Flaws in the Scriptures

ApostleI think you first need to establish that God exists before you can establish that He does not err and that the bible is God's word. It would also be proper to do so without using the bible as source forthe establishment of God.

ApostleOkay I will abide by that however for purposes of clarity do we consider the bible to be literal if it is to be inerrant?

w-fortenberryThen it is simply meaning whatever it means to the individual.The interpretation is up to the person reading it?

RussOk I would like to argue for the things that I find impossible from a physical sense i.e.the laws of physics. Am I to take it that you are of the position that God can make or break the laws at anytime or do you at least acknowledge that if it does not specify so in the Bible then there is no reason to take that position?

apostolosI most certainly can. The moon does not produce its own light it merely reflects the sunlight.We must also realize that in order for the light of the sun to increase sevenfold other properties of the sun must also.If you would like an understanding of this check out this humorous website that uses this verse to prove that heaven is hotter than hell.http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm Here we have the obviously impossible example of the sun moving back along its apparent path in the sky in order to move the shadow on the sun dial of Ahaz back ten degrees.The obvious lack of any record of this event anywhere else in the world is one thing but the disruption that would be required in the laws of physics is staggering.We will begin with these.------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

ConsequentAtheistThe value is in determining just where we draw the line in any of these debates.After all we debate with people about the fossil record and if they simply fall back to the excuse of supernatural intervention then we are done because if we concede supernatural then there is no point in any arguement anywhere on this forum.This particular arguement also crosses the line since a change in the movement of the sun would be recorded by all people on earth since,,you have to admit,it would be difficult not to notice.That said this also brings into the arena the changes to the laws of physics that would be necessary. Only a misunderstanding of the 'true' motion of the sun and earth could allow this sentence to be placed in the bible.We nowadays know how it is the rotation of the earth on its axis that allows the movement of the shadow on a sundial.In order for the sundial to move back ten degrees then earth would have to stop in its rotation and then move backwards west to east.Every item on the planet due to inertia would thereby continue in its movement at a speed dependant upon the speed of rotation of the earth at that latitude.This is over 1000 m.p.h. at the equator.Let us say the speed in the middle east is 500 m.p.h. The earth stops.You and everything continue in the direction of rotation[east]at that speed until such time as you encounter an object that has not moved as fast and you strike it at that speed.And then the earth moves backward in a time frame that is not specified but the stresses on the planet would not be survivable.And then the process is reversed in order to set things right again. Now the funny thing is that the return to normal is not recorded in the bible. So what do we make of this? For one the Lord God is not aware that he did not move the sun back ten degrees so there is error there which speaks against the inerrency of the bible.And what are we to make of the fact that,since the bible did not say so,[It is inerrant after all] we have a planet that now spins in a different direction from before this action.And nobody on the planet noticed that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west opposite of what it was before?[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-19-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-20-2003]

w_fortenberry
And finally I have also provided an answer to Sidelined's statement about the sundial of Ahaz. He stated:We nowadays know how it is the rotation of the earth on its axis that allows the movement of the shadow on a sundial.My initial statement in a lengthy discussion of this topic can be found here, and the conclusion of this discussion can be found here.Sorry to burst your bubble old chap but despite the fact that you are arguing at these two sites for the geocentricity of earth, it makes no difference to the arguement that I have made.You are wrong on the geocentricity but again it does not affect the physical effects that would occur of the earth reversing its spin.------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

apostolosI will see if I can bring this into an example that you may be familiar with. I am sure you have seen those advertisments on tv where crash test dummies in a car are slammed into a barrier at high speed.Multiply that by about 20 and that would be about the effect of stopping the world. Then increase it even more by reversing the earth's spin and it would be as though the barrier was accelerated to the same speed as the vehicle before impact.Now remove the air bags and seatbelts from the scene.

ApostleJust a gentle reminder to ask for follow up to post #32 and #43

ZealotExcuse me but you cannot have read the posts by me very well since even if we allow for supernatural explanation it doe not explain how such an event was missed by every nation on Earth.So we use the supernatural as a means of evading sticky issues?And please inform me how it was determined that God operates in the supernatural? I do not believe the word is in the bible is it?Besides this I am addressing apostolos thank you.

WillowtreeYou can use this post of yours in order to butress your point you so quaintly posted here. You can show this to apostle to see how it is done.You are a moron to quickly criticize Dr.Gene Scott
As you know he has a Ph.D. from Stanford. His Ph.D. is from the university itself and not from any department which makes it the most prestigious.He is the only person in the history of Stanford to request an oral exam to get his minor in geography. This means any professor from any department could attend the exam and ask him any question. If you miss one question then you flunk. He passed.Dr.Scott's degree is a research degree. He was taught that you were not qualified to offer an opinion in any subject until you read every book ever written on the subject.His IQ is 202 and he is the only person that I know of who demands that nobody send any money to him unless it is in response to his teaching and to pay what you think it is worth. That is the criteria.
Dr.Scott is the only person in the world whose voice is heard on every square inch of the globe 24 hours a day 365 days a year all paid for by the aforementioned criteria.He lost his faith in college, but as a kid he once saw his father get up off a death bed when he was dying of rheumatic fever. With the memory of this miracle in the back of his brain he decided he had to settle the issue : Did Jesus rise from the dead or not ? For the next three and a half years he read every book on the subject ever written when at the end of that three and a half years he layed down the last book and concluded from the evidence that Jesus rose.You are a coward sitting in the comfort of anonymous land insulting a great person like Dr.Scott. You aint even qualified to lick up his spit off the ground. How typical of your kind to insult someone just because they are not of your persuasion.Comfort yourself with your standard of rational enquiry, Dr.Scott's standard is to read every book ever written on a subject THEN open ones mouth.For some reason this logidemic thing has you obviously jealous, why I don't know. You have no basic respect which serves the stereotype of your kind - common dunce giving the rest of neo-Darwinism a bad name.Shut up punkVery excellent example I believe.------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman

Convenience is omitting the reason I consider Dr. Gene Scott to be a phony prick[A position that has not changed.]Here is a quote from your post#136 in Some Evidence Against Evolution. You got pissed off at me when I called you on the the fact that the words logidemic and practidemic do not exist.Here is my quote."Willowtree I will bet you money that this word is an invention of his plain and simple. No doubt he used it in some context that allowed him to impress others. Like the saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit."Well if you can give me independant verification of these words being real then I will apologize. However,I have checked out the follwing websites.www.medicaldictionary.com ,webmd.com ,merck.com ,cancerweb,the american medical association.Logidemic and Practidemic do not exist. If you can find it other than in the nebulous mind of the good doctor I would appreciate it.Pandemic is indeed a word that descibes an epidemic that affects a wide geographical area.It is not the language that doctors use to explain it to their patients.PH.D no doubt means piled higher and deeper in this instance. I have sent an e mail to the president of the alumni association of Stanford University and I have let them understand the supoosed qualifications of this Gene Scott and we will see what level of genius this man is.Now on to this I am married with 2 teenage daughters, you couldn't bruise my ego in a million life time old man.If Dr Gene Scott would like to defend himself for using words that nobody else on the planet uses perhaps he should have learned that the purpose of language is to communicate not impress. Is this supposed to make his musings have greater veracity?It does not matter whether a man is a Christian or an atheist muslim or buddhist PH.D or student the Evidence is what matters.You accuse me of cowardice I accuse you of hero worship. IMO Gene Scott is a legend in his own mind.------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-21-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-21-2003]

I do indeed have heroes but mine are the ones that admit to their humanity.Feynman,Asimov,Sagan,Owen,Lee,Eliot,Lightfoot,Etc.The greatest contribution of men such as these are that they illuminate the world but need not illuminate themselves.That is what makes them heroes.It is the reason I use the signature I do because it signifies being able to face reality unafraid and still be capable of the enjoyment of life.This is in contrast to Gene Scott who does not post the importance of the belief in God on his webpage but the importance of himself.You need only pay your money to him and he will share with you what you can find out for yourself.These are the type of men who substitute charisma with volume of voice and rhetoric. There is nothing he teaches that you cannot learn on your own.His only
power is that which you give him.
Without people such as yourselves he has nothing to offer but opinion and you can stop anyone on any street in the world and get an opinion.Do you see images of the vastness of space or the beauty of nature or the subtlty and magnificence of Gods handiwork grace his webpage.No? What do you see? Gene Scott,his bio,his picture,his accomplishments.Wake up ,man, this is idolarity isn't it? The man is full of himself not God ,nor humility ,nor quiet works, just boisterous self interest.The level of education does not an intelligent human make.------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman

WILLOWTREE I do not have beliefs concerning God as that would be admitting to a conclusion that I do not possess.In my life I have been exposed to many points of view concerning the nature of God and I find them to be unclear and confusing. I most especially cannot reconcile to a God that uses what amounts to magic in producing the universe and the interactions of all the various levels of forces we percieve. The idea of magic as an actual means of doing these things simply does not make sense to me.Unless someone out there can explain the way in which these forces can be manipulated and maintained then any notion of an entity doing so only blurs our view of reality.Science is not a religion in my view as the point of it is to catalog
the ways in which human beings can fool themselves and others and take steps to correct these errors.One particularly telling feature is the fact that you do not allow any one person the luxury of being the arbitrer of truth.It is the nature of scientific inquiry that the knowledge we gain is based on the idea that it gives a good approximation of reality as we investigate further and further into deeper and deeper levels of the universe.
Of course we are delighted all the time by learning that,even though we know a lot about the structure of the main forces at work in the universe,the different manifestations of those forces and the complexities of the ways in which they can interact continually astounds us.As an addendum I would like to state,concerning Dr. Scott, I do not dislike the man I dislike his position and his attitudes.Have a good christmas WT and enjoy the time with those you call you own.------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman