Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical contradictions.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 152 of 329 (10422)
05-27-2002 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Jet
05-20-2002 12:34 PM


Jet writes:

Please refer me to the post where I stated that "my views" should be taught as science.
You're just playing semantic games. By "your views" I obviously meant Creationism.
The question is, if science is based upon building frameworks of understand around bodies of information and evidence, while your approach is based upon revelation, prayer and reflection, then how can you claim your views, ie, Creationism, should be taught as science?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Jet, posted 05-20-2002 12:34 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 1:26 PM Percy has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 329 (10482)
05-28-2002 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
05-27-2002 2:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
You're ignoring the issue about your signoff. I raised the issue because I felt it was offensive and inflammatory. You've had, and still have, the opportunity to justify it, during which period you may continue to use it, but if you choose not to respond to inquiries then I must ask you to remove or modify the signoff or risk suspension of posting privileges.
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

***Please be more specific as to the "sign off" that you are referring to and I will then make an attempt to justify it. If, however, your reference pertains to the quote from Adolph Hitler, please feel free to offer your suggestions as to how you would like it modified so as to not be offensive and/or inflammatory. If it is the quote that you are referring to, what guidelines are there to follow as to what is acceptable and where do I find these guidelines.
If, on the other hand, it is not the quote, but rather the designation that follows it, please help me understand how this is any more inflammatory than many of the others that are presently being used. Several members use signatures/sign offs that are not only bound to be seen as offensive to some, but are actually designed to be so.
Schrafs' signature/sign-off is undoubtedly put forth as a comedic insult to, and of creationists, (a good one at that), and may be seen by some as inflammatory and offensive, but it is a valid quote and designation, (assumption), and therefore should not be censored.
I would hope the same would hold true for my signature/sign-off and its' designation as it is just as valid and true. If, as you referred to earlier, someone chooses to use a quote from someone like a Timothy McVeigh followed by the designation; "Christian", I would hardly view that as being inflammatory or offensive because a persons' actions speak so very much louder than their words ever can.
Many people, as well as organizations, have, throughout history, used the designation "Christian" and have exhibited behaviour that was anything but Christian and their deeds showed their true allegiance, which assuredly was not Christ.
Adolph Hitler is one good example, the Catholic Church during the Inquisition is another, not to mention the numerous child rapists masquerading as Catholic Priests.
It is a record of history that Adolph Hitler was a firm believer in the Darwinian concept of evolution, superiority of the races as well as species, and also the survival of the fittest. Several of his quotes refer to the Germans as the superior race and to the Jews and Africans as inferior races. History will never forget Hitlers' indignation when his "Superior German Race" lost to a supposed inferior race, that being an American of African descent.
Nevertheless, I realize that some individuals have a very thin skin but I am not going to name any names, "Larry! Schraf! Percy! Mark!", (ha, ha, just a joke, so don't hate me just because I'm a bit sardonic at times). If you desire me to do so, I will modify it or remove it entirely. I do request your reason for singling out my signature/sign-off without my having received even a small number of complaints as to the signature/sign-off being offensive to them personally, and which, upon my receiving any after this post is made public, I would not consider them as being at all valid.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over
the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 05-27-2002 2:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 1:37 PM Jet has replied
 Message 215 by nator, posted 06-02-2002 7:38 PM Jet has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 329 (10486)
05-28-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Jet
05-20-2002 12:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Even in non-Christian, non-Judaic, and non-Muslim nations, a seven day week has been adopted. Why? Is there some reason other than a Judeo-Christian influence? Is it astronomically valid to adopt a five day, ten day, or twenty day week versus a seven day week? If not, why not? If so, then why the seemingly universal adoption of a seven day week?
Jet

The lunar cycle (from phase to phase) is 29.something days...
divide by 4 you get 7.25 (plus the 0.something/4) days which rounds down to.... 7 days.....
Before you go off into God made this fantastic coincidence consider that it isn`t it would have been is the lunar month was 28 days instead of 29.something......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Jet, posted 05-20-2002 12:58 PM Jet has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 329 (10487)
05-28-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Percy
05-27-2002 2:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Jet writes:

Please refer me to the post where I stated that "my views" should be taught as science.
You're just playing semantic games. By "your views" I obviously meant Creationism.
The question is, if science is based upon building frameworks of understand around bodies of information and evidence, while your approach is based upon revelation, prayer and reflection, then how can you claim your views, ie, Creationism, should be taught as science?
--Percy

***There is enough information in the book of Job alone to justify teaching Creationism. Several phrases made within the book of Job could not have possibly been known to man, in fact, some have only recently been discovered and/or verified. With the overwhelming amount of accuracy the Bible contains versus the overwhelming amount of speculation, postulation, and utter guesswork that must be used to justify teaching evolution, I am surprised that teaching Creationism is still so heavily opposed by those who should be seeking the truth as to the origin of man, no matter what the source of information may be that will lead us to that truth.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over
the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 05-27-2002 2:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 2:52 PM Jet has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 156 of 329 (10489)
05-28-2002 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Jet
05-28-2002 1:12 PM


Your association of evolution with Adolf Hitler has two problems:
  • You've already conceded a theory's validity is not a function of the morality of those who accept it, and so your signoff cannot be construed as a valid debating point.
  • It is offensive and inflammatory.
On a scale of offensiveness, characterization of ignoring scientific evidence and theory as ignorant and narrow minded, an intellectual assessment in what is hopefully an intellectual debate, doesn't even register on a scale that associates acceptance of evolution with Adolf Hitler, which is a moral assessment.
As has already been pointed out, Hitler also said, "By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." Quoting can go both ways, and to the degree that Hitler was an evolutionist he was also a Christian.
It's okay to keep the Hitler quote if you delete the "Darwinian Evolutionist" part, or perhaps you could change it to "Darwinian Evolutionist and Christian." But your Jastrow quote by itself is really all you need. You've got some line breaks in it that you might want to eliminate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 1:12 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 2:09 PM Percy has replied
 Message 158 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-28-2002 2:19 PM Percy has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 329 (10491)
05-28-2002 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
05-28-2002 1:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Your association of evolution with Adolf Hitler has two problems:
  • You've already conceded a theory's validity is not a function of the morality of those who accept it, and so your signoff cannot be construed as a valid debating point.
  • It is offensive and inflammatory.
On a scale of offensiveness, characterization of ignoring scientific evidence and theory as ignorant and narrow minded, an intellectual assessment in what is hopefully an intellectual debate, doesn't even register on a scale that associates acceptance of evolution with Adolf Hitler, which is a moral assessment.
As has already been pointed out, Hitler also said, "By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." Quoting can go both ways, and to the degree that Hitler was an evolutionist he was also a Christian.
It's okay to keep the Hitler quote if you delete the "Darwinian Evolutionist" part, or perhaps you could change it to "Darwinian Evolutionist and Christian." But your Jastrow quote by itself is really all you need. You've got some line breaks in it that you might want to eliminate.
--Percy

***It is my hope that all offended parties are satisfied with the changes that I have made to my sign-off. I have attempted to eliminate the line breaks. If the editing of the lines is still resulting in line breaks, I will edit again.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 1:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 3:28 PM Jet has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 158 of 329 (10493)
05-28-2002 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
05-28-2002 1:37 PM


Implying that Hitler's thought processes are akin to evolutionist's thought processes, in general, does not reflect badly on evolutionists so much as it reflects badly on Jet. As such, I would recommend that he do away with that quotation.
If, in a burst of honesty, the quote...
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." - Kent Hovland - YEC
came to be a reality, would that be a fair and honest appraisal of creationists, in general? I think not.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 1:37 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 159 of 329 (10494)
05-28-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Jet
05-28-2002 1:26 PM


Jet writes:

There is enough information in the book of Job alone to justify teaching Creationism.
When asked how you knew something was so, you said through reading the Bible, through prayer to God for understanding and enlightenment, and through doing so daily.
So using your example of the book of Job, if your interpretation of it is based upon revelation, reflection and prayer, how can that qualify as science, since science is based upon evidence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 1:26 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 3:23 PM Percy has replied
 Message 166 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 5:01 PM Percy has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 329 (10495)
05-28-2002 2:53 PM


I ask a little indulgence. For all those who have not read Roy Masters brilliant book, I offer a small sampling in the hopes that it will pique the interest of evolutionists and creationists alike. Knowledge Is Power! Feed Your Brain! Comments to follow in subsequent posts.
Page not found – Foundation of Human Understanding"
[Cut-n-paste of ~2500 words replaced with link to original website. Please, in general no cut-n-pastes longer than a paragraph. Also, this is off-topic, it belongs in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, you may want to repost there. --Percy]
"Finding God in Physics: Einstein’s Missing Relative" by Roy Masters
------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-28-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 3:24 PM Jet has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 329 (10497)
05-28-2002 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Percy
05-28-2002 2:52 PM


edited quote:
...............................science is based upon evidence.
--Percy
***If science is based solely on a hands-on, physical type of "evidence", which is what you seem to favor, then not only does the TOE not qualify as being scientific, but much of what is studied and thought to be understood about the entire universe cannot qualify as being scientific. We have "scientific" calculations as to the temperature of the suns' surface. This science is not based on any physical "evidence", but rather on educated mathematical calculations based on what scientists think they know and understand about the sun and our solar system.
Much of science is based upon speculations, calculations, and educated guesswork rather than any real physical evidence. If it wasn't, the TOE would already be an idea that had been regulated to the ash heap of silly myths and legends, better suited for science fiction writers and Hollywood moviemakers than for scientists. For all that evolutionists claim to have, what they truly have is very, very little. And of that, much, if not all, is based upon speculations, calculations, and educated guesswork. The physical evidence for evolution just does not exist. If it did, the debate would be over.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 2:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 3:50 PM Jet has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 329 (10498)
05-28-2002 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Jet
05-28-2002 2:53 PM


Sorry, my mistake!
Shalom
Jet
------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 2:53 PM Jet has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 163 of 329 (10499)
05-28-2002 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jet
05-28-2002 2:09 PM


Thank you - much appreciated!
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 2:09 PM Jet has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 164 of 329 (10500)
05-28-2002 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Jet
05-28-2002 3:23 PM


Jet writes:

If science is based solely on a hands-on, physical type of "evidence"...
I just said evidence, plain old evidence. Evidence is that which is apparent in some way to the five senses. Evidence could be something you can hold in your bare hands, or it could be ancient photons from a distant galaxy impinging upon the eye, or even just on optical sensors.
Anyway, the original question was, if your interpretations are based upon revelation, reflection and prayer, how can that qualify as science, since science is based upon evidence?
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 3:23 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 4:13 PM Percy has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 329 (10502)
05-28-2002 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Percy
05-28-2002 3:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
xxx writes:

If science is based solely on a hands-on, physical type of "evidence"...
I just said evidence, plain old evidence. Evidence is that which is apparent in some way to the five senses. Evidence could be something you can hold in your bare hands, or it could be ancient photons from a distant galaxy impinging upon the eye, or even just on optical sensors.
***If that is truly the case, then the Bible is all the evidence that I should need to convince you that Creationism is scientific. I can hold it in my hands and read its' pages with my eyes.***Jet
Anyway, the original question was, if your interpretations are based upon revelation, reflection and prayer, how can that qualify as science, since science is based upon evidence?
--Percy

***Perhaps your use of "your interpretations" is a poor choice of words. I do not attempt to interpret the Bible, per se, as the Bible interprets itself quite nicely. You also left out a vital ingredient that I had mentioned. Study! Intense, unending study. Without study, any revelation, reflection, or prayer becomes a rather fruitless endeavor. I read and study the Bible continually. Within its' pages, I read about the creation of the world and all that it contains. With my five senses, I observe the evidence of that creation. I see the design inherent in all of creation and realize that any design requires a designer. Even a small child understands this. Design comes about by the effort of the designer, and never by the combination of chance plus time. Chance plus time creates nothing but lost time.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 3:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 5:03 PM Jet has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 329 (10504)
05-28-2002 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Percy
05-28-2002 2:52 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
Jet writes:
***There is enough information in the book of Job alone to justify teaching Creationism.***
Percy writes:
So using your example of the book of Job, if your interpretation of it is based upon revelation, reflection and prayer, how can that qualify as science, since science is based upon evidence?
--Percy
**********************************************************************
At the end of the book of Job (chapter 38-41) is an amazing and very revealing piece of literature, for it claims to be the direct word of God proclaiming the wonders of his creation to Job and his friends. If this segment of writing is what is says it is, then we would expect to find some pretty amazing scientific insight. And that's exactly what we find:
"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loose the chords of Orion?" Job 38:31
Pleiades is a cluster of stars numbering about 250. The latest scientific observations suggest that they are all bound together, moving in the same direction, according to Dr. Robert J. Trumpler from the Lick Observatory:
""Over 25,000 individual measures of the Pleiades stars are now available, and their study led to the important discovery that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction. The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship.""
Orion is another constellation admired by the Hebrews. It is made up primarily of three main stars, which seem to make up a perfect line.
However, the Astronomer Garrett P. Serviss commented on Orion:
""At the present time this band consists of an almost perfect straight line, a row of second-magnitude stars about equally spaced and of the most striking beauty. In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.""
So basically, Orion is the direct opposite of Pleiades. The stars are actually moving in completely different directions.
This information, which is not discernable to the naked eye, has only been discovered by the most advanced modern astronomical equipment, yet it is written in a 3000-year-old book! Could it be a lucky guess by the writer of Job?
Unlikely! When a noted astronomer, Charles Burckhalter of the Chabot Observatory was shown the book of Job, he made an astonishing statement:
""The study of the Book of Job and its comparison with the latest scientific discoveries has brought me to the matured conviction that the Bible is an inspired book and was written by the One who made the stars.""
http://www.stilez.freeserve.co.uk/apol/int3.html
Shalom
Jet
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!
------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 2:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 5:34 PM Jet 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