The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

spacecoyote

I do also have a slight problem with JC using wikipedia as his source for refuting scientific arguments. I mean I could go onto wikipedia and edit a page so that infact it was I, and not Jesus who supposedly raised Lazarus from the dead. Its hardly the most reliable source (and it really is very tempting to go and do a bit of creative page editing now for a laugh isn't it!!!!)

spacecoyote

interesting article i just read

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/opinion/14thu4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

what think ye?

Fallen Seraph

J C wrote:

Now would you tell me exactly where Eanthropus and Hesperopithecus now fit into the Evolutionist Worldview – even though they were originally claimed to be ‘missing links’???

Hoax

Turns out it never existed

J C

Originally Posted by J C
A Sociologist is a LIFE SCIENTIST……

Scofflaw
Mein Gott. It's a social science,

Mein Gott, it is great to see an Atheist calling on his God!!!!:D

Of course Sociology is Social Science, just like Botany is Botanical Science and Zoology is Zoological Science!!!!:)

However, there is an argument which states that because Sociology studies Human Social Behaviour, it should be included along with Biology, Medicine, Ecology, etc., as a LIFE SCIENCE.:cool:


Originally Posted by J C
Did I ever tell you that God has great plans for you – and He wants to save YOU!!
Scofflaw
Yes, you did, and I think I told you where you could stick your Bronze Age tribal tyrant.

I am only a humble messenger of God.
Everybody has a choice – to accept God’s saving Grace or to receive His righteous Judgment.

Because I am an unworthy sinner, I cannot save myself, and I would be utterly condemned by God’s Judgment – so there is only one logical action - i.e. to rely on Jesus to save me.:)


Scofflaw
By the way, what is this "Alpha Linnaean Nomenclature" you refer to. It yields exactly 0 results in Google (until Google indexes this page).

Alpha Taxonomy is Linnaean Taxonomy and Alpha Binary Nomenclature is Linnaean Binary Nomenclature!!!!
See:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_taxonomy


Originally Posted by J C
So Evolutionists can’t even agree on classifying a flock of ducks! (or Anas, if you prefer)!!!
Scofflaw
Well, you see, that's the kind of problem you run into when you deal with reality. It's messy.
On the other hand, perhaps you can tell me which Kind ducks belong to?

Let me see, let me see……………..Which KIND do Ducks belong to?

Why Scofflaw, the Duck Kind of course!!!!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
.....and do all Evolutionists believe in ‘Multiple Universes’?
Scofflaw
Nope. However, it is very strongly implied by quantum computing, rather scarily.

There is indeed a ‘Parallel Universe’ – and it contains the realms of Heaven - and Hell, rather scarily. !!!!:eek:


Robin
I'm just wondering about your signature here on boards.ie.

In it, you say "I believe on Jesus Christ". I'm wondering how "believing on" is different from "believing in" is different from plain old "believing".

The words ‘believing on’ are used in this verse in the KJV Bible. It implies total reliance ON rather than merely just believing IN the existence of Jesus.

For example, Satan believes IN the existence of Jesus Christ (because he knows that Jesus exists) - but he doesn’t believe ON Jesus Christ, by trusting on Jesus to save him.


Robin
Daniel has no difficulty whatsoever in describing his vision -- it's a simple tree which he says is visible from everywhere on the surface of the earth. There's nothing weird there. Nothing strange at all. He just thought that the earth was flat and that a really, really tall tree could be seen from everywhere.

Everyone knows that no matter how big a terrestrial object is, like a large tree, or even a mountain, it ceases to be visible over a relatively small distance – and no terrestrial object was visible throughout the Middle East, never mind the whole World.:)

The verse in Daniel (4:11) is:-
"The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth."

This verse refers to King Nebuchadnezzar’s DREAM – and is thus clearly allegorical – a fact confirmed in subsequent verses by Daniels interpretation of the King’s dream!!!!

Creationists support the PLAIN reading of Scripture – interpreting it LITERALLY when the passages describe obvious literal or historical events and ALLEGORICALLY when metaphors are being clearly deployed as in Daniel 4:11.


Robin
Out of interest, do you accept that this explanation could be valid? ie, do you accept that the writer could have thought that the earth was flat, at a time when more or less everybody thought that the earth was flat?

Isaiah 40:18-23, which was written prior to the Book of Daniel confirms that the People of God believed that the Earth wasn’t flat :-
"To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth".

This verse actually confirms that the Earth is CIRCULAR.

A “circle” could describe the outline of a two-dimensional disc OR a three-dimensional sphere.

I would point out that the only circular object that looks like a circle when viewed from every angle is a sphere – a disc only looks like a circle when viewed from directly above its centre. When viewed from any other perspective it is either elliptical (or a line, if viewed edge on).
As God has always been regarded as omnipresent by Biblical Peoples, the only way that he could be regarded as “enthroned above the circle of the Earth” (from all angles so to speak) is if the Earth were a sphere.

In fact, if it was believed that the Earth was a flat circular disc this passage of scripture would have read that God was enthroned above the disc of the Earth or above the plane of the Earth.

The only people who believed that astronomical objects were flat discs were certain gentile nations who, for example, worshipped the Sun as ‘The Solar Disc’ and the Moon as ‘The Lunar Disc’.
'Flat Earth' ideas were held to be true by some Ancient Peoples, but a flat Earth wasn't believed-in by ‘The People of God.’:cool:


spacecoyote
interesting article i just read

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/op...=1&oref=slogin

“Evolution is a process that most of us associate with a geological time scale — the slow elucidation of life over the last 3.5 billion years.” ………….
So, even though Evolutionists have believed that Evolution is very slow and occurs over billons of years - they are now having second thoughts and starting to look at a Biblical timeframe…………….

…………… “A team of scientists has now discovered that an important human genetic trait — a tolerance in adults for the milk sugar called lactose — might have developed in several East African ethnic groups 2,700 to 6,800 years ago. That is astonishingly recent.”

Of course it’s only “astonishingly recent” if you (erroneously) believe in ‘billions of years’ in the first place!!!!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
Now would you tell me exactly where Eanthropus and Hesperopithecus now fit into the Evolutionist Worldview – even though they were originally claimed to be ‘missing links’ (by Evolutionists)???

Fallen Seraph
Hoax

Turns out it never existed

………….a bit like macro-Evolution then????!!!!!!!:eek:

J C

It’s Not Just Apes; Fruit Flies Are Our Cousins, Too

All can be seen at :-
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/science/22side.html?ex=1166245200&en=e83cdc0c391c7b05&ei=5070

I guess I'll never be able use fly-spray again!!!!!!!!!:D

Quote
"This is the kind of science that makes you wonder. For instance, are the female flies suffering from hot flashes? Are the male flies getting up to go to the bathroom three or four times a night?"

Something that I have always wanted to know about - but was afraid to ask!!!:D

Quote:
As reported over and over again, a disconcerting number of Americans doubt the fact of evolution.

I wonder WHY?!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:
The country seems almost evenly divided on the matter (of Evolution v Creation), according to a recent report in Science. Some of the worriers concentrate on apelike ancestors, showing a lack of vision. There are stranger connections to agonize over, like drosophila and beyond. We share sleep problems with fruit flies. We have a huge amount of DNA in common with yeast.

Those are our distant cousins we consume in leavened bread, our fellow multicelled organisms undergoing dreadful experiments in the drosophila lab.

That has 'put paid' to me 'Sam Hamwich'!!!!!:D


...........Oh, I almost forgot I'm a Creationist - so I can continue swatting Flies and eating sandwiches without going on a 'guilt trip' - unlike my misfortunate Evolutionist friends who will continue to have terrible 'angst' about their 'relationships' with flies and sandwiches!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

It’s Not Just Apes; Fruit Flies Are Our Cousins, Too

All can be seen at :-
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/science/22side.html?ex=1166245200&en=e83cdc0c391c7b05&ei=5070

I guess I'll never be able use fly-spray again!!!!!!!!!:D

Quote
"This is the kind of science that makes you wonder. For instance, are the female flies suffering from hot flashes? Are the male flies getting up to go to the bathroom three or four times a night?"

Something that I have always wanted to know about - but was afraid to ask!!!:D

Quote:
As reported over and over again, a disconcerting number of Americans doubt the fact of evolution. The country seems almost evenly divided on the matter, according to a recent report in Science. Some of the worriers concentrate on apelike ancestors, showing a lack of vision. There are stranger connections to agonize over, like drosophila and beyond. We share sleep problems with fruit flies. We have a huge amount of DNA in common with yeast.

Those are our distant cousins we consume in leavened bread, our fellow multicelled organisms undergoing dreadful experiments in the drosophila lab.

That has 'put paid' to me 'Sam Hamwich'!!!!!:D


...........Oh, I almost forgot I'm a Creationist - so I can continue swatting Flies and eating sandwiches without going on a 'guilt trip' - unlike my misfortunate Evolutionist friends who will continue to have terrible 'angst' about their 'relationships' with flies and sandwiches!!!:D

What a terrible droning noise, to be sure...

regards,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

What a terrible droning noise, to be sure...

regards,
Scofflaw

Buzz, Buzz!!!:)

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
A Sociologist is a LIFE SCIENTIST……

Scofflaw
Mein Gott. It's a social science,

Mein Gott, it is great to see an Atheist calling on his God!!!!:D

Of course Sociology is Social Science, just like Botany is Botanical Science and Zoology is Zoological Science!!!!:)

However, there is an argument which states that because Sociology studies Human Social Behaviour, it should be included along with Biology, Medicine, Ecology, etc., as a LIFE SCIENCE.:cool:

Is there? They have overlapping areas of interest, but then so do doctors and vets, and I think you would prefer to be treated by a doctor.

I suspect that you are the only person making this argument...certainly it would not be a first offence.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Did I ever tell you that God has great plans for you – and He wants to save YOU!!
Scofflaw
Yes, you did, and I think I told you where you could stick your Bronze Age tribal tyrant.

I am only a humble messenger of God.
Everybody has a choice – to accept God’s saving Grace or to receive His righteous Judgment.

Because I am an unworthy sinner, I cannot save myself, and I would be utterly condemned by God’s Judgment – so there is only one logical action - i.e. to rely on Jesus to save me.:)

And I am perfectly happy for you to do so, although I would in addition recommend some remedial reading classes.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
By the way, what is this "Alpha Linnaean Nomenclature" you refer to. It yields exactly 0 results in Google (until Google indexes this page).

Alpha Taxonomy is Linnaean Taxonomy and Alpha Binary Nomenclature is Linnaean Binary Nomenclature!!!!
See:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_taxonomy

Oh, I see. Just the usual JC-ish word-jumbling then, to create terminology of increased gravity. Fair enough.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
So Evolutionists can’t even agree on classifying a flock of ducks! (or Anas, if you prefer)!!!
Scofflaw
Well, you see, that's the kind of problem you run into when you deal with reality. It's messy.
On the other hand, perhaps you can tell me which Kind ducks belong to?

Let me see, let me see……………..Which KIND do Ducks belong to?

Why Scofflaw, the Duck Kind of course!!!!!!:eek:

For the life of me, I can't see why you think that's witty*. Is there a Duck Kind, then? Are Geese included, or are they a separate Kind, perhaps?

*Not quite true. I can see why you think it's witty.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....and do all Evolutionists believe in ‘Multiple Universes’?
Scofflaw
Nope. However, it is very strongly implied by quantum computing, rather scarily.

There is indeed a ‘Parallel Universe’ – and it contains the realms of Heaven - and Hell, rather scarily. !!!!:eek:

An interesting speculation - although people in the Bible seem reasonably convinced that one is "up", and the other "down", rather than anything that resembles more sophisticated recent work.

Now, come on, JC, pull yourself together and give us an actual argument, no matter how silly. We all enjoyed the big cats and their piles of conveniently frozen carrion....another one like that to keep me going through the dark days of the year, if you would.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Buzz, Buzz!!!:)

Ah. You continue to trade on our evolutionary relationship, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Is JC ignoring me?? After 200+ pages?

Fallen Seraph

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C

Fallen Seraph
Hoax

Turns out it never existed

………….a bit like macro-Evolution then????!!!!!!!:eek:

or

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

Scofflaw

Ugh. I've just realised that the entire Internet is basically just a big Monty Python sketch. After all, we do come here for an argument...and we are complaining that JC is just providing contradiction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Ugh. I've just realised that the entire Internet is basically just a big Monty Python sketch. After all, we do come here for an argument...and we are complaining that JC is just providing contradiction.

You are just realising this now ...

J C

J C wrote:

A Sociologist is a LIFE SCIENTIST……

………..and I thought that it was very interesting that Professor Fuller, as a scientist and Secular Humanist, DEFENDED the teaching of ID in science class – and actually attended the trial in Dover, Penneselvania to give evidence in favour of the teaching of ID!!!!!!;)

I don't care WHAT he defends, he is NOT a biologist. What part of this don't you get?
A physicist is not qualified to talk about biology in detail (which is why I've left that others); neither is any other "scientist". All are scientists, but only a biologist might study evolution (except for star evolution etc). "Science" is only taught as one general subject in primary school.
Calling oneself a scientist does not give one the magical ability to understand anything and everything under the sun classified as science.


... I don't know why I'm bothering =/

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You are just realising this now ...

Well, apparently I missed all the evidence for the Global Flood while studying Geology, too...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, apparently I missed all the evidence for the Global Flood while studying Geology, too...

cordially,
Scofflaw

That has always been your problem Scofflaw, too much studying of the little things like facts, evidence, theory and rational logic, not enough Bible reading. Sure its all in the Bible, so why bother looking else where...

Still waiting on those scientific papers JC explaining what the hell you have been going on about for the last 3 pages. I assume being a trained scientists you have them to hand but something is stopping you from referencing them (God perhaps?)

Its ok, take your time, no rush....

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> [briancalgary] It is a description of a very large tree, so large in fact that it
> can be seen from 'the whole earth'.

Yes. You can only see a straight object from a single place if the single place is flat and the straight object is high enough. This isn't a metaphor, but a simple statement of fact as the author thought of it. Imagine a tall lamp on a big dinner table. There's nothing indescribable about that, is there?).

You have forgotten that Daniel is describing a vision, not a tangible physical tree in the Earthly realm. It does not exist here.

It reminded me of CS Lewis and Narnia, where in the last book the characters sail to the end of the Earth and pass through a barrier into eternal life. It is a story and no one would take from it that CS Lewis is a flat earther.

Daniel's vision is real (as opposed to Lewis' story) but the tree doesn't exist in our world.

robindch wrote:

[> He is also describing a vision, which is very difficult to do and
> therefore needs to be explained in metaphorical terms.

Daniel has no difficulty whatsoever in describing his vision -- it's a simple tree which he says is visible from everywhere on the surface of the earth. There's nothing weird there. Nothing strange at all. He just thought that the earth was flat and that a really, really tall tree could be seen from everywhere. Just like the lamp on the table.

Out of interest, do you accept that this explanation could be valid? ie, do you accept that the writer could have thought that the earth was flat, at a time when more or less everybody thought that the earth was flat? (and rectangular too, hence the 'four-corners of the earth' line elsewhere).

Yoru explanation as valid? Absolutely not. You have made two statements above "he had no difficulty in describing his vision"; how do you know, did you ask him? Have you ever tried describing a vision from God? I have and it is most difficult.

Your second: "He just thought that the earth was flat", again how do you know?, the text doesn't say that at all. Where did Daniel ever state that he thought the Earth was flat? He is describing a vision, something from God.

Where is your evidence of historical writings from the 6th century BC where your conclusion is drawn that everybody thought that the earth was flat?

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Ugh. I've just realised that the entire Internet is basically just a big Monty Python sketch. After all, we do come here for an argument...and we are complaining that JC is just providing contradiction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And I thought that you where John Cleese?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

It reminded me of CS Lewis and Narnia, where in the last book the characters sail to the end of the Earth and pass through a barrier into eternal life. It is a story and no one would take from it that CS ewis is a flat earther.

You need to re-read your Lewis. Narnia isn't on earth.

Interestingly, one can conclude that Lewis was a devout Christian from his works. Are you suggesting that we're wrong to do that because its just a story?

Yoru explanation as valid? Absolutely not. You have made two statements above "he had no difficulty in describing his vision"; how do you know, did you ask him?

Where you have asked the authors of the bible whether or not they accurately depicted truth at all times.

Have you ever tried describing a vision from God? I have and it is most difficult.

And Genesis is....what...an eye-witness account?

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

You need to re-read your Lewis. Narnia isn't on earth. ?

re read my post:
It is a story

bonkey wrote:

Interestingly, one can conclude that Lewis was a devout Christian from his works. Are you suggesting that we're wrong to do that because its just a story??

No because Bonkey, he stated in many of his works his Christian faith. Part of looking at the whole picture of Lewis and what he wrote to determine his position.

bonkey wrote:

Where you have asked the authors of the bible whether or not they accurately depicted truth at all times.

I haven't. That is why I do everything I can not to read into th etext something that isn't there. if I ever do, please catch me up on it.

bonkey wrote:

And Genesis is....what...an eye-witness account?

I believe that God told Moses what happened in history up to the point of the Exodus which is where Moses came in. So it was dictated by the eyewitness, God Himself.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

I haven't. That is why I do everything I can not to read into th etext something that isn't there. if I ever do, please catch me up on it.

Again, these statements don't tally.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I believe that God told Moses what happened in history up to the point of the Exodus which is where Moses came in. So it was dictated by the eyewitness, God Himself.

Where does Moses say that God told him?

cleesily,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, these statements don't tally.



Where does Moses say that God told him?

cleesily,
Scofflaw

The books were written by Moses. Moses did spend quite a few days and time on the mountain in the presence of God. God gave Moses the law and the commandments, which Moses wrote down.

I fail to see how the statements don't tally.

You say that as much as our old friend who used straw man so much I thought he was a scarecrow.

J C

Scofflaw
They (Sociologists) have overlapping areas of interest, but then so do doctors and vets, and I think you would prefer to be treated by a doctor.

Veterinary Medicine is a constituent discipline within the Life Sciences Group, and so too is Biology – and I wouldn’t ask a Biologist to treat me, if I was sick, either!!!!:D


bonkey
And Genesis is....what...an eye-witness account?

Yes indeed, Genesis is the eye-witness account by God of His Creation Week.:cool:


Wicknight
Still waiting on those scientific papers JC explaining what the hell you have been going on about for the last 3 pages. I assume being a trained scientists you have them to hand

350 scientific references to Creationist Speciation Here:-
http://www.creationresearch.org/search/search.cgi?Terms=speciation&submit=Go%21&Realm=Entire+Website


…and 21 scientific references to Creationist Speciation Here:-
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.trueorigin.org&q=speciation&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.trueorigin.org&client=pub-0415278686017492&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en

………and here are some speedy species surprises:-:D

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp


Fallen Seraph
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

So is this a peer-reviewed account of ALL of the EVIDENCE for macro-Evolution, or what??!!! :rolleyes:
.

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, apparently I missed all the evidence for the Global Flood while studying Geology, too...

.......well I hope that you are now suitably chastened - and that you haven't missed all of the evidence for Evolution presented by the Fallen Seraph above, as well!!!!:D :rolleyes:


BTW, did you know that God doesn't believe in Atheists - and He is not sure whether or not Agnostics exist !!!!!!!:D :rolleyes:
.

robindch

> You have forgotten that Daniel is describing a vision, not a tangible
> physical tree in the Earthly realm. It does not exist here.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

> Daniel's vision is real [...]

So, you're saying that the tree was pictured accurately in all details?

> You have made two statements above "he had no difficulty in
> describing his vision"; how do you know, did you ask him?

No, I read what was written in the bible. The same as you did. He talks about seeing a tree. Not in any complicated mystical way, but just a simple tree that is very tall. This isn't difficult to imagine, and it's not difficult to describe. In fact, it's quite simple. It's a tree. Which is very tall. That's it. If you read the text, you will perhaps agree with me that it the idea of a big tree is not the most difficult thing in the world to describe, and that the writer doesn't have any apparent difficulty in doing so?

> Your second: "He just thought that the earth was flat", again how do
> you know?, the text doesn't say that at all. Where did Daniel ever
> state that he thought the Earth was flat?

Two basic facts:

1. Daniel lived in a time when almost everybody thought the earth was flat. It's quite likely that he thought the earth was flat too. As the balance of proof lies on your side to show that he bucked the trend and didn't think the earth was flat, I'd appreciate it if you could show me how you know that he didn't think the earth was flat.

2. The text from the bible "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth." makes sense only if one of the following three things is true:

2.a If he imagined a real tree which was very big, then it must have been (a) tall enough to touch the sky (b) visible from all over the earth which had (c) "ends". This is consistent with the prevailing Mesopotamian view that the world was a flat disk. We know this because we have descriptions of maps drawn by Hecataeus, Anaximander and others from around the same time, not to mention other stories and texts. I don't believe that curvature of the earth wasn't suspected widely in the Mediterranean region until the 4th century BCE.

2.b He imagined a tree which was very big but which didn't grow upwards like it was described, but sideways all over the spherical earth so it could be seen from all the surface as described.

2.c He lied about what he saw, but chose not to say that he lied.

> Yoru explanation as valid? Absolutely not.

Why do you accept (2.c) only and reject 2.a and 2.b without, as far as I can see, even considering them?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

The books were written by Moses. Moses did spend quite a few days and time on the mountain in the presence of God. God gave Moses the law and the commandments, which Moses wrote down.

I fail to see how the statements don't tally.

Well, the Bible is quite clear that God gave Moses the law and the commandments. On the other hand it doesn't say anywhere that God also told him the history.

BrianCalgary wrote:

You say that as much as our old friend who used straw man so much I thought he was a scarecrow.

A chilling thought - scarecrows using straw men.

Pointing out that you're making contradictory statements can never be a straw man....that would be where I misrepresent your argument, knock it down, and claim victory. I'm not sure how you think that applies here.

All I'm doing is comparing your statement that "I do everything I can not to read into the text something that isn't there" with your belief that God dictated the history to Moses, something which is not stated in the text (whereas it is clearly stated that Moses had the laws and commandments from God).

I'm not doing this "tactically" - I'm doing it because you keep* making statements that contradict each other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*well, twice, or maybe three times.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

350 scientific references to Creationist Speciation Here:-
http://www.creationresearch.org/search/search.cgi?Terms=speciation&submit=Go%21&Realm=Entire+Website

Actually the first one is 30 articles that mention the word "speciation" because you simply searched the CRS website for the term "speciation" (you can see the search term in the URL).

The second link is Google (not exactly trying hard are we JC) and then an unrelated article (not even paper) from AnswersInGensis.

Not exactly what I was looking for JC.

Instead of just pointing me to search engines perhaps you could just point me to the specific papers that detail the process of specialisation.

Because to be honest the fact that you seem rather unable to do so suggest that you have not actually read or are even aware of how these creationists theories are actually supposed to work.

Which, despite your claims to the contrary, suggests pretty clearly that you base your rejection or acceptance of the various scientific theories not on their merit or validity, but simply on how closely they claim to fit your religious beliefs. Which is not at all scientific (which you claim you are) and makes you claims that evolution should be rejected on scientific grounds seems like a very hollow claim.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is a story

You pointed out that Narnia being on a flat world (which it was) didn't mean Lewis was a flat-earther. I agree...but not because its only a story, but rather because Narnia isn't placed on earth. Thus, the author has never made any references to the flatness or otherwise of earth.

I haven't. That is why I do everything I can not to read into th etext something that isn't there. if I ever do, please catch me up on it.

I'm not aware of a single passage anywhere in the bible which states that God dictated the events recorded in Genesis to Moses which Moses duly recorded.

This raises two possibilities :

1) My biblical knowledge is lacking in this regard as the passage is indeed there.
2) Nowhere in the bible does it state that God dictated the events recorded in Genesis to Moses which Moses duly recorded.

In the former case, I would appreciate your educating me and pointing me at the relevant passage.

In the latter case, you most certainly are reading into the bible something that isn't there. You can argue that its a reasonable conclusion or that its the only one that makes sense to you, but its still something thats not there that you are assuming.

There are numerous other possibilities, none of which are any more or less unreasonable than your assumption. Moses could have been given a vision, rather than a direct dictation. By your own admission, visions can be hard to describe and could result in confusion and inaccuracy. Or maybe Moses reworded things from the truth he was told into something he knew his followers could relate to whereas the reality was simply too mindboggling for anyone not gifted (by God) the understanding of it all.

I believe that God told Moses what happened in history up to the point of the Exodus which is where Moses came in. So it was dictated by the eyewitness, God Himself.

The keywords in this statement for me are the first two. You believe that this is the case. But on what grounds?

It seems to me that you are pre-supposing the literal truth of Genesis and then rationalising how this must have come about, rather than examining the information available and concluding that Genesis is true as a result.

Please note - I'm not saying that you would be wrong to do so. I'm simply saying that your base argument would become that you believe Genesis to be true because you believe it to be so.

J C

Robin
Two basic facts:

1. Daniel lived in a time when almost everybody thought the earth was flat.

I guess you are correct if the ‘almost everybody’ that you speak of were the Gentiles!!!!:)

The people who believed that astronomical objects were flat discs were the gentile nations who, for example, worshipped the Sun as ‘The Solar Disc’ and the Moon as ‘The Lunar Disc’.
'Flat Earth' ideas were held to be true by some Ancient Peoples, but a flat Earth wasn't believed-in by ‘The People of God.’:cool:


Robin
It's quite likely that he (Daniel) thought the earth was flat too. As the balance of proof lies on your side to show that he bucked the trend and didn't think the earth was flat, I'd appreciate it if you could show me how you know that he didn't think the earth was flat.

Isaiah 40:18-23, which was written prior to the Book of Daniel confirms that the People of God believed that the Earth wasn’t flat :-
"To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth".

This verse actually confirms that the Earth is CIRCULAR – and the Book of Isaiah was written before the Book of Daniel.


Robin
2. The text from the bible "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth." makes sense only if one of the following three things is true:

2.a If he imagined a real tree which was very big, then it must have been (a) tall enough to touch the sky (b) visible from all over the earth which had (c) "ends". This is consistent with the prevailing Mesopotamian view that the world was a flat disk. We know this because we have descriptions of maps drawn by Hecataeus, Anaximander and others from around the same time, not to mention other stories and texts. I don't believe that curvature of the earth wasn't suspected widely in the Mediterranean region until the 4th century BCE.

2.b He imagined a tree which was very big but which didn't grow upwards like it was described, but sideways all over the spherical earth so it could be seen from all the surface as described.

2.c He lied about what he saw, but chose not to say that he lied.

Daniel WASN’T imagining ANYTHING!!!!
He was merely recounting a Gentile's DREAM!!!

The verse in Daniel (4:11) "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth." is an account of King Nebuchadnezzar’s DREAM – and thus it is clearly allegorical – a fact confirmed in subsequent verses by Daniels interpretation of the King’s dream!!!!:-


Everyone knows that no matter how big a terrestrial object is, like a large tree, or even a mountain, it ceases to be visible over a relatively short distance – and no terrestrial object was visible throughout the Middle East, never mind the whole World.

Creationists support the PLAIN reading of Scripture – interpreting it LITERALLY when the passages describe obvious literal or historical events and ALLEGORICALLY when metaphors are being clearly deployed as in Daniel 4:11.


Robin
Out of interest, do you accept that this explanation could be valid? ie, do you accept that the writer could have thought that the earth was flat, at a time when more or less everybody thought that the earth was flat?

Isaiah 40:18-23, which was written prior to the Book of Daniel confirms that the People of God believed that the Earth wasn’t flat :-
"To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth".

This verse actually confirms that the Earth is CIRCULAR.

A “circle” could describe the outline of a two-dimensional disc OR a three-dimensional sphere.

I would point out that the only circular object that looks like a circle when viewed from every angle is a sphere – a disc only looks like a circle when viewed from directly above its centre. When viewed from any other perspective it is either elliptical (or a line, if viewed edge on).
As God has always been regarded as omnipresent by Biblical Peoples, the only way that he could be regarded as “enthroned above the circle of the Earth” (from all angles so to speak) is if the Earth were a sphere.

In fact, if it was believed that the Earth was a flat circular disc this passage of scripture would have read that God was enthroned above the disc of the Earth or above the plane of the Earth.


Wicknight
your claims that evolution should be rejected on scientific grounds seems like a very hollow claim.

.......well macro-Evolution certainly cannot be accepted on scientific grounds.:D

…….and the Evolutionist claim that ‘almost everybody believes in Evolution’ is about as good a proof for the validity of Evolution as Robin’s claim that ‘almost everybody thought that the earth was flat’ – and just as WRONG!!

Zombrex

J C wrote:

.......well macro-Evolution certainly cannot be accepted on scientific grounds.:D

But would you know either way?

You don't seem to have much of an understanding of the theory of evolution, and even less understanding about how the Creationist claims of the specialisation are supposed to actually work.

How you feel you possess enough knowledge of either of these theories to assess their scientific validity is beyond me. In fact you seem unable to even explain the process of specialisation at all, never mind at a high level.

Rather you appear to be basing your decisions solely on your religious beliefs, and not on scientific understanding at all. What exactly are you a "trained scientist" in?

The question has to be asked what exactly do you know much about?