aChristian

Since a frame of reference centered at the sun is not an inertial reference frame, you need to add adjusting forces to make Newton's equations work exactly. This is true of a frame of reference centered and rotating with the earth as well. (I had to go re-read this in my old physics text.) You can still describe the motions from an earth centered reference frame, you just have to add different forces than you do to the reference frame centered at the sun.
So the Bible can accurately describe the phenomenon from either perspective and do so correctly.

aChristian

You claim to have no sin. Are you aware of anyone's sin?

aChristian

Good. Then even though you realize the earth turning is what causes the sun to appear to set, you use the language to accurately describe what you see, the sun setting.
God did the same thing. He used the language to accurately describe what a person would see, the sun standing still.

aChristian

As I said previously, the finger was restored completely in a few days from my recollection of the story, but without a fingernail.

I would have to go listen to the tape if I still have it or go ask the Pastor next time I am there.

Not necessarily. I heard it from the pastor. I have reported it as I heard it and have tried not to exaggerate at all and to make it clear when I wasn't sure about something.

I wasn't able to get to the full paper. I would be interested in reading it. Can you provide a link or do you have to order it from the site you linked to?

I'll need to read the evidence. It wouldn't bother me if it is a 'common' occurence like you claim, but I need to see the evidence.

Although this is true to a point, it is a mistake to think that people in the past didn't know how babies are conceived or that other miraculous events were just not understood.

John A. Broussard

So the sun only appeared to stand still, though scripture says it actually stood still.

Am I reading you correctly?

I look forward to your answer.

Terrible Heresy

I just spent about 5 hours reading this thread. *rubs eyes*

I would just like to say that it is quite suspect that aChristian believes unflinchingly in Christ on the basis of the ressurection story. And this being a fact he bases on some debatable accounts of early Christians

But, the main tenets of geology and biology(and you can probably throw chemistry and cosmology in there as well) are obviously wrong even though they are agreed on by nearly all of the scientists in those fields. I remember reading a poll that said about 99.7%(I think) of scientists don't give any weight to creationists arguments. But oh well, who cares.

One gets the clear picture that you beleive what you want to beleive from the sources you want to beleive it from, quite frankly.

And don't hand me that bullshit about how "once you accept the blah blah blah". The point is, you are not accepting Jesus, you are accepting the word of early Christians(however reliable you beleive them to be). So why do you accept their words, and not millions of scientists?

Also, I don't know if anyone pointed it out(I gotta admit, I skipped the last few pages on) the resurrection of Jesus is totally unbeleivible even in the best of circumstances.

We have thousands(if not millions) of first hand accounts of alien encounters. That doesn't make them real. First hand accounts can be reliable, but I think it's a pretty safe rule to not rely on them very much, or at all, when it comes to miracles, the supernatural, or even the realms of pseudoscience. That is not the way any rational person goes about things because it's simply a recipe for disaster.

I can sit here right now and make up some story about how the FSM revealed himself to me in all his glory. That's a first hand account too. But that doesn't make it real. And because it's supernatural, no one should take it seriously until it is substiated further.

aChristian

I don't read the word 'actually' in the text. The text can clearly be read as I am reading it, an accurate description of what Joshua and everyone else on earth saw. If God had wanted to put a science lesson into the story he could have, but I suspect that he thought it was the wrong time for it and would interrupt the flow of the narrative. You keep unsuccessfully trying to force you meaning into the passage so that you can find a error in the Bible. It just ain't there.

aChristian

That's determination.

There are other reasons for my belief, some that can be proven objectively and some that are subjective and cannot be demonstrated. I just think the resurrection of Jesus is the most powerful arguement. The evidence is good. Paul tells us that there were more than 500 witness to Jesus being alive after he was crucified, some of who were alive when he wrote I Corinthians and could be asked. The gospels give us eyewitness testimony to Jesus' miraculous life, death on the cross, and resurrection appearances over 40 days. The consistent testimony of the early church agrees with this. Paul was able to declare to King Agrippa that the facts of the resurrection were well known to the king because they were not done in a corner. Jesus said he was God and said he would give evidence to it by rising from the dead as the scriptures predicted. The early church writings agree with this. The church grew because there were so many people who considered the accounts credible and many had seen Jesus' miracles themselves. Even the Jews who rejected Jesus had to come up with some explanation (in one of their ancient writings) for his miracles and so they said he did them by the power of Satan. The history is not really debatable to the honest inquirer.

I seem to have read a poll that said a large percentage (?50%, maybe more, maybe less) of scientists question evolution. I think many do not voice their opinions because they fear the repercussions. They will lose research grants, be ridiculed, and maybe lose their jobs if they fail to tow the party line. It's easier to just go along and not rock the boat, especially when it doesn't affect their your work either way. (A lot of evolutionists in power do not behave very nicely if you question their religion (evolutionism). They can get very emotional.) These kind of things have happened.

The scientists were not there to witness the resurrection. I also see (and many qualified scientists see) obvious mistakes in the party line beliefs of the scientific community.
As far as accepting Jesus, I have done that. That is a subjective experience that cannot be experienced by one person on behalf of another in order to demonstrate it's truth. You would be able to see the results in my life if you knew me (I'm not great, but I'm better than I used to be), but you cannot get inside of me and experience my relationship with him. For that reason, I try to give you reasons that you can test so that you might know that it is true and not just an emotional experience or wishful thinking. The experience may be a true one (I really do know the Creator of the universe and can commune with him), but you cannot objectively test my inner experience for truth. You need an external test. If you read what the early Christians did, it is the same thing. They proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus, the long ago prophesied Messiah of Israel. They proclaimed what they had seen and heard. The people in Berea were commended because they checked out what Paul told them in the Old Testament to see that it was true. Paul wrote to test everything and hold on to what is good.

To quote Paul as he spoke to King Agrippa, "Why should you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?"

If you had as many reliable witnesses to back up your story as the resurrection does, then it might be believable, but you don't so it is not believable. As I've said above, you do want good evidence before you just believe any and every miracle claim, but in the case of the resurrection, the good evidence is there.

pairadocs

Corroborating evidence from other cultures please? Egyptians? Chinese? They were keeping written records at that time, and surely they would write down something so astounding.

Terrible Heresy

And how does any of this not fall under the heading of accounts of early Christians? You are going on hearsay. It's still all just accounts written by Christians. And I am ignoring that much of what you said is heavily, heavily debatable. In fact, I will leave it to others who are better schooled in this then I am, but I beleive at least a few of your assertitions are demonstrably wrong or flawed.

I am sorry, but this is fucking bullshit. This is one of the most idiotic, rediculous, and downright laughible claims I have ever fucking heard

<edit>

Scientists question the processes of evolution. Probably well over 50% do. But virtually no credible scientist without a religious ax to grind will deny common descent. That is fucking fact.

Creationists have been able to come up with a list of about 400 names that have signed a weakly worded refutation of "Darwinist" evolution. This is a list of scientists from all fields(in fact, only a 3rd of them were even biologists). Do you know how many scientists there are in this country? That's probably about 400 out at least hundreds of thousands of scientists(it's probably in the millions). Creationists are well organized, well funded, and very on the ball when it comes to public relations. If that's all the names that are on the list, that's a pretty good indication that that's damn near all the people out there with credentials who think it.

<edit>

Like all the other evolutionists that "failed to tow the party line"? Are you completely ignorant of all the changes that evolution has went through? Evolution has changed. It simply has not changed the way you wish it would. Evolutionists can, and have, follow where the evidence points them.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Plain and simple.

Also, your assertions do not fit the poll numbers.

And it cracks me up about the grants, because we know that creationists have such a hard time making a living!!!:funny: I have a dirt poor biologist friend who laughingly jokes that he should give up the research gig and write creationist books for a living.....

Show me a creationist who is not a Christian.

Show me an atheist who is a creationist

Can you?

I can show you a shitload of theists(scientist and clergy) who wholeheartly support evolution and denounce creationism.

The clergy who supports evolution is probably up to over 10,000 now. And project Steve is probably over 700 scientists. In case you haven't heard, Project Steve is a sort of comic parody of the lists creationists make. It's only signed by scientists name Steve. Roughly 1% of people have that name. Do the math.

All in all, your assertions are rediculous. Science has again and again shown that the theories that work are the ones that are accepted. This is not always the case in the short term. But evolution has been around a while now, and it's matured(with levels of successive evidence supporting it such as genetics).

Besides that, I am not sure what a scientific community that is predominately theist has to gain by proping up evolution:rolling: (though if I remember right, the field of biology is less theist then most, with under 50%)

Oh really? Name the scientists with degrees in evolutionary biology that support creationism. Now cross out the ones who are Christian.

I can show you a few examples where the few creationists that do have actual degrees(though you won't find one that fits both my criteria) say they got them so they could topple evolution. Very much putting into question thier motivation and objectiveness

Because it's supernatural with no reason to beleive it whatsoever.

Just because I give my imaginary friend superpowers, I can't explain away problems with proving him by saying he can do whatever he wants

So you beleive there are aliens that abduct people? There are FAR more first hand accounts that claim this then claim the resurrection.

Sorry man, but I think you are blinded by your faith in that you can't see that simple common sense dictates that there is no way that you can rely on supposed reports of first hand accounts to beleive in supernatural claims.