Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
289 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 286 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,046 Year: 5,158/6,534 Month: 1/577 Week: 69/135 Day: 0/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 1939 (753341)
03-19-2015 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by NoNukes
03-19-2015 3:23 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Actually you are wrong. The difference between stopping the sun from rotating around the earth, and stopping the earth from rotating on its axis produce different results that would easily be distinguished on earth; at least the could be distingushed by people with an understanding of physics.

Which neither the ancients had, nor 99% of humanity after them. Hardly anyone even through our own time had enough scientific knowledge to apply to the situation.

If the Bible is merely describing what happened, "the sun stopped moving" is quite sufficient without knowing whether the sun itself stopped or the earth's rotation stopped. There wouldn't be different results because God is doing this and there's no way to know how He did it. He's not going to stop the earth and let us all fly off into space, so what He did remains a mystery.

The Biblical description of the event is only equivalent to reality if those differences are ignored.

Disagree. There's no reason for the Bible to give any more than a description of the sun's apparently stopping its movement from the point of view of human beings on earth. HOW is really a completely different issue.

In short, it is pretty clear that the underlying picture of the universe expressed by the writer's was completely wrong.

If they had a scientific view of it at all. which there is no way to know, then it would probably have been geocentrism, but there is NO reason to think that level of thought applies to the Biblical descriptions at all.

If everyone actually knew better at the time, then there would be no harm in expressing what actually happened.

But nobody thinks "everybody actually knew better at the time." GOD of course knew and He is the inspirer of the writings, but He has no reason to give us more than a simple description.

Ptolemy and Aristotle, who also inspired way too much of their theology, are pagan thinkers they allowed to eclipse a strictly Biblical world view. Calvin and Luther also should have known better, but as I said, they too had been steeped in Catholicism.

Faith, what you write above is complete revisionist nonsense. First, there is no information in the Bible that would assist you in avoiding a geocentric view of the solar system.

So what? I'm not claiming there is. The point is only that if the Bible's descriptions were recognized as merely descriptions and not scientific information, heliocentrism would have been a lot easier to defend.

Accordingly, there is nothing Christian about the correct view nor is there anything particularly pagan about Ptolemy's view. To the contrary, there are plenty of hints in scripture that might well be interpreted as geocentric. Is it really pagan that scientific interpretations were rejected?

You are imputing WAY too much to the word "pagan," all it means is philosophies from outside the Bible. Ptolemy and Aristotle simply WERE literally pagans by that standard and their thinking was not biblical. The problem is that once the RCC put a pagan philosopher's thinking OVER the Bible, which they did with both Ptolemy and Aristotle, then someone like Copernicus or Galileo couldn't argue as easily for heliocentrism which DOESN'T CONTRADICT the Bible if you understand it as purely descriptive and not analytic.

Don't you reject scientific interpretations of how the grand canyon was formed despite the fact that the Bible does not provide any testimony on the subject? Is that somehow pagan?

Again you are misunderstanding my use of the term "pagan." However, I might argue that the current science about the canyon IS pagan, wrongly imposed on the Bible just as Ptolemy's system was, and my objective is to try to make a case for how it could all have come about in a way that doesn't contradict the young earth.

And where did the correction away from geocentric thinking come from? Largely from Catholics and ex-Catholics.

Yes and so did the Reformers come out of Catholicism. The main problem with the RCC is the papacy, and the official teachings that contradict the Bible, but there were always members of the RCC who relied on the Bible more than all that. That's how the Reformers got inspired after all.

As for Copernicus, he was as much a rebel from Romanism as the Reformers.

Cough. Cough. Evidence please.

All I meant was that he was a rebel against the Ptolemaic assumptions held by the RCC over the Bible, which I'd already said.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2015 3:23 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2015 11:55 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 184 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2015 12:35 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 185 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2015 4:24 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 182 of 1939 (753344)
03-19-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by kbertsche
03-19-2015 10:59 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
The ancient writers were using phenomenological language, not scientific language.

Maybe people shouldn't be using language like that to determine things like the age of the Earth...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by kbertsche, posted 03-19-2015 10:59 AM kbertsche has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 1939 (753345)
03-19-2015 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
03-19-2015 11:44 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
If the Bible is merely describing what happened, "the sun stopped moving" is quite sufficient without knowing whether the sun itself stopped or the earth's rotation stopped. There wouldn't be different results because God is doing this and there's no way to know how He did it. He's not going to stop the earth and let us all fly off into space, so what He did remains a mystery.

In fact, He wouldn't have even had to stop anything at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 11:44 AM Faith has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 1939 (753361)
03-19-2015 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
03-19-2015 11:44 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
. He's not going to stop the earth and let us all fly off into space, so what He did remains a mystery.

So God can stop the earth but not people?

It is the problem with people 'flying off into space' that was an obstacle to people accepting that the earth moved in the first place. You are merely reinforcing the idea held by geocentrists.

Whatever he did, the action was not stopping the sun. That does not work.

If the Bible is merely describing what happened, "the sun stopped moving"

Sure. As long as accuracy is not important, then such phrasing is sufficient. Now where else might this principle be applied? Since we did not how Adam and Eve were created we might as well postulate special creation? Is that too far?

You are imputing WAY too much to the word "pagan," all it means is philosophies from outside the Bible. Ptolemy and Aristotle simply WERE literally pagans by that standard and their thinking was not biblical.

Ptolemy's view of the solar system is in no way incompatible with the Bible. In fact the Bible facially supports the view and does not refute it in any way. You are left with explaining away obvious references to geocentricity. But there is no way to actually do so. Bible cosmology is not just an earth centered solar system. It is an earth centered universe with a dome above the earth on which even the lesser lights traveled. If this is a pagan idea, it is one adopted in the Bible. Small wonder that Catholics, Protestants, and others adopted the same idea.

The main problem with the RCC is the papacy, and the official teachings that contradict the Bible

A geocentric solar system does not contradict the Bible. Perhaps it is the case that the Bible is consistent with a heliocentric universe, but that's far from clear and at any rate does not seem to be your argument.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 11:44 AM Faith has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 1939 (753406)
03-19-2015 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
03-19-2015 11:44 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
All I meant was that he was a rebel against the Ptolemaic assumptions held by the RCC over the Bible, which I'd already said.

Ridiculous. The Protestants were no less geocentric than Catholics and the Bible does not dispute geocentric view points in any way. The few geocentrists you find around today are Protestants and Catholics who consider themselves to be Bible fundamentalists.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 11:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 10:45 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 1939 (753440)
03-19-2015 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by NoNukes
03-19-2015 4:24 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
All I meant was that he was a rebel against the Ptolemaic assumptions held by the RCC over the Bible, which I'd already said

Ridiculous. The Protestants were no less geocentric than Catholics and the Bible does not dispute geocentric view points in any way.

Sigh. I'm beginning to think of you as the Master of the Non Sequitur. Saying that Copernicus was a rebel against the Ptolemaic assumptions of the RCC over the Bible does NOT imply that the Protestant Reformers were not geocentric. And they were rebels against the RCC too, in a different way.

The few geocentrists you find around today are Protestants and Catholics who consider themselves to be Bible fundamentalists.

Yeh, so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2015 4:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by dwise1, posted 03-20-2015 12:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 198 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2015 1:45 PM Faith has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 187 of 1939 (753445)
03-20-2015 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
03-19-2015 10:45 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
NoNukes writes:

The few geocentrists you find around today are Protestants and Catholics who consider themselves to be Bible fundamentalists.

Yeh, so?

So if the Bible is so heliocentric as you make it out to be, why wouldn't other "true Bible believers" also see that simple fact? So why would these extant geocentrists who are also "true Bible believers" who base their geocentrism on the Bible not be heliocentrists instead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 10:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 12:39 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 1939 (753448)
03-20-2015 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by dwise1
03-20-2015 12:30 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
So if the Bible is so heliocentric as you make it out to be, why wouldn't other "true Bible believers" also see that simple fact? So why would these extant geocentrists who are also "true Bible believers" who base their geocentrism on the Bible not be heliocentrists instead?

I didn't say the Bible was heliocentric. I said it takes a purely descriptive view of the heavenlies. It doesn't make scientific or analytic statements it simply describes things as we see them. Since it is from our point of view, the most natural scientific view would be geocentrism if you insist on trying to get a scientific view out of it, but why do that since the Bible itself doesn't?

My argument has been that if the RCC hadn't brought Ptolemy's science into its official doctrine there would have been no need for a dispute with Copernicus or Galileo, because the Bible is not intended as a scientific presentation and nothing it says, which is strictly descriptive from our point of view, contradicts a heliocentric interpretation of the heavenlies. I think the whole problem has to do with treating the Bible's simple observations as if they were scientific.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by dwise1, posted 03-20-2015 12:30 AM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 03-20-2015 1:06 AM Faith has replied
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2015 9:56 AM Faith has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 189 of 1939 (753454)
03-20-2015 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
03-20-2015 12:39 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
I think the whole problem has to do with treating the Bible's simple observations as if they were scientific.

Amen!!!


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 12:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 3:14 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 190 of 1939 (753458)
03-20-2015 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by herebedragons
03-20-2015 1:06 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Yes, amen. But while that's true of the Bible's descriptions of the heavens, it's not true of its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth, which limit science to those statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 03-20-2015 1:06 AM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 03-20-2015 8:39 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 192 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2015 9:51 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 194 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-20-2015 9:59 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2015 10:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 253 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2015 12:41 AM Faith has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 191 of 1939 (753467)
03-20-2015 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
03-20-2015 3:14 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Faith writes:

Yes, amen. But while that's true of the Bible's descriptions of the heavens, it's not true of its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth, which limit science to those statements.

Why is it not true when it comes to its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 3:14 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 192 of 1939 (753476)
03-20-2015 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
03-20-2015 3:14 AM


YEC and other fantasies
But while that's true of the Bible's descriptions of the heavens, it's not true of its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth, which limit science to those statements.

No, it limits you to those statements.

It has no effect on science at all.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 3:14 AM Faith has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 193 of 1939 (753478)
03-20-2015 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
03-20-2015 12:39 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
I said it takes a purely descriptive view of the heavenlies. It doesn't make scientific or analytic statements it simply describes things as we see them. Since it is from our point of view, the most natural scientific view would be geocentrism if you insist on trying to get a scientific view out of it,

If only you could extend this to everything the Bible says.

As a purely descriptive view, from our point of view, it would look like the whole planet was flooded, but actually, it was not.

As a purely descriptive view, from our point of view, it would look like the animals were created in their full form, but actually, they were not.

I know, I know, you just gotta have that Fall for everything else to work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 12:39 AM Faith has taken no action

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 1647 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(2)
Message 194 of 1939 (753480)
03-20-2015 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
03-20-2015 3:14 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Faith writes:

But while that's true of the Bible's descriptions of the heavens, it's not true of its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth, which limit science to those statements.

Science is limited by time, effort, money, technology, patience, knowledge, etc.. Science is not limited by the bible. You're sitting in the station and that train is already gone.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 3:14 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 195 of 1939 (753493)
03-20-2015 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
03-20-2015 3:14 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Some food for thought:

Genesis 1 was not written solely for people with knowledge of modern astronomy or cosmology.

Genesis 1 was written by and originally for people with an ancient Middle Eastern geocentric cosmology.

Genesis 1 is strongly consistent with ancient Middle Eastern cosmology.
It begins with the Primordial Ocean. It lacks any concept of the Earth as a planet, seeing it as a few areas of dry land, set in the Ocean. It lacks even the idea that the moon only reflects light from the sun.

If Genesis 1 is intended to communicate accurate information about the physical universe or even how it was created it does rather a poor job of it.

Why, then, should anyone assume that Genesis 1 was intended by God to convey information about the physical universe at all ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 3:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 11:42 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022