Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 10-25-2002, 07:12 AM

Van:

Mageth,

I see that you avoiding the "rolling eyes" and "brick walls" in this post. For that, I give you thanks.

I do think I need to press the issue a bit further with you, since I must understand if you have a genuine interest in having a respectful, efficient discussion:

Please tell me why I should spend more time in dialogue with you.

At this point, I am fully justified in making this request, since the majority of the posts which you address to me continue to be diversionary and insulting. I need to determine if I can reasonably expect a marginal return-on-investment if I am to engage you in a serious, committed fashion once more.

My response:

I'll extend an olive branch and suggest that you and I both cease this "combat". If you're willing to accept my offer, then I would expect the next step would be for you to answer the question I posed.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Jeremy Pallant · 10-25-2002, 08:31 AM

I see that the Christians are resorting to taking their own Bible out of context with regard to insects having four legs. The general explanation given is that this is referring to locusts, and that the two jumping legs are not counted as legs. Let's take a look at the context that these apologists are so fond of accusing atheists of ignoring.

Leviticus 11: 21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

Certainly does look like a description of locusts, doesn't it?

Leviticus 11: 22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

So far the Christians are partially vindicated. I think I read somewhere that bald locusts are crickets. There is one mistake here, however. Beetles don't have jumping feet, and thus fall outside the purvue of the apologists' explanation.

Leviticus 11: 23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Woops! Not talking about locusts or grasshoppers or crickets or even beetles anymore! Yet still the Bible says there are insects with four feet.

Beetles don't have jumping feet, nor do ants or flies or bees or wasps or numerous other insects, yet the Bible still considers them as having four legs. Here the apologists' explanation breaks down.

Vanderzyden · 10-25-2002, 08:41 AM

Jeremy,

Why do you move on to discuss insects in particular without conceding any of the points that have been made in this thread?

John

Vanderzyden · 10-25-2002, 08:56 AM

Hi Diana (& Mageth),

In the first place, I don't really understand the consequent (i.e. second part) of the question, but I will attempt a brief answer:

Quote:

If the denial of "modern technological and explorative advancements" in astronomy call flatearthers' worldview into question, does the denial of "modern technological and explorative advancements" concerning origins call creationists' worldview into question?

The answer depends upon what is meant by "origins". Since I mentioned astronomy, then I would turn to cosmology. Then we could discuss the strong evidence which supports the Big Bang.

The answer also depends on what is meant by the term "creationist". Are we talking about six-day literalists, or creationists in the broad sense?

Allow me to guess that Mageth is alluding to Darwinism. He insinuates that there are technological and explorative advancements concerning the truth about life origins. Of course, this is not the thread or the forum to discuss the merits of Darwinian hypothesis. I will say briefly that we all know that this is the subject of intense debate, and there is no conclusive evidence that supports macroevolutionary theories. In fact, there is much evidence which is directly contradictory, such as the existence of genetic code and the Cambrian explosion.

John

Vanderzyden · 10-25-2002, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
Here is Bob Schadewald's article on <a href="http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm" target="_blank">The Flat-Earth Bible</a>. That source mentions:

1 Chronicles 16:30: �He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.�
Psalm 93:1: �Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...�
Psalm 96:10: �He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...�
Psalm 104:5: �Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.�
Isaiah 45:18: �...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...�

In effect, the Earth is stationary in some cosmic sense.

The noncanonical book 1 Enoch goes into much greater detail about astronomy than any of the Bible's canonical books, and it clarifies several Biblical references.

Apikorus's mention of the Sun hurrying from its setting place to its rising place agrees with the cosmology of 1 Enoch; in it, the sky is a bowl overhead, and the Sun moves along its rim from its setting place to its rising place.

L,

Yes, we could say the Earth is fixed, relative to the Sun. It does not escape its orbit. It rotates uniformly on its axis, and is tilted at 23.5 degrees relative to its plane of orbit.

In a quick search of <a href="http://www.nazarene.net/enoch/1enoch01-60.htm" target="_blank">1 Enoch</a>, I don't find support for your contention. Perhaps you could be more specific.

John

Coragyps · 10-25-2002, 09:06 AM

Quote:

and there is no conclusive evidence that supports macroevolutionary theories. In fact, there is much evidence which is directly contradictory, such as the existence of genetic code

I knew there was a reason I don't come to BC&A very often.

Apikorus · 10-25-2002, 09:12 AM

"Yes, we could say the Earth is fixed, relative to the Sun. It does not escape its orbit. It rotates uniformly on its axis, and is tilted at 23.5 degrees relative to its plane of orbit."

No, we couldn't. The earth's orbit is slightly eccentric, so our distance from the sun varies as a function of time.

There's also a wobble (the Chandler wobble, in geophysical parlance) of the axis of rotation, with a period of about 14 months, due to the fact that the earth is somewhat oblate.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Mageth · 10-25-2002, 09:16 AM

Van:

I'll post the question and your reply in E&C.

Vanderzyden · 10-25-2002, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
"Yes, we could say the Earth is fixed, relative to the Sun. It does not escape its orbit. It rotates uniformly on its axis, and is tilted at 23.5 degrees relative to its plane of orbit."

No, we couldn't. The earth's orbit is slightly eccentric, so our distance from the sun varies as a function of time.

There's also a wobble (the Chandler wobble, in geophysical parlance) of the axis of rotation, with a period of about 14 months, due to the fact that the earth is somewhat oblate.

Apikorus,

Does the earth wander aimlessly? Does it leave it's eccentric, elliptical orbit? Isn't the Chandler oscillation recurrent?

More importantly:

Is it upon this pettiness that you base your rejection of the contents of the Bible?

John

Mageth · 10-25-2002, 10:01 AM

Ok, granting for the sake of argument that the earth is "fixed" in its orbit of the sun, how is the earth "immovable"?

10-25-2002, 07:12 AM	#111
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Van: Mageth, I see that you avoiding the "rolling eyes" and "brick walls" in this post. For that, I give you thanks. I do think I need to press the issue a bit further with you, since I must understand if you have a genuine interest in having a respectful, efficient discussion: Please tell me why I should spend more time in dialogue with you. At this point, I am fully justified in making this request, since the majority of the posts which you address to me continue to be diversionary and insulting. I need to determine if I can reasonably expect a marginal return-on-investment if I am to engage you in a serious, committed fashion once more. My response: I'll extend an olive branch and suggest that you and I both cease this "combat". If you're willing to accept my offer, then I would expect the next step would be for you to answer the question I posed. [ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

10-25-2002, 09:12 AM	#117
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	"Yes, we could say the Earth is fixed, relative to the Sun. It does not escape its orbit. It rotates uniformly on its axis, and is tilted at 23.5 degrees relative to its plane of orbit." No, we couldn't. The earth's orbit is slightly eccentric, so our distance from the sun varies as a function of time. There's also a wobble (the Chandler wobble, in geophysical parlance) of the axis of rotation, with a period of about 14 months, due to the fact that the earth is somewhat oblate. [ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2002, 08:31 AM	#112
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	I see that the Christians are resorting to taking their own Bible out of context with regard to insects having four legs. The general explanation given is that this is referring to locusts, and that the two jumping legs are not counted as legs. Let's take a look at the context that these apologists are so fond of accusing atheists of ignoring. Leviticus 11: 21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Certainly does look like a description of locusts, doesn't it? Leviticus 11: 22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. So far the Christians are partially vindicated. I think I read somewhere that bald locusts are crickets. There is one mistake here, however. Beetles don't have jumping feet, and thus fall outside the purvue of the apologists' explanation. Leviticus 11: 23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. Woops! Not talking about locusts or grasshoppers or crickets or even beetles anymore! Yet still the Bible says there are insects with four feet. Beetles don't have jumping feet, nor do ants or flies or bees or wasps or numerous other insects, yet the Bible still considers them as having four legs. Here the apologists' explanation breaks down.

10-25-2002, 08:41 AM	#113
Vanderzyden Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 694	Jeremy, Why do you move on to discuss insects in particular without conceding any of the points that have been made in this thread? John

10-25-2002, 09:16 AM	#118
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Van: I'll post the question and your reply in E&C.

10-25-2002, 10:01 AM	#120
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Ok, granting for the sake of argument that the earth is "fixed" in its orbit of the sun, how is the earth "immovable"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.