text, what is the need? In this instance, it allows for a confusion that should have been avoided.

As for Genesis, by reading the work of various scholars, it appears that Ch 2 was written before Ch 1, and is it suggested that the reason for Ch 1 was to distance the creation from the relics of the surrounding mythologies found in Ch 2. And, whatever creationist sites say (and I have on occasion looked at them), the order of creation in Ch 2 is completely different from that in Ch 1, where the animals are created before humanity, instead of between the man and the woman. To explain those differences by suggesting that it makes the detail clear is asking for a major suspension of reading skills, and to raise questions about the literary ability of the author - which I assume you would not wish to do.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 03:22 AM

You are rather near to a sort of solipsism, it seems to me, in your assertions.

Ah, yes....but I have always taken great pride in my solipsisity.

;-)

But I can see I still haven't brought you to proper respect for a geocentric perspective. In many ways, it is the most unadulterated perspective that we have - it's what we see. That being said, I must also admit that a geocentric perspective is certainly a cockamamie way of looking at the universe. Still, ancient astronomers looked at the stars from that perspective and came up with predictions that were amazingly accurate. The lesson? - even though our perspective may be flawed or cockeyed, we can still make contributions of infinite value.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 02:57 AM

"After all, you don't really have the hubris to claim that our sun is the center of the universe, do you?"

No, Joe. I described it, note, in my penultimate post, as

"heliocentric + out-from-there".

I didn't speak of 'truth'. "Accuracy' was what I said matters. Sorry. I repeat ~~ I share your æsthetic delight. But it is not accurate.

And, come now. Of course we can extrapolate beyond the evidence of our senses. We do it all the time in incalculable contexts. I have no direct evidence, other than extrapolation, that you are Joe Offer & are there reading this at this very moment that you are. I merely extrapolate it. You are rather near to a sort of solipsism, it seems to me, in your assertions.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 02:40 AM

...And to counter that, Michael, might I opine that imagination may matter more than accuracy? Possession of the truth may be stifling - that may be what's wrong with fundamentalists of all flavors, that they think they possess the truth and that they have a duty to defend it. Imagination, on the other hand, is creative. I'll cast my vote in favor of whimsy and creativity - tempered by a reasonable dose of reason, of course...

Widen your perspective, Michael. Drop your preconceived notions and listen carefully to what I have to say. We stand on earth, therefore we must view the universe from a geocentric perspective. To view from another perspective, we must extrapolate or use remote equipment. So, it seems to me that the geocentric perspective of the universe is the most common perspective - and whether we like it or not, it is a valid perspective. We're so used to looking at our universe from a heliocentric perspective, that we make adjustments almost unconsciously from our geocentric view to a heliocentric one.

But for that matter, is a heliocentric model of the universe any more valid than a geocentric one? After all, you don't really have the hubris to claim that our sun is the center of the universe, do you?

At least in some ways, the perspective depends on the location of the observer, or on whatever is selected as the center of the model that is chosen. And then, one could ask whether there actually is a center of our universe, or if the choice of a center point is mostly arbitrary.

...and thank you for admitting that you (at least partially) share my aesthetic delight in geocentric models. I was starting to worry about you.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 02:14 AM

I run my life on the watchword "Accuracy matters". It gets me called a 'legendary pedant'. But, while sharing your æsthetic delight in the geocentric perspective, I must reluctantly point out that it ain't so. And neither are so many attractive propositions so eloquently canvassed on this thread.

Oh, if only ...!

But ACCURACY MATTERS.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 02:07 AM

I'm largely serious in my defense of a geocentric universe, Michael - for two reasons:
1. We are on earth. Therefore, we view the universe from a geocentric perspective, whether we like it or not. We can extrapolate or use instruments to observe from other perspectives, but our basic view from earth is geocentric. It is my understanding that there were astronomers in the "olden days" who were able to collect very accurate data from a geocentric perspective - even though it was collected from what we consider to be a flawed perspective, the data was accurate and the predictions derived from that data were accurate. A heliocentric perspective is certainly more straightforward, but it is not the only perspective possible. My point: don't be too quick to condemn those who see things differently - they may just be looking from a different perspective.

2. Geocentric models of the universe do indeed have aesthetic value, and that value is not to be scoffed at. Geocentric models are intriguing and amazingly complex. They stimulate my imagination, and they lead me to dream about alternative possibilities.


We live in a world that is obsessed with "truth," with finding the one right answer to every question. That sort of perspective doesn't leave much room for imagination, for dreaming, or for aesthetic values. I like my universe messy, not neat, tidy, and mathematical.

I'm here to find the joy in life, not just the right answers. Geocentric models fascinate me, and that brings me joy. If there is no joy, what is there in life that has value?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 01:34 AM

Uh . . . far be it from me to speak for Joe, but I don't really think that's what he meant.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 12:50 AM

Joe's rather charming gloss on the nice patterns the geocentric view of the universe made, in contradistinction to the iho boring heliocentric + out-from-there one, really sums up the gravamen of this thread ~~~

~~~ are we to prefer the pretty and nice to the demonstrably true & demonstrably actual?

???

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 07:04 PM

Lifelong professional Bible scholars constantly argue over the meaning of Bible texts, and this has been going on for centuries.

The fact that there are over 150 different Christian denominations stems from the fact that the different factions cannot agree on what the Bible actually says.

So--lotsa luck!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 06:46 PM

however in my reading of the subject it seems that attention to detail and a reading of the text in hebrew resolves any difficulty.i am reliant on others for this as i have not studied hebrew.

Maybe, but be clear: you are not following what the bible says, but what someone you trust claims the bible says. That's trusting people who may have any number of reasons to put a spin on it - its a very common human thing to do. For this at least - and actually the entire bible - your faith is with the translators at least as much as the text. And as I said, there is a real problem how the experts actually know what the original means. I came across a line from Shakespeare about a week ago, for example, which makes perfect sense now, but actually meant something quite different at the time. Meanings do change like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 06:21 PM

dmcg-i agree that on an english reading of genesis that ch 1 and ch 2 do appear as variant accounts.however in my reading of the subject it seems that attention to detail and a reading of the text in hebrew resolves any difficulty.i am reliant on others for this as i have not studied hebrew.i know joe offer is theologically trained and perhaps if he has formed his opinion from the heb text and not from merely darwinist theory that he will inform us of such.
if you want to mention particulars i will endeavour an answer but for any that want to look it up i recommend the usual site that some here insist is penned by deluded idiots! how scientific and intelligent that approach is ;i leave the reader to judge.

penny-no doubt you are familiar with the story of job;how that satan could not go beyond what God allowed.in the OT all that happens whether good or evil is attributed to YHWH .this is not to ascribe him as the direct agent of evil but as sovereign over all of time and space and those within these realms.
as to the other diferrences unspecified;they may be accounted for by the perpective of the authors but whether they are irreconcilable is open to opinion.

mr happy-no contradiction.the heb for the word translated "kill" in the KJV means "murder"
capital punishment was not included .in the OT at least this was commanded as the punishment for murder[and some other crimes could also carry the death penalty]
the first part of don firths post very ably discussed the theology of the relationship of the NT to the OT IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 03:50 PM

In Judaism, the first five books of the Bible are referred to as the Torah and generally translated as "the Law" in English translations of the Bible. Rabbinic Judaism asserts that the Laws of the Jewish Bible were presented to the Jewish people and converts to Judaism and do not apply to gentiles, including Christians.

Although Christianity affirms that the Torah (or Pentateuch) is part of Scripture that is inspired of God, Christian tradition denies that all of the Old Covenant still applies directly to Christians, but different arguments are used to reach that conclusion and there are differences of opinion within Christianity as to which parts, if any, still apply.

The predominant Christian view is that Jesus mediates a New Covenant relationship between God and his followers, according to the New Testament, which ended or set aside some or all of the Old Covenant. Christianity, almost without exception, teaches that this New Covenant is the instrument through which God offers mercy and atonement to mankind.

There are differences of opinion as to how the New Covenant affects the validity of the Old Covenant, how many Old Covenant laws such as the Ten Commandments are continued or renewed in the New Covenant, and related issues. The differences are mainly as a result of attempts to harmonize biblical statements to the effect that the Old Covenant and its law is "everlasting," with New Testament statements to the effect that it does not apply anymore, or at least does not fully apply.

One source I found states that the stoning laws—and the long list of presumed offenses (a woman who exposes herself to cattle; a disobedient child; an ox that gores someone; and a list that lapses into such trivial offenses that one truly wonders about the sanity of the list-makers!)—are the laws of the priests and religious zealots, NOT the Laws of God.

As pointed out before, when Jesus was drawn into a dispute regarding the stoning of "a woman taken in adultery," He confronted the Pharisees, shamed the crowd into leaving, and sent the woman on her way with the admonition to "Go. And sin no more."

THAT was Christ's definitive judgment regarding the practice of stoning.

Iona, for you to continue to claim that stoning is "righteous" is to deny Jesus, and it verges on blasphemy.

This, in addition to condoning something which is vicious, cruel, and brutal. It is definitely "cruel and unusual punishment," deliberately designed to prolong the pain and agony of the victim.

In your defense, I can only assume that you haven't really thought this mattter through.

I suggest that you get your face out of Leviticus and spend more time reading the Gospels. Read John 8 several times. Until you GET it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 02:38 PM

The geocentric diagrams usually don't include the epicycles that are necessary to make the movements of the planets fit observation. The planets move generally sunwise (comparing night-to-night observations), but sometimes they start moving back again for a while. The heliocentric model explains this easily and simply- we are moving faster on the inside track- but in a geocentric solar system, the planets have to describe circles around some virtual centre which orbits the Earth.

The original heliocentric model didn't fit the observations any better than the geocentric one in terms of where the planets should be at any given time. But when the assumption of a circular orbit was replaced by the more accurate model of an ellipse, all fell into place beautifully. The geocentrists could only get this precision by adding extra epicycles- wheels within wheels. Which, as Fourier showed later, gets the right answer if you add enough epicycles in the right phases, but whereas the heliocentric model led directly to Newton's laws and modern science, the mediaeval model only obfuscated.

The same is true of the creationist view of biology as against the model of common descent. Because it asks no questions, it never generates any answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 02:35 PM

Not to mention the mandala patterns you can plot by drawing the apparent paths of planets against the ecliptic.

To the right is the one for Venus, with fivefold symmetry:


Venus' path

Venus repeats each loop after 8 years because of the resonance between Earth's and Venus's years.

I couldn't find a diagram for Mercury, which has three loops in one Earth year, plus a bit extra.

Mars is on this page. Plus Venus again.

Pretty planet patterns

Please do not consider the pages on which these pictures are found to be any sort of science. even though they may claim to be. These are the planetary version of those double pendulum gadgets which swing round to produce patterns on paper underneath.

I have wondered if the epicycles the Greeks thought up to explain these patterns were actually descriptions of the machines they made to plot the planets, and they never actually belived it was really like it in space.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 02:26 PM

"Maybe not but, to those who are not committed to either side of the argument, they sound pretty much the same."

So who is sitting on the fence then, Snail?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 02:09 PM

I'm sorry, but from the perspective of those of us on earth, the sun does revolve around the earth. I love to study those models of a geocentric universe, with all those bands showing the movement of the celestial bodies. From an artistic point of view, a heliocentric solar system is plain-Jane boring. Give me a geocentric universe. The diagrams never cease to intrigue me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 10:44 AM

John P

Uh, hate to tell you this, folks, but declaring well-known scientific facts to be true is not the same as declaring the Bible to be true

Maybe not but, to those who are not committed to either side of the argument, they sound pretty much the same. As you have said, there is no point in arguing with Pete and Iona. They aren't listening. The target audience is those who might be taken in by their nonsense. To do that you have to show WHY science gives better results. Setting "Evolution is true" against "The Bible is true" doesn't achieve that.

Part of the problem is distinguishing between the thing itself and the theory. Mrrzy said "I tried to explain that gravity was a theory ". Er, no it isn't. The Theory of Gravity is a theory. Gravity, as you so eloquently described, is an aspect of reality that we can all observe. So are light, heat, the Moon.... Try "Light is absolutely true", "Heat is absolutely true", "The Moon is absolutely true". Sorry, doesn't work for me. Yes, they exist but that isn't the same thing as being true.

My case is that the natural phenomenon itself is not capable of possessing the property "true" and that, as even Steve Shaw agrees, scientific theories should not be described as true.

Throwing around words like True and Believe plays into the hands of the creationists who would like to establish an equivalence between Creationism and Evolutionism(sic).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 10:42 AM

to add to what John P said about:
"Just keep in mind that back in the day, John P, the sun revolving around the earth was a well-known scientific fact."

No... it was a theory...they thought it was a fact. They had little means to test it except simple observation. If you wish to say that the opposite is thus "only a theory", fine... but it is a tested theory, and has pretty solid footing.

The belief that the Bible is the 'inspired word of God' is also a theory, since it WAS put to parchment & paper by men! This theory is not really 'testable'... and we know that many, many things written by men are patently false and invented.

There is a good reason why people say "I 'believe' in God".... belief MEANS it cannot be proved.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 10:26 AM

Thank you Joe, for that last post. Very eloquently put, as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 10:23 AM

Sorry, Iona, but "people used to think the earth was flat" is more fallacious reasoning. You are trying to make a specific fact answer a general class of questions. That's a no-no. I'm sure there's some official logic-speak name for it, but I don't know what it is. It just doesn't work logically, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 10:22 AM

I don't care how "distinguished" a scientist is. If he publicly presents Creationism as a valid theory, he is not acting as a scientist, and opens himself up to all of his conclusions in any field being suspect.

It just ain't science, folks. There is no debate.

Anytime it runs counter to what we know, it not only isn't science, but it's an untruth.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 10:10 AM

Iona said that God declared stoning to be good...

On the assumption that he / she / it exists and therefore is capable of thought and deed, that alone makes God an evil bastard beneath contempt. Now.. as many good people, Joe Offer included, may well wince at such a statement, it just goes to prove that Iona's God is not the God everybody else is talking about.

After all, the God many of my family and friends follow is not evil, is caring and seems to answer their prayers, (in conjunction with the council, the wages office where they work and everything else that gives us a good deal that some ascribe to God...)

So, are we talking the God most Christians are familiar with and many of the rest of us having a passing acquaintance with, or the disgusting article Iona tells us likes to stone women?

I reckon if The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbuty read this thread, they'd cut up their dog collars....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 08:55 AM

No Shimrod. What I am interested in is precision and clarity in scientific thinking and a proper presentation of how science works. That the theory of evolution is a better explanation of how life developed on Earth is a better one than creationism is less important than why that is so and how it was arrived at.

Pete and Iona have been allowed to define the terms of the debate and as a result they are running rings round you. There is very little discussion of science going on. Theology seems to have taken over.

Have a look at John P's post of 14 Feb 12 - 09:53 AM. About the most sensible thing said for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 07:51 AM

And score about 3 to Snail, who appears desperate to score points whatever the context.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 07:14 AM

Shimrod

Snail criticises me for being sarcastic about Dr John Hartnett's (the Physicist cited by pete) qualifications.

No I didn't.

Snail asserted that I should have done my research before posting

Yes I did.

(yes, Snail you're right).

Good.

So is Dr JH a distinguished physicist or a silly, deluded ass ... or both(!) Discuss

Yep. He seems to be both a distinguished, well respected scientist and a creationist.

Score 1 to Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 05:54 AM

Contradictory stuff. I've only included the first verse of each reference. They are the significant differences in accounts of the same event.

1 Chronicles 21 1 - 17

1And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

2 Samuel 24 1 - 17

1And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I was going to apply a self-denying ordinance aganst anything but geology here, but this one that I discovered is pretty amazing. It suggests some curious behaviour on God's part in the Samuel version.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 05:35 AM

Iona,

'I have yet to hear anyone cite two Bible passages that come in conflict with each other...... '

In both Exodus & Deuteronomy there's the 10 Commandments which include 'Thou shalt not kill'

Please explain how this fits with your advocation of stoning to death which 'god' commands?

There's just one conflict & after you've made up a story to address this issue, I'll be ready to provide more biblical contradictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 05:32 AM

DMcG asks: Who has the authority to say how Genesis 2 is 'intended' to be read?

Maybe that's the wrong question. Maybe it should not be a matter of "authority" at all. Maybe is should be a matter of "credibility."

Modern biblical criticism is a fascinating field of study. It starts without assumptions, and leaves no question unasked. And the answers it comes up with, are quite credible. This is quite different from the fundamentalist approach, which considers the Bible as the ultimate authority. This forces the fundamentalists to do all sorts of fancy dance steps to prove the truth of their preconceptions.

Genesis 1 and 2 are two wonderful presentations of creation myths. They are a very strong and valuable statements of the faith the Hebrew people had in their God and their relationship with that God. To try to make these creation stories into some sort of scientific treatise, is ludicrous. Dancing around to try to "prove" the Bible, makes a laughingstock of a sacred document of faith.

I want to repeat what Bill D had to say about religious faith, because I think what he says has a lot of value: Religion is one way of coping and expressing wonder and sharing comforting thoughts about life & death with others....and it is easy to see why humans developed religious feelings. It is hard, though, to see why they cling to demonstrably inaccurate ideas about science as we learn more.

I think there are two sorts of religious people. Bill's first sentence applies to one kind of religious people, and his second sentence applies to the other kind. I think a lot of people, perhaps particularly Americans, have a hard time with abstractions and uncertainties. For them, everything must be concrete and certain. They live their lives by rules and doctrines and obedience and authority, while other prefer to live by principles and questions and explorations and freedom and credibility. Those interested in credibility over authority, don't tend to try to find answers to scientific questions in religion.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 05:27 AM

Snail criticises me for being sarcastic about Dr John Hartnett's (the Physicist cited by pete) qualifications. Snail asserted that I should have done my research before posting (yes, Snail you're right). He then referenced a Wikipedia article on Dr JH - who does, it turns out, have a very impressive CV. But then hidden away among the references to the article I find a link to a trailer to a series of two programmes broadcast by something called, 'God TV' (God help us!). Dr JH was, apparently a contributor to these programmes. Let me give you a flavour of what was presented:

"In two highly informative programmes, 'The Age of the Earth' and 'Rapid Rocks' geologist Tas Walker questions how long it takes for rock to form. This is a key issue to the debate, as some scientists believe it takes millions of years, while a literal reading of the Bible indicates that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Dr Carl Wieland presents 'Origins in the Modern World and Why it Matters'; and in 'Starlight, Time and the New Physics' Dr John Hartnett sets out to explain light-years in an earth that is not billions of years old, with some eye-opening explanations.

Gary Bates claims UFO sightings are linked to a belief in Evolution and looks at the issue of life on other planets in 'Alien Abductions and UFOs'. Dr Jonathan Sarfati examines whether Evolution could be the worldview behind abortion and euthanasia and in 'Evolution and the Holocaust' asks if there could be a link between 'Natural Selection' and the extermination of six million people.

From a Creationist perspective, Philip Bell discusses 'Apemen: Missing Links and the Bible'; Dr David Catchpoole focuses on 'Dinosaurs and the Bible'; Dr John Sanford asks 'Does Evolution hurt Science?' and in 'Journey Towards Creation' astronomer Dr Hugh Ross marvels at the intricate design of the heavens and the earth."

Contributors to this thread will find most of the above to be very familiar (although I don't think we've touched on UFOs yet!).

So is Dr JH a distinguished physicist or a silly, deluded ass ... or both(!) Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 05:08 AM

And then, how about incest being forbidden? ~~ see e.g. Lev 18 vi ff ~~ so what did Lot's naughty daughters think they were up to, getting their old man pissed & then getting him to shag them, eh? Or is    the fact that that happened chronologically before the old boy gave Moses all those rules supposed to make a difference?
I wouldn't have thought so ~ would you, Iona?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 04:51 AM

I got this from a creationist site:

It is often claimed by sceptics (and even some who claim to be Christians) that Genesis 1 and 2 contain "two different and ... conflicting stories of creation." This is false as Genesis 2 is not even a story of creation, in the general sense of Genesis 1, and it therefore presupposes and is intended to be complementary to, Genesis 1
.....

    "Doesn't Genesis 2 present a different creation order than Genesis 1? Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God's work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.
Moreover, Genesis 2 is not intended to be chronological

What I'd like to know is who decides that? Who has the authority to say how Genesis 2 is 'intended' to be read? Apparently, even those who believe the Bible is to be read 'literally' do not want to read Genesis 2 literally, but in some other way according to 'how it is intended to be read'.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 04:34 AM

"I have yet to hear anyone cite two Bible passages that come in conflict with each other......"
.,,.,.
There were Adam & Eve. They had 2 sons. They were the only people around. One son killed the other. Then he went to live in the Land of Nod, which was East of Eden. Which seemed to be a well-established settlement ~ where did it come from? ~ with a big population ~ who they? where they come from? And he married a wife from there. Who was she?

If not 'in conflict with each other', what are all these statements & accounts? A bit confusing, however you try to slice it, to try and prove any authority for us all to live our lives by, 5772 years later [or however many it is], eh Iona?

〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 03:05 AM

On that sort of childish scale, try proving anything.
Try, for example, to prove that the bible exists. I suppose you could give links to references, but how do you know those links aren't artifacts created by Jorge Luis Borges, who probably wrote Iona. You could wave a book at me, but how do you prove that that boon is the bible and not some other book? You could open it at a particular page and say, Lo, here it saith stone thy neighbour, and open another page and say, here it saith many are cold but few are frozen, but how can you prove that all the other pages aren't the Mrs Hill NC telephone directory when you aren't looking at them? By faith saith the believer. But why should anyone have faith in that telephone directory rather than another competing one?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Iona
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 02:54 AM

Just keep in mind that back in the day, John P, the sun revolving around the earth was a well-known scientific fact.

However, the Bible has time and time again proved itself true against all the guns that can be brought against it. I have yet to hear anyone cite two Bible passages that come in conflict with each other......

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 11:45 PM

Why would anyone want to prove that tomorrow will be like today? There is no logical way to prove such a thing, and yet it is undoubtedly true that, in general, tomorrow will be like today. Again, a big pile of evidence in favor and none opposed. Most non-quibblers would call that proof enough. Common sense carries some weight.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 11:11 PM

Uh, hate to tell you this, folks, but declaring well-known scientific facts to be true is not the same as declaring the Bible to be true (a bit of fallacious reasoning there?). I know, I know, no scientist would ever, blah, blah, blah, I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to talk like one. For me, saying that gravity and evolution exist is like saying the sky is blue. There's a big pile of evidence in favor and none opposed. Just imagine that I've put in all those qualifiers. While I am certainly aware of them, I see no need to use them in everyday conversation.

Also, out-of-context snippets don't tell us much about what the person being quoted was saying. It's a waste of searching, cutting and pasting time. Many of us use a variety of conversational gambits to make our points; irony, humor, sarcasm, or just having fun with words could all produce snippets that could be made to seem to mean the opposite of what was being said if taken out of context.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Iona
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 10:27 PM

All right then:
Tell me how you can prove WITHOUT USING THE PAST inductive inference--that the future will be like the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 10:25 PM

I was agreeing with you, Bill. You have got it right. I was putting the bizarre statements of the others in that context.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 10:09 PM

"You just cannot defend something **simply** by declaring it IS true!"

I never said or hinted that science is a belief system. Please do not confuse my point with those others.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 10:02 PM

Bill D
You just cannot defend something by declaring it IS true!

Steve Shaw
Evolution is true.

John P
gravity is absolutely true

Richard Dawkins
I once wrote that anybody who didn't believe in evolution must be stupid, insane or ignorant

"true"?! "believe"!? Science is not a belief system.

Signed - The Trolling Twat

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 09:20 PM

John P saved me some typing. It's not whether you are right...or wrong.. but your reasoning IS circular & fallacious. Saying this about your reasons is like explaining that 2=2 does NOT = 5. Fallacies are fallacies...it is a statement about 'sense', not truth. IF your religious beliefs were in fact, true, your logic does not support them... You just cannot defend something by declaring it IS true! It's like a mother saying, "I KNOW my son could not have done that!"

"It's my argument that Without the Bible being true, you can't prove anything at all."   *sigh* And the Koran? and the Bhagavad Gita? And a dozen other "holy" texts from other cultures?

You know about the "Tower of Babel". The many religions of the world are a similar situation...