Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible
moronman
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 197 (199334)
04-14-2005 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
04-14-2005 1:06 PM


Re: The button is on the lower right
oh duh i said thanks and then still did it wrong. i replied to THIS message. i got it. this is a cool board, i love the features. very rich!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 04-14-2005 1:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 04-14-2005 1:34 PM moronman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 197 (199336)
04-14-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by moronman
04-14-2005 1:28 PM


Re: The button is on the lower right
And this time it worked. Praise Be To GOD!

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by moronman, posted 04-14-2005 1:28 PM moronman has not replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 18 of 197 (199338)
04-14-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
04-14-2005 12:48 PM


Re: opaque arche
Arachnophilia writes:
Percy writes:
This would mean that someone who rejects Aristotle's First Principle is actually rejecting all of western science, especially fields like physics and chemistry, so that couldn't possibly be right.
hi, percy! welcome to the evolution vs. creation debate!
Chris
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-20-2005 12:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2005 12:48 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 19 of 197 (199346)
04-14-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ptolemy
04-13-2005 9:13 PM


Ptolemy:
"The Bible, on the other hand, tells us that knowledge, wisdom and understanding are from the Word of God. (Proverbs 2:6). The Christian’s foundation of truth should be the Bible"
Well basicly you seem to be saying that the Bible says that the Bible is the source of knowledge, wisdom and understanding, which looks wrong.
I think knowledge coming from "the Word of God", means that knowledge, wisdom and understanding are essentially a revelation, rather then that they are essentialy derived from a material, or any other principle.
To be sure much knowledge is based on the principle of material, inclluding much knowledge in the bible, but then also much knowledge is based on the principle of energy. And while enerqy may be equated to matter, we could also say that matter may be equated to energy. That is, it is prejudicial to have material as the startingpoint, where you could also have energy as the startingpoint. The way out of this predicament of prejudice for material over energy is to treat both material and enery as revelatory knowledge.
Another thing "the Word of God" implies, is that knowledge, wisdom, and understanding essentially rely on ethics, on what your conscience tells you, rather then that they rely on being consistent with a material or energy principle.
So actually it seems you use a bible principle, the same as a materialist uses the material principle. It is entirely prejudicial, relying on an empty understanding about what the word of God means.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ptolemy, posted 04-13-2005 9:13 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 197 (199349)
04-14-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eta_Carinae
04-14-2005 6:49 AM


Re: Spot the key words folks!
Phatboy writes:
Are you suggesting that what we see through the lens is not actually what is there or, more to the point, how things actually are?
What we see in at the greatest distance is how they were and what is close is how they are. I accept what we see as valid. Why do scientists populate the universe with more than 90% undetectable things? They are faced with paradoxes that don’t fit their primary assumption, their arche, so they must invent undetectable things to explain away what is visible.
For example, galaxies are paradoxical. The stars apparently orbit at about the same speed without regard to distance from the center. In the solar system, the earth orbits at ~30 km/sec. Uranus which is 19 times farther, (19 AU), rotates at 30 / (19), about 7 km/sec, so the earth laps Uranus 84 times for its one orbit. That this relationship does not work in galaxies is visibly evident, especially in spiral galaxies. The arms of a spiral galaxy are connected back to the hub with gas linkages and streams of stars as though they were ejected. http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/.../43/images/a/formats/web.jpg
However, ejections would demand some sort of fundamental change. Astronomers explain this visible phenomena with invisible density waves for which there is not a shred of visible evidence. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions More than ten times the Old Testament mentions the continuous spreading of the heavens. The simple visible evidence fits exactly what the grammar of the text says.
Thomas Kuhn, the historian of Scientific Revolutions, explained that science is a system that shares a common paradigm and the evidence is seen from that perspective. What is the most basic assumption of science? Peter says the first thing to know (what is first in precedence and rank) is the arche of the last days. He explains their arche as all things diamenei. That little Greek word means they think things remain the same in relation.
Perhaps you think, how could matter change as a relationship when we measure constants? Yet constants are always associated with things that change as a relationship, like mechanical or chemical equilibria. The constants are not an indication that things are not changing, but that billions of reactions in one direction are balanced by billions in the other and the whole process can shift as a relationship. The reason the constants do change is because they are defined in terms of the whole shifting relationship. The light from the most distant stars shows that matter has shifted as a relationship. May I suggest that you look up the twice repeated Greek together-words that Paul uses to explain the corruption of all creation. (Romans 8:19 - 22). Things that change as a relationship are interconnected in complex ways, they change-together.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-14-2005 03:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-14-2005 6:49 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 04-14-2005 3:35 PM ptolemy has replied
 Message 106 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-20-2005 9:23 AM ptolemy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 197 (199364)
04-14-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ptolemy
04-14-2005 2:24 PM


Re: Spot the key words folks!
Hi Ptolemy,
You had me confused there for a bit. It seems you quoted PhatBoy but replied to Eta.
ptolemy writes:
For example, galaxies are paradoxical. The stars apparently orbit at about the same speed without regard to distance from the center.
This would be incorrect. You're probably trying to say that the stars in the outer regions of spiral galaxies have approximately the same orbital period, not the same speed, around the galactic core as closer stars. It is this observation that tells us our galaxy must be surrounded by a halo of dark unobservable matter, because the orbital period of a star like our sun around the galactic center (around 220 million years) is a direct function of the amount of mass enclosed with the orbit (for example, see Rotation of Our Galaxy and Rotation Curve of Galaxy for some pretty clear explanations).
Since stars further from the galactic center than our sun have roughly the same orbital period, that means there must be considerable mass in the region of space between our respective orbits. But when we observe this region there is far too little observable matter (i.e., luminous matter) to account for the orbital period, and so we know that there must be a great deal of matter present that we cannot see. In this way the observed phenoma of equal orbital periods for orbits of different radii leads directly to the conclusion of dark matter.
ptolemy writes:
arms of a spiral galaxy are connected back to the hub with gas linkages and streams of stars as though they were ejected. http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/.../43/images/a/formats/web.jpg However, ejections would demand some sort of fundamental change.
There are experts here who can better comment about this possibility, but I believe you are correct that astronomers do not believe the spiral arms of galaxies are ejecta from the galactic core. If this were the case then they would have a radial outward velocity, not an orbital velocity. Hopefully someone more knowledegable than me will comment.
Astronomers explain this visible phenomena with invisible density waves for which there is not a shred of visible evidence. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
The description of density waves you found at Answers.com is not an explanation for the orbital period phenomena you tried to describe above, but only a theory for why the stars in some galaxies organize themselves into clearly identifiable spiral arms.
That little Greek word means they think things remain the same in relation...The light from the most distant stars shows that matter has shifted as a relationship...Things that change as a relationship are interconnected in complex ways, they change-together.
I think people's response to this has pretty uniformly been that they don't understand what you mean when you talk about matter as a relationship or things changing as a relationship. Perhaps you could provide a specific and detailed example.
The reason the constants do change is because they are defined in terms of the whole shifting relationship.
Constants that change aren't constants, so again, I don't know what you mean.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ptolemy, posted 04-14-2005 2:24 PM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ptolemy, posted 04-14-2005 9:13 PM Percy has replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 197 (199373)
04-14-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
04-14-2005 12:07 PM


Re: not in my bible, it doesn't.
Thank you for your excellent Hebrew explanation of the words raqa` etc.
You apparently believe that nonsensical statements based on invalid solid sky ideas somehow crept into God's word.
What I am pointing out is, that if it really is God's word, and it really means what it says, we should expect to see dense things beaten out and spreading out. This is what we see in the most distant parts of the sky, and even occasionally in our galaxy from micro quasar ejections.
Halton Arp documents linkages at radio, x-ray and optical way lengths between objects with different redshifts. He was an observational astronomer, published an important catalog of strange galaxies, and spent years of telescope time studying them. He has an extensive number of evidences for quasar ejections and that quasars expand into galaxies.
Halton Arp's official website
Look under abstracts and read his paper on the "origins of quasars and galaxy clusters. I do not recommend his theories that violate clear statements in the Bible, but his data is extensive. By the way, he has a non paying job at the Max Plank Institute of Physics because after he began to publish evidences that violated the redshift=distance paradigm, he was denied further telescope time and the only way to can get x-ray data was at this institution.
By the way, the LMC and SMC (the Magellanic galaxies) are linked to the Milky Way with a
stream of hydrogen gas. I do not believe that the God of the Bible, who says He is the Truth, would ever deceive us by placing a stream of gas to look like ejecta.
If the heavens really are spreading out, then the few generations listed in the Bible should have seen it even better than we do. Ovid gave the Roman pagan tradition of how the sky spread out in his Metamorphosis.
quote:
Scarce had the Pow'r distinguish'd these, when straight
The stars, no longer overlaid with weight,
Exert their heads, from underneath the mass;
And upward shoot, and kindle as they pass,
And with diffusive light adorn their heav'nly place.
Then, every void of Nature to supply,
With forms of Gods he fills the vacant sky:
Perhaps you are thinking, they could not have seen the sky changing a few millennia ago. Yet Ptolemy measure 1022 stars in his catalog, and his errors vary with galactic latitude. What he measured suggests a smaller galaxy a few centuries ago. He was not the only ancient astronomer who also measured a smaller solar system with angles. This is what I would expect if what the Bible says about astronomy is really true.
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-14-2005 02:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2005 12:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2005 5:37 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 197 (199401)
04-14-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ptolemy
04-14-2005 3:54 PM


Re: not in my bible, it doesn't.
You apparently believe that nonsensical statements based on invalid solid sky ideas somehow crept into God's word.
no, that's not what i believe at all. i believe that the text itself does not make literal sense in terms of our modern scientific understanding.
What I am pointing out is, that if it really is God's word, and it really means what it says, we should expect to see dense things beaten out and spreading out.
that's NOT what the text says. the text said that the sky itself was solid, spread by the process of beating. it is a fundamental error to replace a word's meaning with it's root word's meaning. see my debates with eddy penngelly if you want to see where this road takes you.
the text indicates that the sky is solid, and holds water. you either believe that, or there is no point defending a literal reading of the bible. and since this picture is very observably not true, why bother in the first place?
it is NOT talking about quasars and galaxies and the hubble equation. it's talking about a solid glass dome in the sky that keeps out water.
Perhaps you are thinking, they could not have seen the sky changing a few millennia ago.
no, the babylonians were quite astrologically astute, as were most mesopotamian cultures. there are mentions of planets in the hebrew bible, which means they not only observed that the stars all moved together, but that there were objects that did not behave like the stars, instead wandering about the sky.
the hebrew position of the bible is quite consistant with a pre-copernican view of the solar system. this is to be expected, as well as incorrect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ptolemy, posted 04-14-2005 3:54 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 197 (199469)
04-14-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
04-14-2005 3:35 PM


Re: Spot the key words folks!
This would be incorrect. You're probably trying to say that the stars in the outer regions of spiral galaxies have approximately the same orbital period, not the same speed, around the galactic core as closer stars. It is this observation that tells us our galaxy must be surrounded by a halo of dark unobservable matter, because the orbital period of a star like our sun around the galactic center (around 220 million years) is a direct function of the amount of mass enclosed with the orbit...
Thank you for your correction. This is the very reason why they invent undetectable dark matter.
I think people's response to this has pretty uniformly been that they don't understand what you mean when you talk about matter as a relationship or things changing as a relationship. Perhaps you could provide a specific and detailed example. . . .
Constants that change aren't constants, so again, I don't know what you mean.
I understand your frustration. Aristotle said these elementary ideas are the hardest to consider because they are farthest removed from the senses. He also said one cannot prove them, yet they are the basis of all subsequent proofs. Proclus said no science ever tests its first principles, they are treated as self-evident.
On constants and change.
PI does not exist as an independent entity. Human minds invented it, and its definition encompasses the whole nature of circles. When a circle changes, PI stays the same, because every aspect shifts together (areas, volumes, chords, arcs, surfaces etc,). When something shifts as a relationship, the constants remain so, not because things aren’t changing, but because they are defined in term of the whole relationship that changes together.
Dessert locust can change from solitary night fliers to vicious monsters that fly in plagues. They neither act nor look the same yet they are the same species. Complex factors can cause the nymphs to go through a phase change - their environment affects them - they affect each other - they all change together. That is the sort of thing that happens when things change as a relationship.
Perhaps you think I am trying to invent some theory or set myself up as a know it all. I merely decided to stop interpreting the Bible with two systems: hermeneutics for spiritual things and science for physical things. James said God would not give me wisdom if I was double minded. Because Peter wrote that the first thing to know is this arche - first principle - that all things remain the same, whenever I encounter physics data I ask myself, how was this affected by this elementary assumption.
The Apostle Paul warns that the elementary ideas, [stociheon], of philosophy take us like military prisoners. (Colossians 2:8) Paul also wrote (Ephesians 4:3) that we (includes himself) as children were held in bondage under the elementary principles [stoicheon]. He went to school in Tarsus which Strabo said had more advanced schools than Alexandria and Athens during Paul’s youth. When an elementary idea grips, you only know how to think with that idea.
If the Bible is the absolute truth, which is what Jesus said, then there must be an answer to the struggles between scientific reasoning and the text. What kind of an answer would it be? If God is not a deceiver, then it must involve an elementary assumption. If this arche that Peter identified is really false, then simple evidence, even in the stars, would support the Bible, but complex mathematical attempts to decode earth-history would only lead to fruitless searches. Can God really do what He says? Can He really take the wise of this age with their own reasoning? All he would have to do is do what He did to the whole physical creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 04-14-2005 3:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 04-14-2005 10:17 PM ptolemy has not replied
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 04-15-2005 12:29 PM ptolemy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 25 of 197 (199485)
04-14-2005 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ptolemy
04-14-2005 9:13 PM


Re: Spot the key words folks!
ptolemy writes:
This would be incorrect. You're probably trying to say that the stars in the outer regions of spiral galaxies have approximately the same orbital period, not the same speed, around the galactic core as closer stars. It is this observation that tells us our galaxy must be surrounded by a halo of dark unobservable matter, because the orbital period of a star like our sun around the galactic center (around 220 million years) is a direct function of the amount of mass enclosed with the orbit...
Thank you for your correction. This is the very reason why they invent undetectable dark matter.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to correct you some more. As I already explained, dark matter isn't undetectable. We know with absolute certainty that it isn't undetectable because we've detected it. It is because of its gravitational effects that it is detectable. Were it undetectable it would have no gravitational effects, or any others, for that matter.
Your argument was that when scientists confront evidence that conflicts with their primary assumption (their arche, as you put it), they invent undetectable things. You used dark matter as an example. But since dark matter is detectable, your example fails.
Rendering arche in red isn't providing a remedy to the lack of a definition. You claim, in effect, that scientists make things up when confronted with conflicts to their primary assumption, but you still haven't explained what that primary assumption is. But the issue of changelessness or constancy keeps coming up, and so I'm beginning to believe that what I stated back in Message 12 must be what you actually mean by primary assumption:
Broadly speaking, it is the assumption that nature is subject to lawlike behavior and therefore that the domain of science and technology includes those phenomena that can be reduced to orderly predictable rules, regulations, and laws.
Is this the first principle you say you are rejecting?
On constants and change.
PI does not exist as an independent entity. Human minds invented it, and its definition encompasses the whole nature of circles. When a circle changes, PI stays the same, because every aspect shifts together (areas, volumes, chords, arcs, surfaces etc,). When something shifts as a relationship, the constants remain so, not because things aren’t changing, but because they are defined in term of the whole relationship that changes together.
Pi is a property of circles in a Euclidean geometry. The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is a constant. But you're rejecting changelessness, i.e., constancy. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
I think you contradict yourself again concerning Peter's first principle. You argue that the Bible is absolute truth, but then propose that Peter's arache (whatever it is) is wrong. Since Peter states his arache in the Bible, that would mean the Bible contains error and could not be absolute truth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ptolemy, posted 04-14-2005 9:13 PM ptolemy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 04-15-2005 12:42 PM Percy has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 26 of 197 (199580)
04-15-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ptolemy
04-14-2005 9:13 PM


Purpose of discussion
ptolemy writes:
If the Bible is the absolute truth, which is what Jesus said, then there must be an answer to the struggles between scientific reasoning and the text. What kind of an answer would it be?
I would say that the answer came from Jesus Himself: My kingdom is not of this world.
I disagree that our purpose in life as Christians is to take on the wise of this age and "prove" or "show up" their worldly wisdom with our nifty Bible scriptures.
I agree with the power and meaning of this scripture. Do you?
1 Cor 1:20-25= For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
Surely, God has mandated that we share the message of Christ to the world. God has NOT mandated that we go out and try to rant and rage against the established methods and wisdom of the educational system.
When people see you, they need to see the power and love of Christ in you, not a man armed with a few scriptures who is trying to get them to see where the entire intellectual/educational system is flawed through its source.
We preach Christ crucified. Simplify your message. If anyone is going to see it the way that you or I may see it, it will be because Christ has drawn them unto Himself, not because you or I has cleverly persuaded them that our pet theory is worldchanging and earthshaking!
I will give you some credit, Ptolemy. I have presented a theory similar to yours. I will repeat it, here:
There are two Spirits. (1) The Holy Spirit. (2) the spirit of this age.
Humans have a choice. They can accept Jesus and allow His Spirit to teach, edify, and equip them. Or they can maintain their own vain imaginations. When God came down to see the men who were building the Tower of Babel(Genesis11:1) He noted that nothing will be impossible which they have imagined to do. Gods imagination,(Peters first principle perhaps?)is the Holy Spirit impartation. Mans vain imagination (Aristotle and worldly philosophy perhaps?) is the spirit of this age.
There is my theory in a nutshell. I believe it strongly, but I do NOT spend 90% of my time at EvC trying to shove it down everyones throat. My philosophy is that I am here to interact, entertain, learn from, and commune with the members here.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-20-2005 01:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ptolemy, posted 04-14-2005 9:13 PM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ptolemy, posted 04-15-2005 5:21 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 197 (199584)
04-15-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
04-14-2005 10:17 PM


Re: Spot the key words folks!
Hi, Percy. I think that what Ptolemy is trying to convince you of, in a nutshell, is that his source of wisdom...his arche originates from the Spirit of God while your wisdom...if not Biblically based..is a false premise...human wisdom first defined by Aristotle.
Now run along and burn all of your evil science books.
Purchase a Bible, and come to Ptolemys Sunday School class.
Stay away from his science class, however!
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-20-2005 01:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 04-14-2005 10:17 PM Percy has not replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 197 (199603)
04-15-2005 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
04-14-2005 12:43 PM


Re: opaque arche
Percy said: Carefully defining your terms would make it easier for people to understand your point. For example, you say:
Aristotle, said that first principles [arche] are the hardest for men to know because they are farthest removed from the senses. He also said they cannot be proved but are the basis of all subsequent proofs. The are the foundation for an entire way of thinking. Proclus said no science ever examines its first principle, they are treated as self-evident.
I never had a teacher say to me, lets start at the first principle, the historical basis of scientific reasoning, and lets go back and examine and test it to see if it is valid. Yet Peter states that it is the first (the most important) thing to know and he predicts the first principle, arche, of the last days.
What is it? It is the idea that all thing (everything in the physical universe that is made of matter) remains the same [diamenei]: it remains unchanging in its BEING and is unchanging AS A RELATION.
Aristotle insisted that all knowledge must begin with the things that do not change. It is upon this foundation that the Christians of Western Europe built our system. The historical first principle of scientific reasoning is exactly what Peter predicted. It is the idea that substance, matter, atoms, do not change as a relationship.
Percy said: Whether or not a rejection of changelessness is consistent with the Bible, it is certainly consistent with modern science.
The Bible is could not possibly be a book that supports scientific reasoning. We have tried to tailor the Bible to fit science for centuries, and look where it has gotten us. We are faced with formidable issues - like the dichotomy between the apparent age of the universe and the few generations listed in the Bible. All ancient people, including the prophets of the Bible, had an earth history in which everything changed - even the nature of durations. The Bible even states in Hebrew that the earth stretches out (expands) [verb tense continuous action] and everything on or from the earth does also. That is the most unscientific statement anyone could make.
Yet there is a simple triumphant answer that glorifies God's wisdom and truth. It involves going back to kindergarten, to examine the first principle that is the historical basis of our great system of reasoning.
If we do, we can see that the simple non philosophical evidence, even from astronomy, fits exactly what the Bible says. It certainly does not fit the scientific system, which is why they must postulate that the universe is 99% invisible. Why must they? Because science has no mechanism for relational change - things that change together. They invent all this undetectable stuff to protect the very arche that Peter predicted. Think about it.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-20-2005 01:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 04-14-2005 12:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 04-15-2005 3:52 PM ptolemy has replied
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2005 4:55 PM ptolemy has not replied
 Message 31 by Monk, posted 04-15-2005 5:16 PM ptolemy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 197 (199619)
04-15-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ptolemy
04-15-2005 2:28 PM


Re: opaque arche
ptolemy writes:
What is it? It is the idea that all thing (everything in the physical universe that is made of matter) remains the same [diamenei]: it remains unchanging in its BEING and is unchanging AS A RELATION.
I think you're going to have to put this in familiar terms that people will recognize and understand. If this is a foundational principle of science it isn't one I've ever heard of.
Aristotle insisted that all knowledge must begin with the things that do not change. It is upon this foundation that the Christians of Western Europe built our system.
I can't know if I agree with you until you can articulate what that principle is in terms I can understand. The way you're currently describing it is not something I've ever heard before. I do a lot of scientific reading, and I don't recall anyone ever insisting upon a scientific first principle, though the one I cited in my Message 12 seems a pretty good one.
Not that we don't all respect Aristotle, but Western science is thought to be based more upon the thinking of Francis Bacon.
The historical first principle of scientific reasoning is exactly what Peter predicted. It is the idea that substance, matter, atoms, do not change as a relationship.
If Peter says this in the Bible, how can you reject it?
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 04-15-2005 04:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ptolemy, posted 04-15-2005 2:28 PM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ptolemy, posted 04-15-2005 7:45 PM Percy has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 30 of 197 (199625)
04-15-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ptolemy
04-15-2005 2:28 PM


i call your bluff.
i don't think you actually believe what you say you believe.
The Bible is could not possibly be a book that supports scientific reasoning
ok, let's actually reject science then.
shall we talk about the glass dome in the sky that keeps the waters out now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ptolemy, posted 04-15-2005 2:28 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024