Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Secularly Verifiable Evidence for Biblical Inerrancy
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 99 (152317)
10-23-2004 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 1:13 PM


Meaning, you cannot scientifically prove that miracles haven't occured.
Right. That's what it means to be "blatantly unscientific." That's how we determine what is scientific, and what is not - falsifiability. If it can't be falsified, then it isn't scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 1:13 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 99 (152361)
10-23-2004 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 12:42 PM


Again, I have the feeling that you do not quite understand what you are discussing.
The ancient Hebrews were not stupid. They had words describing a ball as well as words descibing a circle. A sphere is not a circle.
And about the Functional hemispherectomy.
What brought the subject up was your assertion that we could use more of our brain, that we use less than 100%, and then you made the jump to hemispherectomies as support.
First, this involves the cerebral cortex, which while the largest part, is only part of the brain.
Second, it involves a lateral division, right or left side. It cannot work front to back. It only works side to side. You cannot remove the frontal lobes and still maintain their functionality. You cannot remove the temporal lobes and still maintain their functionality. You cannot remove the occipital lobes and still maintain their functionality. You canot remove the parietal lobes and still maintain their functionality.
Third, to be a candidate you must first have one hemisphere of the cerebral cortex that is not functioning. The reason is that in such cases, some of the functionality that is usually found only on one side of the brain may also be duplicated on the other.
Finally, to say that just because parts of the brain can be removed does not imply that those parts were not being used, or that those parts could be used for other functions.
The problem with your posts is that you tend to make fanciful leaps from generalized statements. Unless you can back up such statements, it does not help debate or discussion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 12:42 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 78 of 99 (152368)
10-23-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 1:04 PM


Re: The Science of the Bible
You're making the assertion that Biblical scribes couldn't figure out what most of us figures out by the time we're three..........this is ridiculous and desperate.
I asserted nothing. I simple posted what the Bible says.
Light and dark, day and night were created on day one.
Now, according to Genesis, when was the sun created?
In case you missed it...
Well, it's pretty obvious that GOD didn't.
Genesis 1
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Notice that this is daylight and night.
Day and Night. Light and Dark.
But where is the sun?
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Why the sun shows up several days later.
So question, when was day and night created?
When was the sun created?
edited to add requiste spelling errors and the word dark which got left out.
This message has been edited by jar, 10-23-2004 04:59 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 1:04 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 79 of 99 (152422)
10-23-2004 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 10:31 AM


Re: The Science of the Bible
SPAL
I don't see how this detracts from my argument
It goes to the item you pointed out in the first post
There are many instances in the Bible where scientific fact is spoken before science discovered them to be fact.......for instance, the first thing God created was light.
How is it scientific to say the first thing your god created was light when,except as far as visible light goes,this is not the case at all? And,as far as visible light goes,the first organisms present on earth could not likely have been aware of its presence.

[W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 10:31 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 10-23-2004 7:18 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 81 by CK, posted 10-23-2004 7:18 PM sidelined has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 80 of 99 (152423)
10-23-2004 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by sidelined
10-23-2004 7:15 PM


Re: The Science of the Bible
SPAL has left the room. See this thread.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2004 7:15 PM sidelined has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 81 of 99 (152424)
10-23-2004 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by sidelined
10-23-2004 7:15 PM


Re: The Science of the Bible
sirpimpalot/jasonchin has left the building....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2004 7:15 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2004 7:23 PM CK has not replied
 Message 85 by DBlevins, posted 10-23-2004 9:26 PM CK has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 82 of 99 (152425)
10-23-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by CK
10-23-2004 7:18 PM


Re: The Science of the Bible
That's what I get for working on the weekend.Oh well,I suppose he was warned that he could not get away with that and I do believe he made bet that he could.Kids these days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by CK, posted 10-23-2004 7:18 PM CK has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 83 of 99 (152439)
10-23-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 10:06 AM


Though, taking the kinship term and applying it to evolution just brings a whole slew of problems into the mix, I will take a leap and ask you what relationship would Neandertals have with humans? Or how about the fact that humans have a strong evolutionary relationship with chimpanzees? Dna sequencing has shown about a 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA. In fact, we are more closely related to the african ape than either of us (human, ape) is to the orangutan, and champanzees are more closely related to humans than either of us to the gorillas. In fact, our DNA is more similar with the great apes, than many other species of animals are with related species of the SAME animals. So, with great care in restating that "cousins" is the wroooong term to use at least in my opinion, I will take a leap and say that the apes ARE our cousins, at least from an evolutionary viewpoint. Please don't confuse that with the kinship term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 10:06 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 84 of 99 (152444)
10-23-2004 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 10:57 AM


Re: The Science of the Bible
.......I think any five year old knows the sun is the source of day light.
I am highly dubious of your claim that any 5 yr. old understands that the sun is the source of light. If you were to ask a child of that age "Why is it daylight?" they would probably not understand the question. It is daylight outside because it is light. In fact it is obvious from the bible that the author did not understand the relationship that daylight had with the sun. If they did they would not have stated that God created "light" THEN later he created the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 10:57 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 85 of 99 (152448)
10-23-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by CK
10-23-2004 7:18 PM


Re: The Science of the Bible
teach me to come out and actually post something...
It has a sorta surrealistic quality to it. Like chasing a phantom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by CK, posted 10-23-2004 7:18 PM CK has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 86 of 99 (152462)
10-23-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 1:31 PM


Re: The Science of the Bible
I know SPAL/JC have left the building, but I couldn't let this pass (it's one of my pet peeves and it amazes me how common this misunderstanding is).
That's why MOST ancient cultures asserted that the Earth was resting on a giant turtle......or that Atlas was carrying it......
In Greek myth Atlas did NOT carry the Earth. There are several different variations to the story but basically he was a Titan who carried the sky as a punishment from Zeus who was shown the severed head of Medusa by Perseus and turned to stone.
Classical Greek statues of Atlas show him holding a globe on his shoulders but it is a celestial globe showing the constellations, not the Earth.
I'm not 100% certain of this but I believe that when Mercator published his collection of maps the cover had a picture of Atlas on the cover carrying the Earth, rather than the heavens, which is where the misunderstanding comes from (and why we use the word Atlas for a book of maps).
[/pedant]

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 1:31 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2004 8:01 PM MangyTiger has replied

  
Immoros
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 99 (160297)
11-17-2004 12:05 AM


It looks like this board is long dead, but I couldn't help but point out a few things. SPL lacked a lot in the debating arena, but you guys shouldn't let that make you sloppy in your responses; no matter what your beliefs, you're doing yourselves a disservice.
Regarding the circle/sphere point, SPL was in my opinion dead-on in this. Most of you replied to him saying:
1) the Earth is not a circle, but is a sphere, and the two terms are not synonymous
2) since the Hebrews had a term for sphere, they were mistaken in saying it was a circle.
Nearly all of these are simply mistaken statements. First, the Earth is NOT a sphere. This was hammered in to me by multiple physics professors during my grueling college experience (if you don't believe me, do a search on google for "earth is not a sphere" and you will quickly find what I'm talking about. Don't look at the Christian results - look at the secular results, usually notes from Physics/Astronomy courses). It is much closer to an ellipsoid, though that's not quite accurate either.
However, if you asked me in an everyday conversation what shape the Earth was, I would not be likely to reply "It's somewhat like an ellipsoid, but slightly off." I'd probably reply "Spherical" or "a sphere." Does that make me wrong? No. It just means I'm not being as specific as I could be.
Now, moving on to the interchangeability of the terms 'circle' and 'sphere.' In everyday language, the terms are different words, it is true, with different mathematical and physical definitions. That doesn't mean they can't function as synonyms; at their most basic level, "circle" is a less specific version of "sphere." Just like my "sphere" answer is a less specific version of "quasi-ellipsoid." The simpler term can serve the trick.
And, since I like citing to secular sources in these sorts of discussions, enter "circle" into dictionary.com just for kicks. Some of the definitions require it to be a plane curve, it's true. Some of them also could easily apply to a sphere. As a matter of fact, one of the definitions on the page, about halfway down reads "4. A round body, a sphere, an orb."
Then, again, just for kicks, go ahead and enter "circle" into thesaurus.com. The very first result, at the top of the page, punches out "sphere" as a synonym.
Still think the ancient writers using "circle" couldn't mean "sphere?" Then you're just being intellectually dishonest.
Cheers.

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2004 1:27 AM Immoros has not replied
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2004 3:09 AM Immoros has replied
 Message 92 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2004 8:10 PM Immoros has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 88 of 99 (160320)
11-17-2004 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Immoros
11-17-2004 12:05 AM


Welcome
Welcome to EvC Immoros. Not a bad first post, not bad at all.
I think that you're even right as far as you go.
However, the use of the word circle instead of sphere isn't the only place where we can learn what the writers were thinking. There are other places in the bible. These others make it pretty clear that the authors did not think the earth was a sphere.
They'll come up pretty soon I'm sure. Perhaps you'd like to discuss them before others do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Immoros, posted 11-17-2004 12:05 AM Immoros has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 89 of 99 (160339)
11-17-2004 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Immoros
11-17-2004 12:05 AM


Well lets say that I'm more critical than Ned. But if you are going to accuse others of sloppiness you need to avoid it yourself.
Firstly if you want precision remember that we are dealing with Hebrew and not English. And every source I've checked indicates that the Hebrew word ("chuwg") indicates a circle, not a sphere.
Secondly the Earth is an oblate spheroid (and I did NOT need to look that up) rather than a perfect sphere - but that doesn't mean that "sphere" is not an adequate description in circumstances where that level of precision is not required. And "sphere" is still far more accurate than "circle".
Thirdly even ignoring the Hebrew, the best you can argue is that the English is ambiguous and only possibly means "sphere" - and it is more likely to indicate a flat disk.
Finally let us be clear about dictionary.com. It lists several SETS of definitions. The fourth entry of ONE set includes "sphere". None of the rest do (and we have NO examples of that usage other than the very verse in question - where such a reading is incorrect).
If your motive is to argue that the Bible does not say that the Earth is a circle as the word is usually understood you would do far better to actually consider the relevant in context, recognise that it is poetic an argue that it is not intended to accurately describe the shape of the planet.
Let me give you one more piece of advice, just as it is not good to accuse others of sloppiness when your own arguments are even sloppier it is even worse to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty for refusing to agree with you. At least give them the chance of a rebuttal before assuming that there can be no possible answer to your arguments. Especially when your arguments are so very weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Immoros, posted 11-17-2004 12:05 AM Immoros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Immoros, posted 11-17-2004 8:16 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 95 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2004 8:47 PM PaulK has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 90 of 99 (160609)
11-17-2004 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by fnord
10-23-2004 5:01 AM


Re: The Science of the Bible
fnord,
You have probably been asked this before. Why is your globe turning backwards?

We're apathetic anarchists...we don't care who we blow up!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by fnord, posted 10-23-2004 5:01 AM fnord has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024