buckshot23

I guess there is not accounting for taste.:huh:
It seems that you believe we do have total knowledge and that our theories will not significantly change. I suppose we should tell all those physicists to just leave well enough alone and call it a day.
:huh: The problem is with your faith in current theories and our knowledge. When these theories are overturned and if they were in the bible then skeptics circa 3006 would complain. THAT is the point.
WHO SAID THEY WERE?
And?
What do you mean by "evolution"? Change in gene frequency? Or single cell to all of life? If it is the latter then that is just BS.
Observing something is not the same as understanding something.

Which is the entire point! Thank you.
Who ever said this but your strawman?

What text are you referring to because the bible doesn't have it "penned" in the bible that the earth is the center of the universe and everything else revolves around it. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Strawmen are funny aren't they?:huh:

Huon

The great difference between a book dedicated to science and the Bible (or any book of religion) is that the book of science is dated and has an author, while the book of religion does not need to be dated, since its contents are of eternal value, and does not need to have an identified author, since it is inspired by a god.

Angrillori

Apparently they are. You do seem to enjoy them so.

BUT, calling something a strawman doesn't make it one, now does it. Let's look at the origin of this line of the conversation:

Lets see here. Modern "concepts and ideas". It sounds like it is you, not I embarking on this "theory" strawman now doesn't it? "Modern concepts and ideas" "Modern concepts and ideas." Like the constancy of the speed of light? Like the heisenberg uncertainty principle? Like the wave nature of light? Like viruses? Things which cannot be mocked 1000 years from now or 10,000 years from now.

Your effort to dodge away from the fact that the bible COULD have included incotrovertible modern concepts and ideas is hereby noted, and condemned.


Anyways, back to your (self admitted) problem with comprehension.

I wrote:" Don't you find it ironic that 2,000 years after it was written (actually more since we're talking OT) that exactly this has happened? A writer penned a (then) modern theory of cosmological origins, and observers from 2006 are pointing at it and telling the world how backwards the writers were! "

You wrote: " What text are you referring to because the bible doesn't have it "penned" in the bible that the earth is the center of the universe and everything else revolves around it. I have no idea what you are talking about.*"

(*That was the referenced comprehension difficulty.)

For a guy screaming "Strawman! Strawman!" you should be more careful.

Note my claim was that the bible includes a "then modern theory of cosmological origins." Much like when Lunawalk referred to modern concepts and ideas, you not-so-cleverly rephrased into something completely irrelevant. I said "a (then) modern theory of cosmological origins." You said I was referring to the bible writing as if the earth was the center of the universe. Those two are different, aren't they?

What is it called when you say I said something which I didn't actually say? Yeah, that's a strawman. Stop it. Or at least stop accusing others of doing what you're doing yourself. Hypocrisy sucks.

The bible does in fact have written in it "a (then) modern theory of cosmological origins." Gen 1-2. Six days. Water above sky above dry ground. Light then plants then sun and moon. Etc., etc., etc. Interesting explanation for the creation of the universe. And, like your hypothetical 3006-er, these 2006-ers are full well qualified to laugh at how backwards the writers were for including their (then) modern theory in their holy book.

Of course, as I pointed out, there are quite a few bits of science that could have been included that no observer from any time in the future could ever have scoffed at: constancy of the speed of light, viruses, the heisenberg uncertainty principle, the wave nature of the light we see and the differing wavelengths equating to different colors.

Many many many bits of science could have been included in the bible which could not have been mocked by future observers. Yet instead the writers chose to include a (then) modern theory on cosmological origins (gen 1&2) which rightfully is mocked by we 21st century-ers, just as a phlogiston theory would be mocked by 31st century-ers.

The irony is delicious that you believe that including a 20th century explanation could be mocked if that explanation was expanded upon/refined in the 31st century but cannot seem to see that a 1st century theory might fare the same way when exposed to the 20th. It is very, very, very amusing.

Heliocentricity would have been a good bit for the bible to get right though, wouldn't it? But, rather the bible reads, (if read without wearing 21-st century preconceptive goggles) as a textbook in geocentrism. Weird, that. But one more straw in the old:

"Anything read in the bible is literally true, until it's proven wrong, then it's a metaphor"

method of biblical analysis.

If you didn't know about how the solar system was arrayed--if you grew up in total ignorance, and had only the Bible as your guide, would you be a heliocentrist or a geocentrist? I think the answer is rather obvious. Since the bible never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever defends heliocentricity, but does have quite a few passages that (even if we grant your VERY grasping pleas for metaphor) indicate geocentricity, I'd be surprised to hear how anyone can come to a different conclusion.

buckshot23

Hmmm. Where is this justified in what I said...
I didn't claim this and thus all the other junk after it is meaningless. I didn't claim this so for this...

We're off to see the wizard.

Well what was I replying to? Out of context quote mining is getting a little old. This is what I responded to...
Lunawalk introduced "modern concepts and ideas" not me.
Talk to Lunawalk.
I wasn't referring to every observation or every "modern concept or idea" just to the criticism about no "modern" theory included in the bible.
The bible could have done any number of things could have included your every thought you would ever make but it didn't. So what? Also I couldn't care less about your condemnations.:wave:

If you wanted to introduce another topic explicitly saying so would help. Everybody here was talking of geocentrism. I thought you were referring to it also.
Sure and what of the billions of people that would not understand these concepts before they were discovered? Again a modern bias.
Make a case that those passages should be read literally, internally, I have made a case that they should not.
Internal evidence indicates a metaphorical reading at worst or a spatial relational reading at best either way the bible does not advocate geocentrism any more than it does that Jesus will have a sword in His mouth during His return. Or that God is a rock.
Who exactly should give a crap? I don't. The bible is NOT a science book.
Incorrect readings lead to incorrect comprehension. Also it is irrelevant.
Doesn't defend any other model either.
Jump in and tell me exactly how. Your empty claims are just wasted bandwidth otherwise.

Lunawalk

I sure an skeptic from 3oo6 would be impreesed if the bible said for example the earth revoled around the sun. or the speed of light. I expressing ideas beyond its times and culture. This is what I meant an true creator would know all the mysteries of the uniiverse. Provided it's not lying

Steven Avery

Hi Angrillor,

hmmm .. you are behind the times...
This immutable constant truth one has already been taken to the cleaners.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancien.../message/26246
ABH age of universe - speed of light, research for not being a constant

I put that together in 2003. There has been more since.

Shalom,
Steven

pharoah

Wow. You're claiming here that the scientific theories of today are no more stable than the theories of ancient times. You seem to forget that there's one huge difference. Many of these theories have been tested, verified and are in everyday use of our lives. There's tested and verified scientific theory behind rockets, airplanes, cars, computers, modern medicine, nuclear weapons, etc. Just about every aspect of our modern lives, including all the conveniences and luxuries that we take for granted veryday, is the result of scientific theories in action.

That's why we KNOW that many of these theories will not change in 1000 years, because they have been proven to work and work consistently. That's what Angrillon was saying in his posts; that there is a large body of stable knowledge that we KNOW to be true now. Why can't you concede even basic points like this?

buckshot23

Wow. I didn't claim this at all.
I wasn't making the argument he attributed to me. That's why. Even if a theory has been "proven to work" that does not mean it will hold up over the long term. See newtonian physics as an example.

pharoah

Yes you did. Reread your post.

That's a bad example. Newtonian physics was not wrong, it was just an incomplete description of the world. Same thing with Einsteinian physics - it will eventually be absorbed into a more general theory. Are you really such a knowledge skeptic that you believe that every current scientific theory and law could be completely overturned - despite the massive proof, such as the things that I mentioned earlier, that exists to validate them?

Sven

I'll address your fantasies in more detail tomorrow; for now, let me just point out two obvious things which you somehow managed to miss in your links:

1) Even if one of them was correct, the universe would still be billions of years old. One of the models just suggested that the speed of light was much faster in the first second after the Big Bang, and then slowed down to the value of today after this time.
2) Regarding Davies' measurements of alpha (fine structure constant), much more exact measurements have shown in the meantime that it at most has varied by a negligible amount.

So, indeed "there has been more since". But this "more" entirely proved any YEC fantasy wrong - again.