Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 2:44 PM
200 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,084 Year: 16,907/29,783 Month: 895/1,956 Week: 398/331 Day: 57/69 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Where did Earth's Iron core come from and how did the mantle become molten?
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2383 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 106 of 120 (524795)
09-18-2009 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by greyseal
09-18-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Sure you can!

You just say this: "the bible was written in a poetic manner, and genesis I and II are not meant as exact literal accounts, but as poetic, descriptive accounts."

It is your religious belief that this is the case. What is so poetic about long lists of descendents, or a census? To say that is always poetic and never actually records any actual events is absurd, but if you want to believe that I guess i can't stop you. As for Genesis 1 and 2 again it is your religious belief in an old earth that demands you to reinterpret the clear teaching of scripture.
Does anyone who should actually be in a position to know proclaim "the days in Genesis I and II were actual real light-dark periods of 24 hours"?
Yes, most biblical old testament experts and throughout history most biblical scholars viewed it like this. Here is one such article that makes a strong case against torturing the text http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf and this is for you also peg for your "Genesis 2:4 calls all six creative days, one day..." comment and greyseal's "And please, if you're going to say "yeah! a day isn't always a day! but it is this time!" then don't bother. Pointing out that I might be right and then just insisting that your interpretation is the only valid one is vapid at best." comment. You both total ignore the context in which the word day is used. To say that the word can have multiple meanings is not the same as saying that all those meanings can be attributed to a word in a particular context.
it doesn't really talk about HOW god made everything. It doesn't really talk about why. It doesn't mention Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto, Ceres, Anteres, Globular Cluster M-1 or anything other than earth. And "earth" with a small "e" at that.

So we should disbelieve it on the topics it does talk about because it has not mentioned every single detail of the universe which would turn the bible into a multi-billion page book ???

If you don't like the way the bible is written or the things it proclaims then go write your own bible and start a new religion.

Edited by Arphy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 9:30 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-20-2009 2:44 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 110 by bluescat48, posted 09-20-2009 9:43 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 115 by greyseal, posted 09-21-2009 7:56 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4256
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 107 of 120 (524798)
09-18-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
09-18-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Ancient Universe
The earliest attempt to prove the age being longer that a few thousand year is a science fiction story written by De Maillet.

Which no one of the 1740's would have considered anything but science fiction. ...

De Maillet's science fiction book would have been accepted as presetnted. Fiction.

Buffon's caculations showed promise of a way to date the earth.

These fellows probably got the same reaction to their beliefs and I do to mine. Are you out of your mind?

De mMillet's calculations were not presented as fiction.

The rest of what I've quoted iis unsupported assertion. Pleaae present evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 4:58 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 9:11 PM JonF has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 108 of 120 (524800)
09-18-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by JonF
09-18-2009 8:45 PM


Re: Ancient Universe
Hi JonF,

JonF writes:

De mMillet's calculations were not presented as fiction.

Then one of us can't read.

Your Source Page 25 says

The result of de Maillet's extensive studies and observations was a history of the Earth that required a span of time vastly greater than the few thousand years calculated by the biblical chronologists. De Maillet was well aware of the power and influence of the Church, and his theory was written as a fictitious account of a series of conversations extending over six days between a French missionary and an Indian philosopher named Telliamed (de Maillet spelled backwards). Even with this precautionary device however, de Maillet did not publish his work. It was circulated among his contemporaries as a hand written manuscript and did not appear in print until 1748 ten years after his death.

Maybe I am wrong but it sounds like it was presented as fiction to me.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by JonF, posted 09-18-2009 8:45 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by JonF, posted 09-20-2009 9:47 AM ICANT has responded

    
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 109 of 120 (524908)
09-20-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Arphy
09-18-2009 7:43 PM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Arphy writes:

So we should disbelieve [Genesis] on the topics it does talk about because it has not mentioned every single detail of the universe which would turn the bible into a multi-billion page book ???

Who said anything about "disbelieving"? The post you responded to was talking about accepting a non-literal interpretation ("poetic", symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical, approximate, inexact, non-specific, etc), as opposed to a literal one (7 days of 24 hours each, with no gaps in the account that might allow for any part of creation to be more than 7000 years old).

Are you asserting that if you don't accept a strict, literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story, then your belief in God must crumble? Is your faith really so flimsy that you can't sustain it AND accept the observable physical evidence that things have actually been in existence far longer than 7000 years?

Understand this, Arphy: Anything and everything expressed in human language (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, English, and every other language, written and spoken) is subject to ambiguity, lack of clarity, reinterpretation, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding. This is as true for any religious text as it is for any web forum post. Translating from a language spoken thousands of years ago into a language spoken today can only exacerbate the problems.

This is why science uses numbers and mathematics to express its observations and predictions, because numeric relations are not ambiguous. Quantitative measures are not without error, but the degree of possible error is routinely measurable and clearly understood. It is on the basis of mathematical relationships among various physical processes and objects (tree growth and tree rings, rates of radioactive decay and amounts of various isotopes, etc), that our conclusion of a very old earth and an older universe becomes inescapable. The lack of ambiguity in the math pretty well eliminates any "reinterpretation" that would assign an age less than a billion years, let alone 7000.

Meanwhile, the vast lack of detail in the Genesis creation story should make it pretty easy for anyone to say "well, we could interpret that to mean... (something allegorical, metaphorical, inexact, etc)" -- and still be able to find divine truth in it (if that is what the person intends to do).

If you choose an interpretation of the Genesis creation story that forces you to deny the regular mathematical relations that exist among objects and processes in the real world, well, that's a strange choice to make, and seems to me like a short-sighted view of both God and the world.

What is so poetic about long lists of descendents, or a census? To say that is always poetic and never actually records any actual events is absurd...

Over the centuries there have been a lot of odd things that counted as "poetry" -- who's to say what sort of aesthetic pleasures were evoked among the ancient Hebrews in reciting those things?

In any case, there's no need to argue about whether the genealogies and census counts should be considered metaphorical/allegorical/etc. Given the variety of persons involved in the writing, the range of topics discussed, and differences in the relative times of occurrence vs. recording, it would make sense that some portions of scripture would be considered more in the nature of "reporting details that have been kept track of", while other portions would be less so -- or not really reports at all, but rather just ways of answering questions that (at the time) couldn't be answered from direct knowledge.

If you don't like the way the bible is written or the things it proclaims then go write your own bible and start a new religion.

Well, that has to be your bottom-line answer, doesn't it? In essence, that's what people of religious faith have always done, effectively ever since writing was invented, whenever they didn't agree with the existing text. Often, the process is referred to simply as "a new translation" or "an alternate exegesis"; rather less frequently, it's a matter of adding new chapters of scripture and even a whole new book. Sure, that works for lots of folks -- they just choose which version of text and interpretation suits them personally (if they live in a society that permits them to make such a choice).

In a sense, it works for scientists too, but with a crucial difference: the scientist must distinguish between stuff that is objective, observed fact (data), vs. stuff that is interpretation derived from facts (theory), and must treat these differently. The data cannot be just ignored, and cannot be revised or replaced unless there are newer methods of observation that make our knowledge of the facts more accurate and reliable. The theory has to be discarded or revised whenever its predictions are at odds with the data. It's never a matter of making a personal choice about believing or not believing -- the facts are what we know so far, and a theory fits or doesn't fit.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : stylistic edit in last paragraph

Edited by Otto Tellick, : tried to clarify closing sentence

Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 7:43 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2140 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 110 of 120 (524928)
09-20-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Arphy
09-18-2009 7:43 PM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
If you don't like the way the bible is written or the things it proclaims then go write your own bible and start a new religion.

Which has been done numerous times. This explains why there are hundreds of Christian sects & sub sects and numerous Biblical translations all claiming to be the correct one.

Edited by bluescat48, : added phrase


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 7:43 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4256
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 111 of 120 (524929)
09-20-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by ICANT
09-18-2009 9:11 PM


Re: Ancient Universe
Obviously you can't read.

Samizdat.

And you have no support for your other claims? Just stuff you made up?

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 9:11 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by AdminNosy, posted 09-20-2009 3:28 PM JonF has responded
 Message 117 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 9:18 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 112 of 120 (524954)
09-20-2009 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by JonF
09-20-2009 9:47 AM


Goading
Obviously you can't read.

This is inadequate as a rebuttal. If you think someone is wrong you should make an attempt to explain why. This sort of retort can often descend into bickering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by JonF, posted 09-20-2009 9:47 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 09-20-2009 8:11 PM AdminNosy has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4256
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 113 of 120 (524984)
09-20-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by AdminNosy
09-20-2009 3:28 PM


Re: Goading
I made an attempt to explain why. You missed it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by AdminNosy, posted 09-20-2009 3:28 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by AdminNosy, posted 09-20-2009 9:33 PM JonF has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 114 of 120 (524988)
09-20-2009 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by JonF
09-20-2009 8:11 PM


Re: Goading
I don't see it in this thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 09-20-2009 8:11 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by JonF, posted 09-21-2009 8:13 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 09-21-2009 9:26 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1812 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


(1)
Message 115 of 120 (525020)
09-21-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Arphy
09-18-2009 7:43 PM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
arphy writes:

me writes:

Sure you can!

You just say this: "the bible was written in a poetic manner, and genesis I and II are not meant as exact literal accounts, but as poetic, descriptive accounts."

It is your religious belief that this is the case. What is so poetic about long lists of descendents, or a census? To say that is always poetic and never actually records any actual events is absurd, but if you want to believe that I guess i can't stop you.

Did I say that was MY personal religious belief? No, I did not. I just said that it doesn't appear as if there is any real solid reason to suppose that genesis I and II MUST be taken as literal.

Neither did I say that the bible is ALWAYS poetic and never attempts to be factual - don't over-read context where it was not meant, I didn't think you'd be that silly.

I was talking specifically about Genesis I and II, and you haven't refuted my claim that it is possible, and in the light of new information quite probable.

Opinion pieces, even by great scholars, remain opinion pieces. The bible isn't science, it's literature.

I'm just using the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion!

arphy writes:

it doesn't really talk about HOW god made everything. It doesn't really talk about why. It doesn't mention Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto, Ceres, Anteres, Globular Cluster M-1 or anything other than earth. And "earth" with a small "e" at that.

So we should disbelieve it on the topics it does talk about because it has not mentioned every single detail of the universe which would turn the bible into a multi-billion page book ???

Arphy, I'm not the one demanding that evolution be overturned because it is not mentioned explicitly in the bible.

I'm not the one demanding that paleontology and archaeology be thrown out because of one interpretation of the facts in the bible.

I'm not the one claiming that the bible is the one true source of all information about the universe.

When you start telling me that my interpretation of a work copied, copied again, translated, retranslated, collected together, re-interpreted and otherwise generally mucked about with is less valid than yours because you say so, well, what have you got left to stand on?

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 7:43 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4256
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 116 of 120 (525024)
09-21-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by AdminNosy
09-20-2009 9:33 PM


Re: Goading
It's subtle. In the message you originally responded too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by AdminNosy, posted 09-20-2009 9:33 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 117 of 120 (525032)
09-21-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by JonF
09-20-2009 9:47 AM


Re: You can't read
Hi JonF,

JonF writes:

Obviously you can't read.

You probably right so:

Humor me and please explain the statement:

"his theory was written as a fictitious account"

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by JonF, posted 09-20-2009 9:47 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 118 of 120 (525034)
09-21-2009 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by AdminNosy
09-20-2009 9:33 PM


Re: Goading
I can't be sure, but I think JonF's use of "Samizdat" may be a reference to Holocaust denial, and that he's in effect calling ICANT an irrational denialist. Of course, that doesn't promote productive debate either, but then, ICANT doesn't often leave people many productive alternatives. I get the feeling that ICANT's goal is to leave people in small murmuring groups all asking amongst themselves, "What the heck was he talking about? Does he even know himself?" If his responses draw quizzical looks he's happy.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by AdminNosy, posted 09-20-2009 9:33 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2009 9:57 AM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14490
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 119 of 120 (525035)
09-21-2009 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
09-21-2009 9:26 AM


Re: Goading
Knowing that samizdat is the clandestine literature circulated by dissidents under Soviet rule, I don't see a clear link to Holocaust Denial. Rather, I think that Jon F. is talking about de Maillet's circulation of his conclusions, and is suggesting that it is wrong to use the fictional frame story as an argument against the scientific content.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 09-21-2009 9:26 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 09-21-2009 10:10 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 120 of 120 (525037)
09-21-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by PaulK
09-21-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Goading
Ah, that makes more sense. Samisdat (note slightly different spelling) was a Holocaust denial publishing house.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2009 9:57 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018