| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2005 03:36:48 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Although the discussion about creation/evolution is open to debate, with neither side able to "prove" their case, |
That statement is a matter of your opinion. Most scientists and probably most of the world's population would not consider this discussion open to debate. |
Most scientists and probably most of the world's population held as a non-debatable truth that the sun revolved around the earth at one time. The NUMBER and CREDENTIALS of individuals is NOT a valid argument that something is non-debatable. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 03:59:43 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Although the discussion about creation/evolution is open to debate, with neither side able to "prove" their case, |
That statement is a matter of your opinion. Most scientists and probably most of the world's population would not consider this discussion open to debate. |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
This is not a debate. Debates are argued logically and grounded in fact. If your argument is flawed and the facts bear this out, you lose.
Quoting a non factual book and its many interpretations vs. 145 years of scientific research and pear consensus in the subject of evolution is not a debate. |
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 04:00:42 PM · #378 |
| Only on DPC, do 16 pages of text explode into heated debates over one picture of a fiberoptic light with a black background.....interesting to say the least, though I think I'll stay out of the dabate. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 04:12:04 PM · #379 |
Wow, this is a great debate. I am certainly not educated enough to jump into the fray without doing either side an injustice...
...but I would like to say that it seems there is genuine interest here to find out if indeed there are proofs for creationism, the bible, etc. I would like to suggest that anyone interested in doing some reading for themselves on this subject, should look for literature on "Christian apologetics". Google it, there is alot there. Apologetics is a "reasoned" defense of christianity by many different people. There are alot of folks that have set out to prove the bible wrong, only to convert after doing there own research and looking at things from both sides. A number of these folks have published their findings. It's worth a look!
I just offer this suggestion up for those genuinely interested in finding some answers to these questions. Carry on... |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 04:16:48 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Although the discussion about creation/evolution is open to debate, with neither side able to "prove" their case, |
That statement is a matter of your opinion. Most scientists and probably most of the world's population would not consider this discussion open to debate. |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
This is not a debate. Debates are argued logically and grounded in fact. If your argument is flawed and the facts bear this out, you lose.
Quoting a non factual book and its many interpretations vs. 145 years of scientific research and pear consensus in the subject of evolution is not a debate. |
|
Quoting scientists who were not there, did not observe, did not record, and cannot replicate that which they claim is no more logical or grounded in fact than the biblical accounts.
In fact, the more time that goes by, the more biblical accounts are being verified as true - for example the fall of Jericho HAS been verified as true - the only "debate" is that scientists do not believe that the cause of the "earthquake" that leveled Jericho ( that's what the physical evidence indicates happened ) was the result of divine action. However, the entire "story" was disputed by non-believers as "just another fairy tale" until the actual site was excavated.
Another scientist conducted wind simulations that "proved" that it was possible to part the red sea at one certain place. This is in perfect accord with scripture - Exodus 14:21 ...and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 04:23:56 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Another scientist conducted wind simulations that "proved" that it was possible to part the red sea at one certain place. |
Name please... I would be interested in reading that study, theory, supposition........whatever you would like to call it.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 04:45:07 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RonB:
Another scientist conducted wind simulations that "proved" that it was possible to part the red sea at one certain place. |
Name please... I would be interested in reading that study, theory, supposition........whatever you would like to call it.
Ray |
Yes, no more of these statements without any backing.
People on the evolution side of this "debate" have posted countless articles, papers and mass amounts of evidence, which considering the tone and pace of this thread, seems nobody on the other side has read.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 04:51:12 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RonB:
Another scientist conducted wind simulations that "proved" that it was possible to part the red sea at one certain place. |
Name please... I would be interested in reading that study, theory, supposition........whatever you would like to call it.
Ray |
Thanks for the interest, Ray.
The scientists name is Naum Volzinger, a senior researcher at St. Petersburg's Institute of Oceanology. He spent six months studying the tides, winds and reefs common to the Red Sea, then developed a series of differential equations to chart out the parting of the waters, as detailed in Exodus 14.
The study, which took almost six months to complete is titled "Modeling of the Hydrodynamic Situation During the Exodus" and has been published in the Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Ref: This Washington Times Article in which it says:
Mr. Volzinger determined that if a strong wind blew at 30 meters per second over a shallow reef, then yes, it could have blown that reef dry. He also calculated it would have taken the fleeing Jews about four hours to make their crossing.
"It would take the Jews — there were 600,000 of them — four hours to cross the 7-kilometer reef that runs from one coast to another. Then, in a half-hour, the waters would come back."
But the scientist, who specializes in oceanic phenomena, admitted that his approach was "strictly from Isaac Newton's point of view," adding that he had yet to inform any religious organizations about his findings.
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 16:56:38. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 05:02:40 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by RonB:
In fact, the more time that goes by, the more biblical accounts are being verified as true - for example the fall of Jericho HAS been verified as true - the only "debate" is that scientists do not believe that the cause of the "earthquake" that leveled Jericho ( that's what the physical evidence indicates happened ) was the result of divine action. However, the entire "story" was disputed by non-believers as "just another fairy tale" until the actual site was excavated.
Another scientist conducted wind simulations that "proved" that it was possible to part the red sea at one certain place. This is in perfect accord with scripture - Exodus 14:21 ... |
No one is arguing here that some parts of the bible recount actual historical events. The question is whether the bible should be read literally in its entirety or whether it's a mixture of history and allegory. Despite affronts to the intellect, and when faced with the piling of the incredible upon the impossible, you still insist upon a literal interpretation. I've noted before in other threads on this topic, RonB, that when it is pointed out that the portrayal of god in the Old Testament is of a supreme deity who is an arrogant, ruthless and cruel despot who could fail and then be destructively wrathful at the wicked conduct of the product of his own work, you have conveniently distanced yourself from that portrayal by claiming that somehow the New Testament takes precedence over the Old when it comes to god's nature. Well, you can't have it both ways, but you want it both ways nevertheless when it suits your purposes. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 05:12:44 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Quoting scientists who were not there, did not observe, did not record, and cannot replicate that which they claim is no more logical or grounded in fact than the biblical accounts.
|
So you finally admit that unobserved, unverifiable biblical accounts are not "logical or grounded in fact" and thus cannot constitute valid evidence. : )
Originally posted by RonB:
In fact, the more time that goes by, the more biblical accounts are being verified as true - for example the fall of Jericho HAS been verified as true - the only "debate" is that scientists do not believe that the cause of the "earthquake" that leveled Jericho ( that's what the physical evidence indicates happened ) was the result of divine action. |
I know of no reason to doubt that the walls of Jericho fell -- there certainly weren't any walls when I visited there.
However, there's a lot of doubt about that bit concerning the sun standing still in the sky for a whole day. While temporarily halting the Earth's rotation would almost certainly instigate seismic events, I think there would be more widespread damage than the collapse of a single city's exterior fortifications. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 05:29:31 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Quoting scientists who were not there, did not observe, did not record, and cannot replicate that which they claim is no more logical or grounded in fact than the biblical accounts.
|
So you finally admit that unobserved, unverifiable biblical accounts are not "logical or grounded in fact" and thus cannot constitute valid evidence. : ) |
Nope. What I said is that such accounts are no MORE logical or grounded in fact. I have never contended that scientific claims were not logical, nor have I contended that there were not facts to be grounded in. It is the EXTRAPOLATION from facts that create the problems ( e.g. fossils are facts, but dating them requires extrapolation based on certain assumptions ) - is it logical, of course, but that doesn't make it any the more factual. It's just an "educated guess".
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 17:29:53. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 05:30:17 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
However, there's a lot of doubt about that bit concerning the sun standing still in the sky for a whole day. While temporarily halting the Earth's rotation would almost certainly instigate seismic events, I think there would be more widespread damage than the collapse of a single city's exterior fortifications. |
(psst ... GeneralE ... walls of Jericho and sun standing still are two different Biblical stories ...) |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 05:37:10 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
In fact, the more time that goes by, the more biblical accounts are being verified as true - for example the fall of Jericho HAS been verified as true - the only "debate" is that scientists do not believe that the cause of the "earthquake" that leveled Jericho ( that's what the physical evidence indicates happened ) was the result of divine action. However, the entire "story" was disputed by non-believers as "just another fairy tale" until the actual site was excavated.
Another scientist conducted wind simulations that "proved" that it was possible to part the red sea at one certain place. This is in perfect accord with scripture - Exodus 14:21 ... |
No one is arguing here that some parts of the bible recount actual historical events. The question is whether the bible should be read literally in its entirety or whether it's a mixture of history and allegory. Despite affronts to the intellect, and when faced with the piling of the incredible upon the impossible, you still insist upon a literal interpretation. I've noted before in other threads on this topic, RonB, that when it is pointed out that the portrayal of god in the Old Testament is of a supreme deity who is an arrogant, ruthless and cruel despot who could fail and then be destructively wrathful at the wicked conduct of the product of his own work, you have conveniently distanced yourself from that portrayal by claiming that somehow the New Testament takes precedence over the Old when it comes to god's nature. Well, you can't have it both ways, but you want it both ways nevertheless when it suits your purposes. |
Judith,
When you have retracted the libelous charge that you made against me, I will consider responding to your posts.
In the meantime, please feel free to continue your personal attacks. I'm sure there are some readers who derive some enjoyment frow what you write about me. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 05:40:49 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by papa:
I would like to suggest that anyone interested in doing some reading for themselves on this subject, should look for literature on "Christian apologetics". Google it, there is alot there. Apologetics is a "reasoned" defense of christianity by many different people. |
Can you please post a specific article or paper from that site you have read and consider a good argument for christianity?
From a quick look, Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry looks to serve the same purpose as Answers in Genesis, which claims one of the reasons evolutionsists give for the extinction of the dinosaurs is "mass suicide". |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 05:41:10 PM · #390 |
'
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 17:41:24. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 05:49:37 PM · #391 |
//www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntk=keywords&Ntt=apologetics&action=Search&N=0&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1
try that link, they should have dozens of worthy books to read that will at a minimum state their arguement for the bible in much more detailed and researched terms than this thread.
In all fairness, I think this subject deserves more than a paper or article or soundbite to properly explain itself. Those who don't want to believe will find plenty of "facts" to back then up. Likewise, those who want to believe will find the same. We are taught one side of the story. If we truly wish to question it, we must put in the effort to do so and be willing to accept the conclusion. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 06:01:45 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by papa:
//www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntk=keywords&Ntt=apologetics&action=Search&N=0&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1
try that link, they should have dozens of worthy books to read that will at a minimum state their arguement for the bible in much more detailed and researched terms than this thread.
In all fairness, I think this subject deserves more than a paper or article or soundbite to properly explain itself. Those who don't want to believe will find plenty of "facts" to back then up. Likewise, those who want to believe will find the same. We are taught one side of the story. If we truly wish to question it, we must put in the effort to do so and be willing to accept the conclusion. |
I agree that articles and single papers often don’t due justice the subject matter, but in this case, as the proponents of evolution have posted countless articles and papers (including Darwin’s entire Origin of Species), maybe you could post an article or two that you think would be useful and educational. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 06:15:31 PM · #393 |
I had to read Origins of the Species in college for a British lit class. When taken in context of the literature being written at that time, and in conjunction with the attitudes of the people of the time, I felt that Darwin's writing helped support the notion commonly held at that time that the "white" race was more civilized and "evolved" than the "black" race. Just my opinion (about his writings. not about the notion).
As far as posting links and stuff, I have started to on occasion in this thread but have refrained, because it has been my experience in other threads that when it is "discovered" that the authors are remotely Christian, or even associated with a Christian somehow, that makes the source "biased" or unworthy of consideration. Didn't figure it was worth my time.
edited to try and get everything right. stoopid typos
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 18:17:30.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 06:32:00 PM · #394 |
Wait a second here... Wasn’t the argument earlier about the splitting of the Red Sea about whether it’s possible according to the laws of physics?
But, I thought Jesus split the sea with his powers? Hmm.
*edit, at least, when I was a child in Sunday school I recall a video we watched that depicted Jesus using his powers to split the sea.
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 18:37:39. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 06:35:37 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by karmat:
As far as posting links and stuff, I have started to on occasion in this thread but have refrained, because it has been my experience in other threads that when it is "discovered" that the authors are remotely Christian, or even associated with a Christian somehow, that makes the source "biased" or unworthy of consideration. Didn't figure it was worth my time.
|
If the articles or papers are factually and scientifically based, made with logical points and NOT quoting the bible or scripture, I don’t see why the author being a Christian would matter. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 07:12:01 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by papa:
//www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntk=keywords&Ntt=apologetics&action=Search&N=0&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1
try that link, they should have dozens of worthy books to read that will at a minimum state their arguement for the bible in much more detailed and researched terms than this thread.
In all fairness, I think this subject deserves more than a paper or article or soundbite to properly explain itself. Those who don't want to believe will find plenty of "facts" to back then up. Likewise, those who want to believe will find the same. We are taught one side of the story. If we truly wish to question it, we must put in the effort to do so and be willing to accept the conclusion. |
papa, thank you for the links and the suggestions. As this thread is already quite unweidly just covering the debate between the deductions made through the scientific method and the various different creation stories found in all ancient cultures throughout the world, perhaps you could start a new thread examining Christian apologetics? I'm sure it would be a fascinating discussion. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 07:57:45 PM · #397 |
Originally posted by RonB:
However, the entire "story" was disputed by non-believers as "just another fairy tale" until the actual site was excavated. |
The existence of a city called Jericho was disputed by non-believers or the story about an army walking around a walled city in silence for seven day, then blowing trumpets and singing praises and the “walls come a tumblin’ down” was disputed by non-believers? Since Jericho was uncovered back in the 1930’s, it's doubtful you’ll find anyone who ever disputed the existence of a city called Jericho on this website. The evidence surrounding Jericho's fall is still up for debate however.
... let's get back to Genesis ...
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:35:35 PM · #398 |
Jesus did not part the waters...Moses did (sorta). Actually (according to the bible), God caused a strong wind from the east to part the waters. So, to me, whether it's possible according to the laws of physics means nothing to God. But the fact that they are finding that is is possible should give credence to the story. Or is it just another incredible coincidence? As for me, there are just too many coincidences and too many blessings in my life for me to even question the matter.
It would be a great discussion if I started a thread on Christian Apologetics, however I don't feel like I could give it the attention it deserves, as well as I'm also not well enough prepared to defend my faith in a fast-paced internet discussion. I would probably participate though. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:45:11 PM · #399 |
Personally, I would like to have another thread about peak oil.
The higher gas prices get, the more open to the idea people get. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:55:10 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Judith, When you have retracted the libelous charge that you made against me, I will consider responding to your posts. |
No response is required.
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 21:55:34. |
|
