Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Opinion
Topic: can we trust the Bible
started by: the breeze

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 08 2011,4:49 pm

Scientific Accuracy

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)

Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)

Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)

Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

and many others.
These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible—in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.

Unique Structure

The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a period of 2,000 years, it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of explanation by chance or collusion.
< http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html >
The one consistent theme of the Bible, developing in grandeur from Genesis to Revelation, is God's great work in the creation and redemption of all things, through His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Posted by White Pride on Sep. 09 2011,1:58 am

I would call that stretching the text just a wee bit!

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 09 2011,8:43 am

Do you really want to go there Breeze? I can list as many or more science errors. The Bible is good for moral instruction but a very poor science text.
Besides, some of those things are so obvious anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure them out. Do you really need the Bible to tell you there are a vast number of stars in the sky? Really? Is that really something you never could have figured out without the Bible? Or that keeping blood on the inside is an important part of staying alive?
I agree with White Pride. To claim these are some sign that the Bible had these great scientific mysteries figured out is stretching things more than a wee bit.

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 09 2011,9:17 am

The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a period of 2,000 years, it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of explanation by chance or collusion.

The one consistent theme of the Bible, developing in grandeur from Genesis to Revelation, is God's great work in the creation and redemption of all things, through His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ . It is impossible to govern without God and the Bible.
George Washington

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 09 2011,6:29 pm

Have you actually read the whole Bible? It is contradicts itself all over the place. The two versions of Genesis can't even agree on what was created on which day.
The Old Testament God is a war God and very vengeful even against innocents. The New Testament God is one of love for others and forgiveness. Does God have huge personality shifts often?
Stretching the truth and Lying for God does not help bring people into Christianity. All you do is convince them that Christianity is built on lies and fairy tales. The more you proclaim the Bible is without error, the more glaring the inconsistencies are to outsiders.

You do more harm than good by parroting these false "facts."

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 09 2011,6:32 pm

Another thing. Which version of the Bible do you claim is the one true version? Different versions contain different books and differing translations. How did you decide the one you chose is the correct one and how have so many others been lead astray and chosen the wrong version? Does reading the wrong version make someone less Christian or even not a true Christian?

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 10 2011,2:26 am

(Counterfeit Fake @ Sep. 09 2011,6:29 pm)

QUOTE

Romans repeatedly tells us our understanding is darkened and that our sinful nature prevents us from understanding spiritual things. :angel:

This is why so many have difficulty with Faith and following the path of the Lord.
Further...
you first need to understand that areas of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally...for example, when they speak of Moses as being 900 yrs old it is a way of describing that he is very wise.

Exactly where and what are the errors in the Bible that you stated?
I am very curious to hear your specifics. What are the false facts you describe?

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 10 2011,2:34 am

(Counterfeit Fake @ Sep. 09 2011,6:32 pm)

QUOTE

The Bible contains much figurative language. It communicates its message with use of symbolic figures and actions at times. Many interpret the Bible allegorically :angel:

My problem with what you stated is figuring out your meaning of version and different translations? What is an example?

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 10 2011,7:17 am

For example the New American Standard Bible says this in Genesis 38:8-10

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

And the King James Version says

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 10 2011,9:29 am

(Liberal @ Sep. 10 2011,7:17 am)

QUOTE

Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth as it happened in chronological sequence. Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth creation day - when God created human beings. Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God). For a book that is dedicated to the relationship between humans and God, four verses seems like a rather poor explanation for the creation of God's preeminent creature. This is because Genesis one was never intended to stand apart from Genesis 2 and 3. Genesis 2 describes God's preparation of a specific location on earth (Eden) for habitation by the first human beings. Part of the confusion results from our English translations, which use the term "earth" when the Hebrew would better be translated "land." Read a modified NIV translation of the Genesis 2 account to see how the text should read.

< http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...------- >

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 10 2011,9:35 am

(Counterfeit Fake @ Sep. 09 2011,6:32 pm)

QUOTE

concentrate on The New Testament as that is where you find salvation. the king james will get you to Heaven. God Bless. Jesus did the organizing for His church and whenever men go beyond that pattern (found only in the New Testament of Jesus Christ) they do so at their own peril. One needs to only read the New Testament to see the problem that has been created over the last two centuries within the churches. [ a Christian quote.] The Anchor Holds.

Posted by White Pride on Sep. 10 2011,2:57 pm

The interpretation of the texts is as diverse as vague laws written today, needing a "judge" to tell (you) what it means. The "judges" are merely the different sects of the religious populace.

In a similar comparison, you can find the same "translation" differences in the Nostradamus Quatrains

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 11 2011,9:24 am

(White Pride @ Sep. 10 2011,2:57 pm)

QUOTE

< http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html >

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 11 2011,11:12 am

Santorini. We agree then that certain parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally. But there are many Christians who would say we are not true Christians because we don't. Those are the people I have a problem with. Breeze appears to be one of them.
If you have to take every statement as true and not allegorical, you run into contradictions and errors.
If you really want to know what errors and contradictions I am talking about do a google search for Bible science errors or something similar. There are a lot of sites that list them out and I don't have time to type all of them.
Even Atheist sites are a good source since you can cross check and see if they are lying.
< http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/contradictions.htm >
Here they lay out the contradictions between the two accounts of Genesis:

QUOTE

The order of creation in the first account.

1. Heaven and Earth

2. Light (night and day)

3. Sky

4. Plants

5. Sun, moon, and stars

6. Fish and birds

7. Land animals

8. Man and woman at the same time

The order of creation in the second account

1. Man

2. Plants

3. Birds and land animals

4. Woman

Many like Breeze will try to explain it away. But it is clearly written what was made on which day. If you are one who has to take things literally this becomes a problem. If you are like me and willing to say the Bible is not perfect and has errors and contradictions just like anything Man has done. Man wrote the Bible and has influenced it. Man chose which books were included and which weren't. I believe God tried to influence the men, but mankind has a history of not exactly following what God wants.

I was specifically told that if I did not believe the Old Testament to be word for word true, I could not accept Jesus since he only builds on the foundation of the Old Testament. I decided at that point there were too many Christians who worship the Bible rather than God. The Bible is a guide to God but is NOT the final word or even a true representation of his wishes. Jesus himself made it clear that the Pharisees who put so much value and power into the rules and following the laws were not being true to God and his wishes. Just like those who focus so much on trying to "prove" the Bible is true are worshiping the Bible rather than paying tribute to God and following his true wishes.
That is what I believe and have been much happier in my faith since. Your mileage may vary

Oh, one last thing. Why on Earth do so many accept that the King James Version is the one true version? Read some history on the origins of his version.
< http://bible.org/article...e-today >

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 11 2011,11:41 am

(Liberal @ Sep. 10 2011,7:17 am)

QUOTE

What is your point? The message is clear and the same.
Onan was ordered to create an offspring for his dead brother with his sister-in-law which was customary. He disobeyed.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 11 2011,12:07 pm

Counterfeit Fake,
The King James version of the Bible was written around the 16th century so it is a relatively new Book. Ordered by English King James the First it was written by mostly pure Englishmen with little knowledge of Hebrew so the interpretations vary. The Catholic Bible has been the same for nearly 2000 years and uses the same set of Old Testament books as Jesus and the apostles. It was written over a period of 12 to 13 centuries. Protestant reformers rejected some of the books in the 1500s thus creating their own Protestant Bible. HOWEVER, both describe many of the same stories. If one reads the Bible you will notice like with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John it is basically the same interpretation of events told by each of them in their own words. However, Catholics believe all the books of the New Testament to be divinely inspired. (inspired by God). Basically there has been dispute for centuries which continues to today. The thing is, stories of the Bible are told by those who were witness to said events. And they are communicated in a way that was customary for that time. Using symbols and metaphors was the way to do it back then, so one cannot compare the writings from 2000 years ago to todays way of communicating. The point is that people read the Bible whether Catholic or Protestant...people believe and have Faith regardless of how it is practiced...and that is what is important!

Posted by White Pride on Sep. 11 2011,2:09 pm

"The victor will always be the judge and the vanquished the accused"

What was the dominant religion before Jesus of Nazareth? It wasn't anything close to what we call Christianity today, I can assure you that. In fact, Christianity took many of it's ideals from the former religions, and gave it a new name, a new figurehead, and condemned the former. You can compare it to the change of power in a country, as the history books have documented time and time again. Consider the bible a history book, of sorts. It conquered (but not eliminated) the rival religions and thus cast a negative shadow over it's rivals. the quote "The victor will always be the judge and the vanquished the accused" seems to apply well in this situation, doesn't it!

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 11 2011,9:00 pm

(White Pride @ Sep. 11 2011,2:09 pm)

QUOTE

In Acts of the Apostles 11:26 talks of the term Christians.
[It was in Antioch that the diciples were called Christians for the first time].
At that time Antioch was located in Asia Minor or todays Turkey. When I was in Istambul and visiting some very historic sites where many of the philosophers would speak, like Socrates and Aristotle, I kept thinking that this is where it all began. Remember that Istambul did not exist at the time and the land masses were different, it was all part of old Constantinople. St. Andrew (1 if the 12 apostles) visited this area after being inspired to do so. He laid the foundation for the first Christian Church. So Christianity has been around since about 38AD. Prior to becoming a Christian region, Constantinople had been pagan. Christianity simply means followers of Christ! :angel:

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 11 2011,9:27 pm

(White Pride @ Sep. 11 2011,2:09 pm)

QUOTE

Actually, Judaism can be traced back to Abraham. Judaism and Christianity both consider themselves to be Abrahamic. Most others were pagan beliefs like in the moon, sun, stars etc. because that is all they knew. Christians belief is that the Jewish religion is incomplete. Actually the Bible is more like a diary than a history book. It is actual accounts; witnessed accounts. That is what testament means :angel:

And the much of the New Testament is believed to be Divinely Inspired!

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 11 2011,11:22 pm

(Santorini @ Sep. 11 2011,9:27 pm)

QUOTE

And the much of the New Testament is believed to be Divinely Inspired!

Islam also goes back to Abraham. The Quran says Mohammaed is a descendant of Ishmael. The servant woman's child. Abrahams wife didn't believe the angels when they told them they would have children. She thought she was too old to get pregnant. She tells Abraham to have a child with their servant...hmmm, Abrahams wife didn't have much faith did she! So, Abraham and the servant woman have a son. Him and his wife then have a son. The wife gets all jealous and stupid and makes Abraham send away the servant woman and their child. Supposedly Mohammed was a descendant of that child, and the Quran says THAT is where the covenant with God comes from. The Quran also says that much of the bible was falsified and that christians are misled. It states that Paul, (the guy who hunted down christians and killed them, but then had a visitation from Jesus and became a radical christian himself, and wrote several of the New Testament books) lied to mislead christians. That is why muslims are supposed to memorize the Quran, so that mankind can never be tricked again....tellin ya, the whole thing with all three of these religions sounds like an episode of the Twilight Zone. hmmm, maybe Rod Serling is God!! OR, maybe it's all a test, to see if we can find peace, or if we will tear ourselves apart over which religion is the right one. Anyone from any of these religions can say anything they want about how much faith they have that they are right, they can condemn anyone they don't agree with, argue, fight and kill over who is God's favorite. There is absolutely NO way of knowing which (if any) book is the right one. NONE. All three religions agree that God is all knowing and all powerful. So why not start putting all that faith into God, instead of some book.

Posted by White Pride on Sep. 12 2011,2:25 am

QUOTE

Actually, Judaism can be traced back to Abraham. Judaism and Christianity both consider themselves to be Abrahamic.

I am talking BEFORE this point in time...

QUOTE

Most others were pagan beliefs like in the moon, sun, stars etc. because that is all they knew.

My point EXACTLY!

QUOTE

Christians belief is that the Jewish religion is incomplete.

BINGO! Christians thinking they are better, know more, etc...

QUOTE

Actually the Bible is more like a diary than a history book. It is actual accounts; witnessed accounts. That is what testament means

Actual accounts of moments in time = history. A diary is one person's life in written form. duh

QUOTE

And the much of the New Testament is believed to be Divinely Inspired!

You said it.. "believed to be divinely inspired..." NO PROOF WHAT SO EVER!

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 14 2011,11:15 am

White Pride,

No PROOF that is WAS NOT divinely inspired :angel:

You are simply making a statement based on science and as we all know science is fallable! Science as we all know is based on conjecture and theories.

Posted by White Pride on Sep. 14 2011,11:46 am

(Santorini @ Sep. 14 2011,11:15 am)

QUOTE

White Pride,

No PROOF that is WAS NOT divinely inspired :angel:

You are simply making a statement based on science and as we all know science is fallable! Science as we all know is based on conjecture and theories.

ARE YOU INSANE?

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 14 2011,2:17 pm

Conjecture and theories? You really are screwed up in the head if you think science is fallible but goat herding cave dweller's fairy tales are infallible. :crazy:

Posted by Botto 82 on Sep. 14 2011,5:28 pm

People believe all that Biblical mumbo-jumbo because they feel to not believe is a one-way ticket to Hell. That's it. That's what they've been told by every evangelical they've heard since childhood.

Take away the threat of Hell, and the masses would exit the sanctuary in droves.

No true religion would need to resort to a carrot-and-stick scheme unless there was an ulterior motive at play, something a bit more diabolical than simply "saving everyone."

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 14 2011,5:49 pm

I think it's partially the fear of eternal damnation, and partially the fear of what the neighbors will say if they quit attending church.

Personally I think all Abrahamic religions are a little nutty considering who they're based. One of my earliest memories of church was listening to this story about a crazy guy with a voice in his head telling him to lure his child to an out of the way place and kill the child to prove that he believed in the voice in his head. The only thing that saved the poor kid was some dumb animal stumbled out of the woods and the voice told him to kill that instead.

I remember looking around at all the adults wondering if any of them had a voice in their head telling them to do crazy things like that.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 14 2011,7:40 pm

(Liberal @ Sep. 14 2011,5:49 pm)

QUOTE

I remember looking around at all the adults wondering if any of them had a voice in their head telling them to do crazy things like that.

Yeah, the story of Abraham sacrificing his child was the first thing that ever put doubt in my mind on religion. What sort of "loving" God would do that?

Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 14 2011,11:50 pm

QUOTE

People believe all that Biblical mumbo-jumbo because they feel to not believe is a one-way ticket to Hell.

Then I guess I have myself covered. I've no fear of eternal damnation.

QUOTE

I think it's partially the fear of eternal damnation, and partially the fear of what the neighbors will say if they quit attending church.

There is nothing said that you have to attend church to be a Christian. In fact, attending church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than standing in a garage makes you a mechanic. A "church" is nothing more than a building where believers gather. It's the people in that building that make the church.

I don't have to prove there is a God, but you may take the chance that there isn't.

QUOTE

“Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. -Matt. 10:32-34, 38, 39

As for your ideology of Abraham's sacrifice of his only son Isaac, God was testing Abraham's faith. Pure and simple. As Jesus said, "I do not come in peace, but with a sword." So many of us will be tested. For He also said that before He returns,

QUOTE

"For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

For those who do not believe and those who have allowed Satan to deafened your ears to not hear I want to let you know, all you have to do is listen for he says,

QUOTE

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."

Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 15 2011,1:19 am

(Santorini @ Sep. 14 2011,11:15 am)

QUOTE

No PROOF that is WAS NOT divinely inspired :angel:

I realize many religions, particularly "people of the book" must have a faith that a holy book is divinely inspired. But how do you expect someone to prove a negative?

You can't prove to me that any book is not divinely inspired. It's impossible.

Read this and tell me whether this is fallible or infallible, divinely inspired or not. Do it just from reading the text, forget any bias about religious preference before you answer.

QUOTE

This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).
Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them.
And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.
These are on a right course from their Lord and these it is that shall be successful.
Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.

Santorini-

QUOTE

You are simply making a statement based on science and as we all know science is fallable! Science as we all know is based on conjecture and theories.

Religion is infallible only because it says it is infallible. Science is more than just theories. A theory or hypothesis is just the start. You've said you have a science degree, maybe something in medicine or education. You must realize that science is more than just throwing theories out there.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 15 2011,9:40 am

(White Pride @ Sep. 14 2011,11:46 am)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Sep. 14 2011,11:15 am)

QUOTE

White Pride,

No PROOF that is WAS NOT divinely inspired :angel:

You are simply making a statement based on science and as we all know science is fallable! Science as we all know is based on conjecture and theories.

ARE YOU INSANE?

Quote:
The Principle of Science, the definition, is The test of all knowledge is experiment.
Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth. But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from?
Experiment itself helps to produce these laws, in the sense it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from those hints the great generalizations---to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. There is an expanding frontier of ignorance...things must be learned only to be unlearned again, or more likely corrected.
Theories are just our best explanation of facts.
In science facts refers to observations :thumbsup:

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 15 2011,9:52 am

(Liberal @ Sep. 14 2011,2:17 pm)

QUOTE

Conjecture and theories? You really are screwed up in the head if you think science is fallible but goat herding cave dweller's fairy tales are infallible. :crazy:

Quote: By truth it is meant what is really going on. Truth has to do with ultimate causes which are nearly always elusive and beyond the realm of science. Science deals with theories which predict outcomes of experiements. For example: if we drop a rock off a cliff, the law of gravity combined with theories of air resistance and other forces can be used to calculate just how long it will take to hit the ground and how fast it will go etc. But science does not answer the question just exactly what gravity is, or why things fall. It just states given certain circumstances they will fall. Science answers questions like, how, when, where but NEVER why in the ultimate sense.

In science always replace the word fact with observation, or theory, or truth whichever is intended to convey the intended meaning best.
Remember
If the meaning is obersvation then it is falliable.
If it is theory than it can be disproven someday.
If it is claimed to be truth then it is a statement of personal conviction which is outside the domain of science.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 15 2011,9:56 am

(Botto 82 @ Sep. 14 2011,5:28 pm)

QUOTE

Simple-minded explanation from the simple-minded :angel:

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 15 2011,10:01 am

Irish Eyes,
Why do think doctors refer to their line of work as a
PRACTICE!!!

Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 15 2011,11:16 am

(Santorini @ Sep. 15 2011,10:01 am)

QUOTE

Irish Eyes,
Why do think doctors refer to their line of work as a
PRACTICE!!!

Gee, I don't know why they call it that. :dunce:

QUOTE

v. prac·ticed, prac·tic·ing, prac·tic·es
v.tr.
1. To do or perform habitually or customarily; make a habit of: practices courtesy in social situations.
2. To do or perform (something) repeatedly in order to acquire or polish a skill: practice a dance step.
3. To give lessons or repeated instructions to; drill: practiced the students in handwriting.
4. To work at, especially as a profession: practice law.
5. To carry out in action; observe: practices a religion piously.
< Dictionary - Practice >

Santorini-

QUOTE

In science always replace the word fact with observation, or theory, or truth whichever is intended to convey the intended meaning best.
Remember
If the meaning is obersvation then it is falliable.
If it is theory than it can be disproven someday.
If it is claimed to be truth then it is a statement of personal conviction which is outside the domain of science.

Is it coincidence that your post is identical to what John P. Pratt has on his website?

QUOTE

In popular useage it can mean either "observation," "theory," or "truth." As an example of each, one can say, "it is a fact that every time I have dropped this ball, it fell to the ground." That is what has been observed so far, and the word "fact" can be replaced with "observation." One can also say, "it is a fact that every time I have dropped this ball, gravity pulled it to the ground." Even though this statement appears very similar to the first, "gravity" really refers to a theory proposed to explain why the ball is observed to fall.

This confusion can often be avoided by always replacing the word "fact" with "observation," "theory" or "truth," whichever seems to convey the intended meaning best. Remember that if the meaning is "observation," then it is as fallible as the observer. If it is a "theory," then it also could be disproven someday. If it is claimed to be "truth," then it is a statement of the personal conviction of the speaker, which is outside the domain of science.
< John P. Pratt - Fact or Theory >

Aside from the straw man argument above: "if you insert my words into words you see in the newspaper regarding science, notice how it changes the meaning to something I'll try to refute..." :rofl:

Millennial Science-

QUOTE

The Lord has revealed many truths in the scriptures which can be used as an absolute standard against which scientific theories may be measured. If any theory denies a truth which the Lord has clearly told us, then that theory is not likely to endure through the millennium.
< Millenial Science >

Posted by Stone-Magnon on Sep. 15 2011,2:42 pm

Arguments over whose God is more factual makes you all look like 2000 year old Troglodytes.

No, it's not even over that...it's over 15th century interpretations no less. Give it a rest.

We are all made up of star stuff. Matter cooked up in stars from hydrogen and helium atoms. We were lighter than air and invisible. Reality is such a mind blower and a far better story than your God fairy tales.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 15 2011,11:21 pm

(irisheyes @ Sep. 15 2011,11:16 am)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Sep. 15 2011,10:01 am)

QUOTE

Irish Eyes,
Why do think doctors refer to their line of work as a
PRACTICE!!!

Gee, I don't know why they call it that. :dunce:

QUOTE

Santorini-

QUOTE

Is it coincidence that your post is identical to what John P. Pratt has on his website?

QUOTE

Aside from the straw man argument above: "if you insert my words into words you see in the newspaper regarding science, notice how it changes the meaning to something I'll try to refute..." :rofl:

Millennial Science-

QUOTE

I QUOTED Pratt :dunce:

Check the beginning of my writing!
We are, scratch that, some are conditioned by society that when we hear anything that begins with
Scientists say, that it is undeniably true.
Regarding the Bible and creation there are MANY scientiest that disregard evolution because it is (quote): scientifically bankrupt.
Read: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
it is one of the most powerful presentations of support against evolution :angel:

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 16 2011,8:00 am

QUOTE

As for your ideology of Abraham's sacrifice of his only son Isaac, God was testing Abraham's faith. Pure and simple.

God was testing his faith by having him lie to his son, and plot the murder of his son? Did God also tell him to make his son carry the wood he was going to be murdered on?

What would you kooks do if you had a voice in your head that you believed was God, and that voice was telling you to prove your faith by killing a child?

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 16 2011,8:53 am

(Santorini @ Sep. 15 2011,11:21 pm)

QUOTE

[quote=Santorini,Sep. 15 2011,10:01 am]
Read: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
it is one of the most powerful presentations of support against evolution :angel:

Um, maybe you should read the Second Law a little more closely. The Second law does not apply to evolution or most natural things on Earth. The Second Law refers to closed systems. A closed system is one in which no new energy(heat) is being put into it. The Earth is not a closed system. The sun is constantly adding energy and thus supplying a method for chemicals to react.
While things on Earth do tend toward Entropy, the input of energy from the Sun prevents a balanced state. Look at the water cycle. Put simply, all water wants to go to the oceans. But with the Sun adding energy, water is circulated back over land and the cycle continues. Same with weather, the Sun is ultimately responsible for the variations.

Posted by Stone-Magnon on Sep. 16 2011,10:23 am

Santorini has a 9 year old concept of evolution. The mind of a child trying to explain why science they don't understand is wrong.

Santorini is just a funny clown. It's not something you take seriously and discuss. Her child-like mind can't understand, plain and simple.

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 16 2011,10:40 am

"I felt that I was literally standing on a plateau somewhere out there in space, a plateau that science and technology had allowed me to get to. But now what I was seeing and even more important what I was feeling at that moment in time, science and technology had no answers for. Literally no answers. Because there I was and there you are – there you are, the Earth – dynamic, overwhelming, and I felt that the world was just, there’s too much purpose, too much logic, it was just too beautiful to have happened by accident. There has to be somebody bigger than you and bigger than me, and I mean this in a spiritual sense, not a religious sense, there has to be a creator of the universe who stands above the religions that we ourselves create to govern our lives." [9]

"Looking back to see the Earth in all of its fullness and beauty was like looking out from God’s front porch. It was the one single most vivid memory [of the Apollo missions]. That view brought a new perspective about the world we all share. If we could put everybody on that spot for five minutes, the Earth would be a different place." [10]
< http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_Cernan > believing all the order we see around us is an " accident " that is the fairytale.

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 16 2011,11:32 am

Are you trying to say that an astronaut is an authority on religion? Is it because you think he's been closer to heaven?

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 16 2011,7:59 pm

(Counterfeit Fake @ Sep. 16 2011,8:53 am)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Sep. 15 2011,11:21 pm)

QUOTE

[quote=Santorini,Sep. 15 2011,10:01 am]
Read: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
it is one of the most powerful presentations of support against evolution :angel:

Um, maybe you should read the Second Law a little more closely!
The Second Law DOES apply to Earth and most natural things...AND the Universe!
There are THREE systems...NOT just the closed system.
:angel:

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 16 2011,8:02 pm

(Stone-Magnon @ Sep. 16 2011,10:23 am)

QUOTE

Cannot argue with the facts, hey stone!
Only thing you can do is attack the person since you have no other ammo! :rofl:

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 16 2011,8:14 pm

(Liberal @ Sep. 16 2011,11:32 am)

QUOTE

Are you trying to say that an astronaut is an authority on religion? Is it because you think he's been closer to heaven?

aw, but the astronaut had a much better perspective of the universe than you...so yea, that could make him an expert since it makes him a witness :angel:

Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 16 2011,10:21 pm

(Santorini @ Sep. 15 2011,11:21 pm)

QUOTE

I QUOTED Pratt :dunce:

Check the beginning of my writing!

No, I quoted Pratt. You had "Quote:" at the beginning of a two paragraph post with no end quote, no source, etc.

Why is it okay to believe whatever a Christian says regarding intelligent design or creationism with not proof or evidence, but than mock everyone else for being fooled by scientists?

QUOTE

We are, scratch that, some are conditioned by society that when we hear anything that begins with
Scientists say, that it is undeniably true.

No, I'd prefer to think for myself. I know that water boils and freezes at certain temperatures because I can prove it in my kitchen. If a scientist tells me otherwise I'll know he's either joking, has an IQ below room temperature, or he was educated in Dayton, Tennessee.

Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 16 2011,10:37 pm

(Santorini @ Sep. 10 2011,2:26 am)

QUOTE

Romans repeatedly tells us our understanding is darkened and that our sinful nature prevents us from understanding spiritual things. :angel:

This is why so many have difficulty with Faith and following the path of the Lord.

If Paul says that we can't understand spiritual things, than how would you or him know that you were in the right religion at all?

I haven't been a big fan of Paul's letter to the Romans ever since I read the first chapter. You gotta figure a lot of gays have been killed or discriminated against because of those words.

Posted by busybee on Sep. 16 2011,11:57 pm

the breeze

Posted on: Sep. 09 2011,9:17 am

QUOTE

I think it should also be stressed that the Bible was written by "40 or more different men who were only human beings." Unless they were all men without fault, the Bible is not a "perfect unity" and "consistent throughout."

QUOTE

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of explanation by chance or collusion.

The Bible will forever be based upon individual interpretations.

QUOTE

The one consistent theme of the Bible, developing in grandeur from Genesis to Revelation, is God's great work in the creation and redemption of all things, through His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ

Have you ever thought that maybe God's message hasn't ever been the "redemption of all things" because Jesus was murdered?

Posted by busybee on Sep. 17 2011,12:52 am

Santorini

Posted on: Sep. 10 2011,2:26 am

QUOTE

Romans repeatedly tells us our understanding is darkened and that our sinful nature prevents us from understanding spiritual things. This is why so many have difficulty with Faith and following the path of the Lord.

Not everyone's understanding is darkened, nor is everyone "sinful" by nature.

How do you know that so many people have difficulty with Faith and following the path of the Lord?

Maybe the Lord picked their path to be different than the one you believe the Lord is telling them to walk on?

Posted by busybee on Sep. 17 2011,1:06 am

Botto 82

Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,5:28 pm

QUOTE

Not everyone wants to be "saved" nor can they be "saved" either. lol

Posted by busybee on Sep. 17 2011,1:20 am

Liberal
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,5:49 pm

QUOTE

I think it's partially the fear of eternal damnation, and partially the fear of what the neighbors will say if they quit attending church.

And...I say...who cares what the neighbors think and if I have to read the Bible and go to church to every week to save myself from being damned to hell...I'm going to take my chances with my God who hasn't told me I have to publically display my Faith in either way to "save" myself.

QUOTE

Personally I think all Abrahamic religions are a little nutty considering who they're based. One of my earliest memories of church was listening to this story about a crazy guy with a voice in his head telling him to lure his child to an out of the way place and kill the child to prove that he believed in the voice in his head. The only thing that saved the poor kid was some dumb animal stumbled out of the woods and the voice told him to kill that instead.

I remember looking around at all the adults wondering if any of them had a voice in their head telling them to do crazy things like that.

I remember the same types of stories...scary stuff when you're a little kid wondering if God or the Devil controls the minds of the adults around you.

Posted by busybee on Sep. 17 2011,1:50 am

Maddog
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,11:50 pm

QUOTE

Then I guess I have myself covered. I've no fear of eternal damnation.

I don't fear that either! :clap:

QUOTE

Agree with you 100%!!

QUOTE

I don't have to prove there is a God, but you may take the chance that there isn't.

“Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. -Matt. 10:32-34, 38, 39

As for your ideology of Abraham's sacrifice of his only son Isaac, God was testing Abraham's faith. Pure and simple. As Jesus said, "I do not come in peace, but with a sword." So many of us will be tested. For He also said that before He returns,

"For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

For those who do not believe and those who have allowed Satan to deafened your ears to not hear I want to let you know, all you have to do is listen for he says,

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."

In everything you just scripturized...If there is a God...it seems God is ONLY looking for those person's who give to others unconditionally and who are STRONG ENOUGH to ENDURE being "good" in spite of the wrongs and on-going threat of punishment pursued by others against them beause they don't see the basic difference betwen right and wrong.

Posted by busybee on Sep. 17 2011,2:44 am

Liberal
Posted on: Sep. 16 2011,8:00 am

QUOTE

Love this Liberal!!

I don't believe that God ever intended for the"message" to be,,,"I'll make sure my PEFECT CHILD is shunned, humiliated, outcasted and responsible for His own Murder just so everyone on Earth can do whatever they want to do without worrying about how sinful it is as it affects others who are INNOCENT of being punished like Jesus.

Maybe God wanted us to learn the difference between good and bad, honesty and lies, purity and evil instead?

Maybe God is expetcing people to take a STAND against wrongdoing, instead of excusing the lies, deceipt and harmful wrong-doing committed upon others because He couldn't STOP the PUNISHMENT OF DEATH Jesus was forced to endure and sacrifice becuase NO ONE wanted to hear or accept Jesus, even though he did NOTHING
WRONG to another person.

Religions have used the cruicifiction of Jesus as God's promise to forgive everyone of their mistakes...whether intentional or not...whether the person admits or is accountale for wrongdoing or not.

Seems like a warped concept to me...but what do I know??? lol

Posted by White Pride on Sep. 17 2011,3:57 am

"everything man-made has 'human error' built right into it" INCLUDING the bible!

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 17 2011,8:08 am

(the breeze @ Sep. 16 2011,10:40 am)

QUOTE

There has to be somebody bigger than you and bigger than me, and I mean this in a spiritual sense, not a religious sense, there has to be a creator of the universe who stands above the religions that we ourselves create to govern our lives." [9]

"Looking back to see the Earth in all of its fullness and beauty was like looking out from God’s front porch. It was the one single most vivid memory [of the Apollo missions]. That view brought a new perspective about the world we all share. If we could put everybody on that spot for five minutes, the Earth would be a different place." [10]

He said, there has to be a creator WHO STANDS ABOVE THE RELIGIONS THAT WE OURSELVES CREATE. That is my point exactly. If there is a God, and if He is anything like those three Abrahamic religions say He is-All knowing and all powerful, then He is so much more than could be in any book written by mere people. As many of us have said here in this forum, mortal men wrote those books. Over and over again, way too many believers of these three religions, put all their faith into the books instead of putting faith in God. Try thinking outside the books. It's ok to look at things differently, and at least just consider that perhaps you have been misled. Blind faith in ANYTHING, is a bad idea. I love Jesus. The only thing out of the whole bible that I actually trust, are his teachings of love, peace and understanding. Those are the only things that can't be argued against. They speak to the heart as being true and right. I don't think Jesus came here to give believers a free ticket to heaven. I think he came here to teach us the right way to live.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 17 2011,8:11 am

Wow White Pride, 4:00 in the morning?!! I wonder if it was a really late night, or a really early morning. Get some sleep!

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 17 2011,9:08 am

(Liberal @ Sep. 16 2011,11:32 am)

QUOTE

Are you trying to say that an astronaut is an authority on religion? Is it because you think he's been closer to heaven?

i am saying if you believe all the order of the universe that you can see around you is a accident you believe a fairytale.

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 17 2011,9:16 am

(the breeze @ Sep. 17 2011,9:08 am)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Sep. 16 2011,11:32 am)

QUOTE

Are you trying to say that an astronaut is an authority on religion? Is it because you think he's been closer to heaven?

i am saying if you believe all the order of the universe that you can see around you is a accident you believe a fairytale.

The basic forces of matter and the universe are astounding. They could not have come into existence by accident. There are several basic forces in nature which would destroy the universe—or not let it form—were it not for the delicate balance within each of them. Here is scientific evidence. Evolutionary theory is a myth; creation science is correct. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts

Posted by Stone-Magnon on Sep. 17 2011,10:06 am

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 17 2011,10:16 am

I love Archie. Silly cranky ole man.

Posted by White Pride on Sep. 17 2011,10:40 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Sep. 17 2011,8:11 am)

QUOTE

Wow White Pride, 4:00 in the morning?!! I wonder if it was a really late night, or a really early morning. Get some sleep!

it was early, had to work today (although a nap does sound wonderful right about now)

Posted by Botto 82 on Sep. 17 2011,12:09 pm

(Liberal @ Sep. 16 2011,8:00 am)

QUOTE

We know what these holier-than-thou types would do. See: 9/11/01.

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 17 2011,1:35 pm

(Santorini @ Sep. 16 2011,7:59 pm)

QUOTE

(Counterfeit Fake @ Sep. 16 2011,8:53 am)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Sep. 15 2011,11:21 pm)

QUOTE

[quote=Santorini,Sep. 15 2011,10:01 am]
Read: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
it is one of the most powerful presentations of support against evolution :angel:

You have yet to explain how the 2nd law proves evolution wrong. The 2nd Law has zero to do with evolution or life. The Earth is an open system that takes in energy. Taking in energy allows for increased order/complexity in chemical processes. The 2nd law proves the impossibility of perpetual motion machines but has nothing to do with life and how it changes over time.

Posted by busybee on Sep. 17 2011,11:34 pm

White Pride · Posted on Sep. 17 2011,3:57 am

QUOTE

"everything man-made has 'human error' built right into it" INCLUDING the bible!

Exactly!

The Bible is a man-made retelling of adult human beings interpretations and conclusions about what they believed they saw, heard, witnessed, ect...

If one believes in God as the creator of all people, one also has to acknowledge that God did not make everyone exactly the same in any way, shape or form.

Thus, that means to me that God didn't create 40 or so men who wrote parts of the Bible to be equally the same either. One or some of them wrote with honesty and for unselfish reasons and one or some of them wrote with lies and selfishness.

The whole concept that all believers in God must also have an unconditional trust in the Bible isn't something I think my God is expecting of me.

Some things don't make sense to me that I have been told to believe according to organized religions based upon the Bible's scriptures.

For example, some believe the Bible and God demands baptism of a newborn child who is unhealthy and at risk of dying, ASAP because if this isn't done before they die, they will go to Hell instead of Heaven because everyone is "born a sinner."

I'd like someone to explain to me what sins a sick and dying newborn could possible commit to justify a ceremony of baptism to guarantee them a spot in Heaven?

:dunno

Posted by busybee on Sep. 18 2011,12:25 am

the breeze · Posted on Sep. 17 2011,9:08 am

QUOTE

i am saying if you believe all the order of the universe that you can see around you is a accident you believe a fairytale.

Hmmm...

I guess I didn't get the impression that Liberal challenged you the way you believe he did.

My impression is that Liberal is challenging you to explain why you believe you get to judge anyone else's level of faith in their God based upon what you read and interpret in the Bible and because of your faith in your God.

I'm honestly curious...do you believe that everything "bad" that happens in this world is created by people who don't read and interpret the Bible the way you do?

I'm also honestly curious to know if you believe that every person who does wrong, can be "cured" by accepting your God into their life and by reading the Bible?

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 18 2011,9:43 am

(busybee @ Sep. 18 2011,12:25 am)

QUOTE

the breeze · Posted on Sep. 17 2011,9:08 am

QUOTE

i am saying if you believe all the order of the universe that you can see around you is a accident you believe a fairytale.

"""My impression is that Liberal is challenging you to explain why you believe you get to judge anyone else's level of faith in their God based upon what you read and interpret in the Bible and because of your faith in your God. """

hard to dicuss God unless i use what i read in the Bible' """" I'm honestly curious...do you believe that everything "bad" that happens in this world is created by people who don't read and interpret the Bible the way you do?

I'm also honestly curious to know if you believe that every person who does wrong, can be "cured" by accepting your God into their life and by reading the Bible? """""" no and no.

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 18 2011,9:49 am

(busybee @ Sep. 17 2011,11:34 pm)

QUOTE

White Pride · Posted on Sep. 17 2011,3:57 am

QUOTE

"everything man-made has 'human error' built right into it" INCLUDING the bible!

INFANT BAPTISM
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
X

TO AN OBSERVANT STUDENT and one who believes the Scriptures, infant baptism doesn’t make sense. The New Testament teaches that faith and repentance must precede and accompany baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:35-37; Acts 2:38). It teaches that baptism (immersion in water, Acts 8:38,39; Romans 6:4) is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). An infant is eliminated as a "candidate" for baptism because infants are not capable of believing. Infants are eliminated as "candidates" for baptism inasmuch as they do not have the capacity to repent, not having the awareness nor guilt of sin to repent of (repentance is a change of heart, a change of mind). Consequently, in the light of these considerations, they are eliminated as proper subjects for baptism. Baptism is for the remission of sins. Infants are sinless, they are innocent, and there is no discernment of sin and consequently no guilt (and thus they are not accountable). So, how could an infant be baptized for the "remission of sins." There are none to be remitted. They belong to God until they come to that age of accountability. Do you remember what Jesus said? "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14). He also said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:4).
X
Infant baptism was introduced in a less enlightened age removed from the days of the early church by superstitious men who believed that through birth we inherit the guilt of the sin of Adam. Although an infant doesn’t have the capability (nor capacity) to believe and repent, nor the need to be baptized, these errant teachers thought baptism would somehow rectify the supposed, but nonexistent, problem. However, infants and little children are not accountable to God. They already belong to God, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven." The Scriptures say that Jesus would "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21), not Adam’s sin. Men were told to "repent…and be converted that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19), not Adam’s sin. Ezekiel 18:20 reads, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." To say that we inherited Adam’s sin would make our Lord a sinner since on the human side his genealogy goes all the way back to Adam (Luke 3:23-38).
X

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 18 2011,10:37 am

Well breeze you're moving beyond cut and past, bravo, and you've proclaimed yourself a Baptist...

Posted by busybee on Sep. 18 2011,12:03 pm

Thanks Breeze for answering me respectfuly about the issue of Baptism of infants.

You quoted a Bible scripture that says that Baptism is for those of the age of accountabilty.

I can think of several adults who were baptised as infants...yet they still have not reached a maturity age of being accountable for their sinful choices.

I can also think of children and adults who were baptised at an age of what I would consider to be of their knowing the difference between what is sinful and what isn't...

My question is, how does anyone in an organized religion/church fellowship and following KNOW the difference between a liar who is Baptised and one who is baptised with honesty?

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 18 2011,12:43 pm

BusyBee,
My Faiths belief is that infants will not go to hell if not baptized as you stated...since infants are incapable of committing actual sin, however, since we are all born with Original Sin the purpose of baptism is the Sacramental washing (cleansing) of the soul.
Infants do not place any personal obstacle in the way of redemptive Grace. God can therefore give the Grace of Baptism without the Sacrament being conferred, and this fact should particularly be recalled when conferring of Baptism would be impossible.
Since we are all just mere men no one really knows for certain what happens which is why it is so important to baptize as infants.
Many churches have come to understand a loving and forgiving God vs the old teachings.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 18 2011,1:10 pm

(busybee @ Sep. 18 2011,12:03 pm)

QUOTE

Thanks Breeze for answering me respectfuly about the issue of Baptism of infants.

BusyBee,
As stated we are all born with Original Sin. This is inherited, actual sin is not. There is an age of reason typically around age 7 (not an absolute) where we become morally responsible for our actions, thoughts etc. By this age most have an understanding of the difference between right and wrong. Their conscience should be their moral guide. This is where actual sin comes into play. Even a child is aware that deliberately lying is wrong but they do it anyway. At Baptism our parents with the aid of sponsors choose this course for us as infants and agree to raise us in that Faith, it is through Confirmation that we, ourselves, confirm our Faith...it completes the Sacrament of Baptism.
Many choose to deliberately make sinful choices.
Sometimes because it is socially popular and acceptable, other times because its easier for us and we hope to avoid consequences. Nonetheless, whether we are baptized or not we are responsible for our choices. And there is an age where we become aware of right and wrong whether baptized or not and we alone choose which path.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 18 2011,1:54 pm

(Counterfeit Fake @ Sep. 17 2011,1:35 pm)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Sep. 16 2011,7:59 pm)

QUOTE

(Counterfeit Fake @ Sep. 16 2011,8:53 am)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Sep. 15 2011,11:21 pm)

QUOTE

[quote=Santorini,Sep. 15 2011,10:01 am]
Read: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
it is one of the most powerful presentations of support against evolution :angel:

(since my quotes do not work on my keyboard...)
QUOTE:
Chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials, they do not ultimately become more complex.
Evolution requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus over eons of time, billions of things are suppose to have developed upward becoming more orderly and complex. HOWEVER, the basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run complex, ordered arrangments actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work in the universe. Evolution with its ever increasing order and complexity appears impossible in the natural world. Tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include biological and geological processes, as well as, chemical and physical processes. How does a real biological process which goes from order to disorder result in evolution which goes from disorder to order?
Everything deterriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself, and that is what the 2nd Law is all about :angel:

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 18 2011,2:38 pm

(Expatriate @ Sep. 18 2011,10:37 am)

QUOTE

Well breeze you're moving beyond cut and past, bravo, and you've proclaimed yourself a Baptist...

i proclaim to be a Christian.

Posted by busybee on Sep. 18 2011,10:04 pm

Santorini · Posted on Sep. 18 2011,12:43 pm

QUOTE

BusyBee,
My Faiths belief is that infants will not go to hell if not baptized as you stated...since infants are incapable of committing actual sin, however, since we are all born with Original Sin the purpose of baptism is the Sacramental washing (cleansing) of the soul.

Do you think everyone is born with a soul?

QUOTE

Infants do not place any personal obstacle in the way of redemptive Grace. God can therefore give the Grace of Baptism without the Sacrament being conferred, and this fact should particularly be recalled when conferring of Baptism would be impossible.
Since we are all just mere men no one really knows for certain what happens which is why it is so important to baptize as infants.

So, Baptism is based upon an assumption that all children are born with a soul and it's a"sinful" soul?

QUOTE

Many churches have come to understand a loving and forgiving God vs the old teachings.

Yea, I recognize that.

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 19 2011,9:20 am

Santorini, let's try this again. You are over simplifying the Second Law. Or at least painting everything with the same wide brush.

QUOTE

Open, Closed and Isolated

If anything can pass into, or out of, a system, we say it is an open system. If only matter can pass into, or out of, a system, but not energy, then we call it a closed system. If neither matter nor energy can pass into, or out of, a system, then we call it an isolated system.

We have a definition of the 2nd law from our previous chapter, a standard definition from standard thermodynamics.

Processes in which the entropy of an isolated system would decrease do not occur, or, in every process taking place in an isolated system, the entropy of the system either increases or remains constant

The definition explicitly requires the system in question to be isolated. This is a non trivial observation. If the system were not isolated, then entropy could pour out over the boundary, and the entropy decrease instead of increase.

Hint: Remember entropy means heat/energy balance. So, in a non-isolated system energy/heat can actually increase.

Chemicals combine in many "natural" ways all the time to produce more complex chemical compounds. Read about combination reactions. Two chemicals react and create a more complex compound. This happens all the time and most only require the minimal energy already being supplied by our very own sun.
You are correct that the universe is a closed/isolated system and will ultimately have an even distribution of energy/heat. But individual components within the universe are still putting out energy(open systems). Stars convert basic elements into larger ones as they are used in their fusion reactions.
< http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSystem/SolarSystemFormation.asp >

Biological processes by their very nature are not closed systems. Life can only exist if there is an input of energy. Once you have an input of energy the Second Law as you described it does not apply. The definition you gave only applies to closed/isolated systems.
Plants take in the energy of the sun through chemical reactions and convert that energy into sugars. That energy is then taken in by animals who convert the sugars (again through chemical reactions) into useable energy. That energy initially provided by the sun is redistributed over and over throughout life. As long as there is energy available, change in an upward fashion is possible. That is basic physics.
Once the very first self replicating molecule formed it went outside the realm of a closed system.

In the long run, everything does break down. But that is in the absence of energy input. If energy is being input into a system, things can stabilize or even increase in complexity. Until every star burns out there will still be energy available in the universe for more complex chemical reactions. Thus, the Universe is a closed system that has open systems contained with in.

Just as we each get older as a being (universe), we have cells (stars) in our bodies that are brand new and able to carry on higher functions. The universe is moving towards a steady heat distribution but individual stars are creating order and complexity.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 19 2011,10:29 pm

Counterfeit Fake,
It is very interesting that most evolutionists attempt to dispute The 2nd Law!! Remember first that evolution is only a theory!

QUOTE:
open systems/ closed systems
Open thermodynamic systems exchange heat, light, or matter with their surroundings--closed systems do not.No outside energy flows into a closed system. Earth is an open system; it receives energy from the Sun.
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain the 2nd Law does not prevent evolution on Earth since the planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Suns energy helped create the life on our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?
Compare a living plant with a dead one. A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Suns energy to temporarily increase its order and grow, and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers--all beginning from a single seed. IF there is actually a powerful evolutionary force at work in the universe AND if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Suns energy not make a dead plant alive again? (assuming sufficient supply of water, light and the like)?
What ACTUALLY happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun is that the interanal organization in the plant decreased; it tends to decay, break apart into its simpliest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization (entropy) process! :angel:

Posted by busybee on Sep. 19 2011,11:18 pm

Wait minute here...?

Is everyone born with a soul? A conscience?

Is it possible that since God created everyone differently that some people were never born to "care" if they go to Heaven or Hell?

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 20 2011,8:34 am

I am not disputing the second law. I am trying to educate you in the proper use and definition of it. I could care less what you believe. But don't misrepresent a scientific law and twist it to mean something it doesn't.
I never said entropy doesn't happen at all in an open system. Just that on the grand scale of things, in an open system order and complexity can and does increase. An individual plant dies and decays. That does not mean all plants die at the same time. Before the plant died it grew and captured energy. That energy is released when it died and then used by other organisms.
You are painting things with the wide brush again. You are focused on the individual versus taking in the big picture. A plant dies but plant life continues on and grows. From one plant many more can grow, regardless of what happened to the original plant.
Could you PLEASE actually read and learn how chemistry works. Read about endothermic reactions. They require heat to create more complex compounds. The sun, steam vents, or lightning for instance may have provided that heat. Also read about exothermic reactions that give off heat when they decompose. Both can happen at the same time. One compound can decay and in the process help another more complex compound to form. Get it? Read about synthesis reactions. By its very definition it is the creation of more complex compounds from simpler ones. Are you saying that basic chemistry also defies the second law? Or just evolution? They both work on the same principles.
Chemical reactions are affected by many things. The concentration of the available chemicals, the presence of any catalysts (help speed up reactions by sort of gathering the proper chemicals close together) and heat (more heat the more active the atoms and the more likely they are to bump into each other). There are more but that gives a simple overview. Basically, as long as there is an input of energy, the possibility is there to counteract the process of entropy. Entropy still happens but the energy input overcomes the effect having an increase in order or complexity overall.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 21 2011,9:39 pm

(busybee @ Sep. 19 2011,11:18 pm)

QUOTE

Wait minute here...?

Is everyone born with a soul? A conscience?

Is it possible that since God created everyone differently that some people were never born to "care" if they go to Heaven or Hell?

Busy Bee,
yes, I believe everyone is born with a soul. Further, I believe we are united with our soul from the moment of conception. Our soul can be described as our [essence, or our spirit, in some ways our guide]. Whether our soul remains pure or is tainted with sin is up to us and our choices.
You said, whether a question or a statement, since God created everyone differently were some people born not to care if they go to Heaven or Hell.
That is basically the same question that has plagued the phychological world--are children born bad? OR are bad children a product of their environment?
NO I do not believe people are born not to care per se...
however, there are many factors that could be involved here. For example, did a person at some point suffer with [mental] issues? Dillusional etc. or other phychological or psychosocial disorders that would impair their thought process and impair their judgement or decision making? What other crisis did a person suffer whether as a child or adult that could impair their judgement? Actually there could be a plethora of reasons why a person would choose a sinful path.
But essentially we are all products of our environment and exposures.
And definitely we all have a conscience. Again, are there situations that impair our good judgement? Life is full of choices. It is up to us to make our own choices and suffer the consequences for the wrong :angel:

ones

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 21 2011,9:48 pm

Countefeit Fake,
Please...spare me the Physics and Chemistry lessons!
and DONT make me dig out my old books and notes!
We can continue to spar over the 2nd Law indefinitely and will not come to an agreement. As a Creationist I believe the 2nd Law undoubtedly disputes the THEORY of Evolution as stated by my aforementioned presentations of support. I believe you to be an evolutionist...and most evolutionists fight tooth and nail attempting to prove the 2nd Law does NOT apply.
I think you are wrong!
You think I am.
There...we agree to disagree :angel:

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 22 2011,8:21 am

I agree we will never come to an agreement. However. I was not arguing from an evolution standpoint at all. Just a basic chemistry standpoint. You incorrectly define and apply the second law. That is all.
I am an evolutionist in that I believe God uses his natural tools and laws to do things. He uses gravity, weather , DNA all to accomplish his vision. He could just as easily have set up the world to work in magical or non-ordered ways. The beauty of his work is that it works "under the radar." He works through nature. Rainbows don't magically appear in the sky. They have scientific reasons to exist. That doesn't diminish the beauty and the awe inspiring sight they are. For me, life is the same way. God uses scientifically evident ways to create life. Doesn't diminish the importance of man in his vision. Back to the original post, lying about how science proves something from the Bible when it clearly doesn't is not a very Christian thing to do in my opinion. Lying for God is still lying. It also leads people away from God. When I see people flat out lie or twist the truth to try and convince someone to believe it makes me sad. Someone who doesn't believe can see through the lies and it just re-enforces their belief that Faith in God is built on a foundation of lies and superstition. I personally would rather the Creationist crowd just stand firm on their belief and treat it as it truly is. Faith without evidence and a religious belief rather than a scientific one. trying to prove it by twisting or lying only degrades its validity.
I have more respect for someone who believes in God in the absence of proof than someone who claims science backs them up when it clearly doesn't (Intelligent Design crowd are the worst of the lot. They don't even stand firm that they refer to God. They are the snake oil salesmen of the Christian world. ). As I said, I don't care what you believe just don't represent a scientific law or theory to mean something it doesn't. If you want to use the Second law as an argument, then you should actually understand what the true definition is and how it is applied.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 23 2011,10:43 am

Counterfeit Fake,
Okay...now I am really confused :angel:

Science lying about something in the Bible...
WHAT???
Actually, it is Science that is catching up to the Bible :thumbsup:

There are references over and over in the Bible to Astronomy, Earth Science, Biology, etc. even...dinosaurs!
and guess what..
despite popular belief there are even references in the Bible that the earth is and always was...a sphere!
What is the lying you are referring to?? :angel:

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 23 2011,11:15 am

QUOTE

Actually, it is Science that is catching up to the Bible :thumbsup:

Galileo would disagree. :doh:

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 24 2011,9:43 am

Sorry, I was referring to Christians lying about what science is to be found in the Bible. The Bible is a good source of morality if you stick to the New Testament but bad science no matter where you look. Yes, the Bible does reference a lot of scientific ideas. Some it has right and others are plain wrong. For every scientific idea you claim the Bible has right, I can probably find one it has wrong. That doesn't reduce the usefulness of the Bible. Just as a hammer doesn't work well for turning screws doesn't mean it is useless. The Bible is meant as a spiritual guide not a science text.
I would be interested in your claim the Bible references dinosaurs. Most Bible scholars believe the Behemoth references a Hippopotamus or elephant. The Leviathan is usually suspected to be a crocodile. We know ancient people had contact with these creatures. But we have no evidence to suggest man and dinosaurs existed at the same time. Therefore it is stretching things a bit to suggest dinosaurs when a living animal will do.
I take it you are a young earth creationist. What do you say to old earth creationists about their belief? Why is your belief better than theirs when theirs fits better with what science shows?

Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 24 2011,7:07 pm

Try reading Job 40 and 41.

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 24 2011,11:45 pm

I'm pretty sure that was addressed.

QUOTE

Most Bible scholars believe the Behemoth references a Hippopotamus or elephant. The Leviathan is usually suspected to be a crocodile. We know ancient people had contact with these creatures. But we have no evidence to suggest man and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

Are you just being argumentative or do you really believe in Jesus horses?

Posted by White Pride on Sep. 25 2011,2:18 am

QUOTE

Are you SURE about this? Prove me wrong, but I call B.S.!

Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Sep. 25 2011,9:36 am

(Liberal @ Sep. 24 2011,11:45 pm)

QUOTE

I'm pretty sure that was addressed.

QUOTE

Are you just being argumentative or do you really believe in Jesus horses?

Hm, I thought that I was being clear. Guess not. I meant we know people have had contact with elephants, hippos and crocodiles. Therefore it makes logical sense that they were writing about them versus dinosaurs which we have zero evidence of existing at the same time as man.
Modern animals with man, yes. Dinosaurs no.

Maddog, Why do you assume they mean dinosaurs in Job versus a elephant, hippo, or crocodile or just plain imaginary beast? Neither of those passages are accurate descriptions of any animal, living or dead. There are parts that are clearly fantasy. Unless for instance, you believe that dinosaurs were able to spit fire? As with many things in the Bible I believe these passages were meant as metaphors for strength of faith. Using imagery of a powerful creature similar to ones they are familiar with. Just as if you describe a dragon to any child they know what you mean even though there are no dragons. That doesn't change the power of the image.

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 25 2011,9:38 am

(Counterfeit Fake @ Sep. 25 2011,9:36 am)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Sep. 24 2011,11:45 pm)

QUOTE

I'm pretty sure that was addressed.

QUOTE

Are you just being argumentative or do you really believe in Jesus horses?

sorry, this was meant for "white pride"
The Bible does not teach that the earth is flat. The flat-earth idea is a relatively recent invention that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, according to a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara.

Professor Jeffrey Burton Russell said in his book Inventing the Flat Earth, first released in the early 1990s, that up until the time of Columbus “nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical”. Professor Russell said he believes that the flat-earth myth can largely be traced back to a story by Washington Irving, which relates a mythical account of Columbus defending a round earth against bigoted, misinformed clergy and university professors.

He said there is nothing in the documents from Christopher Columbus's time or in early accounts of Columbus's life that suggests any debate over the shape of the earth. He said the flat-earth myth flourished between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. It seemed an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science.

Another source for the myth
We believe that another source for the myth was Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. In this satire of courts and politicians, Swift wrote:

They bury their dead with their hands directly downwards, because they hold an opinion, that in eleven thousand moons they are all to rise again, in which period the earth (which they conceive to be flat) will turn upside down …
The Bible actually teaches a spherical shape for the earth. In Isaiah 40:22 God is said to sit above “the circle of the earth” (the Hebrew word for circle can also mean a sphere). Also, in Luke 17:34–36 Christ's Second Coming is portrayed as occurring while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities — which means a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

What did the ancients believe?
American writer Thomas Bullfinch (1796–1867) said in the Introduction of his book Age of Fable that “The Greeks believed the earth to be flat and circular …”.

Yet when we check Bullfinch's statement with ancient Greek writings we find that his claim was not true of some of the greatest Greek thinkers, such as Aristotle and Socrates. The brilliant fourth century BC Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote in Book II, chapter 14 of his work Heavens (350 BC):

Of the position of the earth and of the manner of its rest or movement, our discussion may here end. Its shape must necessarily be spherical.
Aristotle, Augustine, and others
Aristotle reiterated this in his Meteorology, and gave reasons and calculations to show that the stars and the heavens are also spherical. “… the horizon always changes with a change in our position,” he wrote, “which proves that the earth is convex and spherical.”

Likewise, we find problems with a statement in W. Somerset Maugham's book, Of Human Bondage. In a conversation between Weeks and Philip in Maugham's book, we find this comment:

St. Augustine believed that the earth was flat and that the sun turned round it.
That's what Maugham wrote. But did Saint Augustine believe the earth was flat?

Augustine (AD 354–430) was one of the most prominent of the early church fathers. When we turn to Augustine's 22-volume treatise, The City of God (De Civitate Dei), we find that he didn't believe the earth to be flat at all. Maugham was wrong. Augustine did have problems accepting that there were populated lands on the other side of the earth — not a weird belief at all for the time, because Australia and New Zealand, for instance, were not known to exist — but he acknowledged that a spherical earth seemed to have been scientifically demonstrated.

Augustine wrote:

… although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.
Other ancient accounts
Plato, a contemporary of Aristotle and disciple of Socrates, quoted Socrates as saying: “my conviction is that the earth is a round body in the center of the heavens” (Phaedo, 380 BC).

The Roman poet Ovid (43 BC–AD 17) wrote in AD 8 that God “moulded Earth into a spacious round” (Metamorphoses, Book the First, The Creation of the World).

Roman philosopher Plotinus (204–270) wrote in his Six Enneads (Eighth Tractate, On the Intellectual Beauty, section 7): “it is possible to give a reason why the earth is set in the midst and why it is round …”.

Flat-earth myth flourished in recent times
There might have been debate about a flat earth among some of the ancients, but from our own research of over 5000 books from ancient times we have to say that Professor Russell seems to be correct when he says the flat-earth myth flourished only recently. Claims that people used to believe that the earth is flat are mostly in modern writings. Charles Darwin made the claim in his Voyage of the Beagle, Rudyard Kipling used the idea in Kim, Arthur Conan Doyle used it in Lost World, and other writers of recent centuries have also used it (such as Thomas Paine, and Swift, Bullfinch and Maugham whom we quoted earlier). All are recent writings.

Compounding their misinformation, some evolutionists claim that creationists are “flat-earthers” or are equivalent to the “flat-earth society”. An evolutionist website says there was supposedly a man in California named Charles Johnson who ran a Flat Earth Society. But even if this is genuine, the writings of his they reproduce are quite irrational. Even though the writings mention belief in a Creator, they end by saying “In 30AD JC said …”, revealing a non-Christian disrespect for Jesus (non-Christians refer to Jesus Christ as “JC”, but Christians don't). To imply that creationists are flat-earthers linked to Johnson or his ideas is mischievous at best, but more likely simply dishonest. It is easier to find a link between evolutionists and astrologers.

As we have demonstrated, a look at some of the ancient writings themselves, including the Bible, leads us to believe that informed opinion among the ancients was that the earth was not flat, but was round or spherical.

And if some of the ancients did believe in a flat earth, it certainly was not an idea that got into the Bible. The Bible, as the Word of God, teaches the correct shape of the earth.

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 25 2011,10:01 am

QUOTE

Logical sense? Nobody that believes in Jesus horses has any sense.

It's not like it's just one group of scientists that believe the Earth is around 15 billion years old. It's all scientists in every branch of science that has proven it over and over again.

The craziest thing to me is that they think that carbon 14 dating is a scam, or junk science. I've actually had young Earthers tell me that God created things that were essentially aged by the hand of God to make it appear to be older than the creation fairytale.

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 25 2011,10:19 am

QUOTE

And if some of the ancients did believe in a flat earth, it certainly was not an idea that got into the Bible. The Bible, as the Word of God, teaches the correct shape of the earth.

I've never seen a sphere with 4 corners? :dunno:

QUOTE

Ancient Israel imagined the earth to be a flat disk (Isa 42.5) resting on a foundation or pillars (Job 9.6). It is surrounded by the ocean (Pss 24.2; 136.6). It has four corners (Isa 11.12; Ezek 7.2; job 37.3; 38.13) and an edge (Isa 24.36) or ends (Isa 40.8; Job 28.4; Ps 48.11; Jer 6.22; 25.32). It also has a center or navel (Ezek 38.12). Except for the implication that Jerusalem is the earth’s center, ancient Israel’s view of the world did not differ from that of other ancient Near Eastern peoples.

Stuhlmueller, Carroll. The Collegeville Pastoral Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p234. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996)

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 25 2011,10:26 am

(Liberal @ Sep. 25 2011,10:19 am)

QUOTE

And if some of the ancients did believe in a flat earth, it certainly was not an idea that got into the Bible. The Bible, as the Word of God, teaches the correct shape of the earth.

I've never seen a sphere with 4 corners? :dunno:

QUOTE

I've never seen a sphere with 4 corners?

Perhaps no phrase in Scripture has been so controversial as the phrase, "the four corners of the earth." The word translated “corners,” as in the phrase above, is the Hebrew word, KANAPH. Kanaph is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means extremity.

It is translated “borders” in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated “four corners” and again in Isaiah 11:12 “four corners.” Job 37:3 and 38:13 as “ends.”

The Greek equivalent in Revelation 7:1 is gonia. The Greek meaning is perhaps more closely related to our modern divisions known as quadrants. Gonia literally means angles, or divisions. It is customary to divide a map into quadrants as shown by the four directions.

Some have tried to ridicule the Bible to say that it teaches that the earth is square. The Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).

Some have tried to say there are four knobs, or peaks on a round earth. Regardless of the various ways kanaph is translated, it makes reference to EXTREMITIES.

There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:

Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.
Paioh means “a geometric corner”
Ziovyoh means “right angle” or “corner”
Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.
Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.
Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.
It is doubtful that any religious Jew would ever misunderstand the true meaning of kanaph. For nearly 2,000 years, religious Jews have faced the city of Jerusalem three times daily and chanted the following prayer:

Sound the great trumpet for our freedom,
Raise the banner for gathering our exiles,
And gather us together from THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH
into our own land.

The Book of Isaiah describes how the Messiah, the Root of Jesse, shall regather his people from the four corners of the earth. They shall come from every extremity to be gathered into Israel.

"And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse,
Who shall stand as a banner to the people;
For the Gentiles shall seek Him,
And His resting place shall be glorious."
It shall come to pass in that day
That the LORD shall set His hand again the second time
To recover the remnant of His people who are left,
From Assyria and Egypt,
From Pathros and Cush,
From Elam and Shinar,
From Hamath and the islands of the sea.
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
(Isaiah 11:10-12, New King James Version)

More

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 25 2011,10:32 am

Isaiah 40:22 makes reference to a round earth not a spherical Earth.

You do realize that a circle is flat, right?

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 25 2011,10:41 am

(Liberal @ Sep. 25 2011,10:32 am)

QUOTE

Isaiah 40:22 makes reference to a round earth not a spherical Earth.

You do realize that a circle is flat, right?

not if its a basketball.

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 25 2011,10:47 am

(the breeze @ Sep. 25 2011,10:41 am)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Sep. 25 2011,10:32 am)

QUOTE

Isaiah 40:22 makes reference to a round earth not a spherical Earth.

You do realize that a circle is flat, right?

not if its a basketball.

A basketball is not a circle, it's a sphere. That's why we call it a basketball.

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 25 2011,11:03 am

(Liberal @ Sep. 25 2011,10:47 am)

QUOTE

(the breeze @ Sep. 25 2011,10:41 am)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Sep. 25 2011,10:32 am)

QUOTE

Isaiah 40:22 makes reference to a round earth not a spherical Earth.

You do realize that a circle is flat, right?

not if its a basketball.

A basketball is not a circle, it's a sphere. That's why we call it a basketball.

and the earth is a sphere, thats why we call it one.

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 25 2011,5:26 pm

QUOTE

The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13), referring to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.

Isaiah 44:13 refers to this "circle instrument."

Isa 44:13 The carpenter stretches a line, marks it out with a stylus, fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he makes it in human form, with human beauty, to be set up in a shrine. [NIV]

The verbal form of the word basically means "to make a circle" or "to scribe a circle."

< http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html >

The goat herders thought the earth was a circular shaped plane at the center of the universe. Science proved that in reality it's an approximate sphere that rotates around one star, and it's not the center of the universe.

To claim otherwise makes people question your sanity, and/or sincerity.

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 26 2011,9:19 am

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 26 2011,3:43 pm

What part of this refers to a spherical earth? :crazy:

“He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing. "

Posted by the breeze on Sep. 26 2011,4:18 pm

(Liberal @ Sep. 26 2011,3:43 pm)

QUOTE

What part of this refers to a spherical earth? :crazy:

“He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing. "

i give up, if you think its flat, its flat. :;):

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 27 2011,8:19 am

(Liberal @ Sep. 23 2011,11:15 am)

QUOTE

Actually, it is Science that is catching up to the Bible :thumbsup:

Galileo would disagree. :doh:

Come On!!!! Really???
He was from the 16th century...and things PLUS the Church have come a long way concerning Gallileo since then. Remember Gallileo BELIEVED in God :angel:

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 27 2011,10:34 am

And Galileo was excommunicated for saying that the Earth revolved around the sun. So, like I said, Galileo would disagree with the statement that science is catching up to the Bible.

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 27 2011,10:15 pm

(Liberal @ Sep. 27 2011,10:34 am)

QUOTE

And Galileo was excommunicated for saying that the Earth revolved around the sun. So, like I said, Galileo would disagree with the statement that science is catching up to the Bible.

Yes...and like I posted that was the 16th Century...the CHURCH has SINCE changed its postion. But remember, the Church could not just rush to endorse his
(Gallileo) ideas/ theories. It was against everything they knew AT THE TIME..contradicting even Aristotle. Also remember that Gallileos theories were NOT entirely correct. Although he was right about the [mobility of the earth] he was wrong about [the immobility of the sun]! We NOW know that the Sun is NOT the center of the universe and that is DOES move. :angel:

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 27 2011,11:03 pm

16th century? They have only recently admitted they handled it wrong and still won't acknowledge he was right.

QUOTE

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture. [133][134] In March 2008 the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Nicola Cabibbo, announced a plan to honour Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls. [135] In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy. [136] A month later, however, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the plan to erect a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been suspended.