Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…1314161819…232

Comments

  • #452
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    gkell3 wrote: »
    the atheist will dwell on the creationist point of view and extend it to all other disciplines in science such as astronomy or geology.
    Not 'the atheist' but 'the scientist'. Not all atheists are scientists (and vice versa).

    And you make it sound as if scientists didn't already know that creationism was equally opposed to astronomy and geology as it is to biology :/


  • #453
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Not 'the atheist' but 'the scientist'. Not all atheists are scientists (and vice versa).

    And you make it sound as if scientists didn't already know that creationism was equally opposed to astronomy and geology as it is to biology :/

    You have got the wrong person,I appeal to neither the atheist nor the creationist in the politics of projecting things into the Bible or projecting things out of the Bible to suit a viewpoint of science vs religion and especially not Genesis.

    http://books.google.ie/books?id=c4e81Qa0rQ4C&pg=PA10&dq=joseph+campbell+methuselah&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P5eET5KXGcWphAfX3aC-CA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Christians encountering these facets of Christian literature rarely pay them attention and this is a great loss,although neutral in what they do other than protect the texts from mishandling,a Christian growing in confidence no more forces a conclusion on these facets than they would appreciating music or some other masterpiece.To the unbeliever they would mean absolutely nothing as these texts often answer to people who draw the most from them outside the surface narrative where the atheist/creationist play in arguing over whether the Genesis text is literal or not .


  • #454
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    This whole thing has indeed been addressed in the BCP Part 1 thread. But if new posts are made, I'll continue to respond as time permits.

    My scientist friends say they have not been refuted. Your claims that they have been are just that - claims. The debate is not settled by claims.

    As to my inability to advance scientific argument, that is not my calling or purpose. I'm here merely to point those who are interested to the fact that there is an alternative scientific case to evolution, and to the historic Christian position on creation.

    What you or others do with that information is up to you.

    Do you not see the problem here? In one statement you say your "scientist friends" claim they have not been refuted. In the next, you say claims do not settle debates.

    Furthermore, we are not asking you to advance the scientific argument for creationism. We are telling you that previously tendered criticisms of evolution made by creationists have been refuted, and previously tendered "scientific creationism" claims have been exposed as unscientific.
    lmaopml wrote:
    Why is it such a big deal that some people are Creationists? Why does it matter so much to Atheists, like the Scientists are personal friends or something, or that Science will stop because of a few people like Wolfe, who are in fact quite harmless imo.

    It is a big deal because they attack science in school.
    http://ncse.com/

    Also, they believe something that is wrong. Evolution is an elegant truth that reveals the narrative of natural history. That alone is enough reason to defend it.


  • #455
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Morbert wrote: »
    Also, they believe something that is wrong. Evolution is an elegant truth that reveals the narrative of natural history. That alone is enough reason to defend it.

    Creationism is an elegant truth that reveals the narrative of supernatural history. That alone is a reason to defend it. To promote it as a scientific fact is to both miss the point of the story and fail to recognize Gods creation as it exists all around us.
    I would love to know why they think God is in danger of what we find in His creation, only their world view is threatened and to defend that they ignore what God actually did. Who's turning their back on God? creationists or scientists?


  • #456
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    Morbert wrote: »
    It is a big deal because they attack science in school.
    http://ncse.com/

    There are a number of things going on here that the unsuspecting reader probably is unaware of and especially where the origins of evolution through rock strata and fossil records run into the empirical stamp on evolution which is Darwinism.From that website -

    "In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began. Evolution accounts for the striking patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift."

    In the space of two sentences it informs the reader of two opposite things,I won't insult the reader's intelligence as they can make their own mind up on it but effectively it is promoting Darwinisn rather than evolution which is less aggressive in pushing the reasons how and why animate life adapts.The rock strata already contains an evolutionary timeline from simple organisms to more complex ones yet who can say what balances external conditions influencing adaptation or internal inherited genetics.That's the problem with the aggressive Darwinism as it tries to re-engineer human conflict and human greed or survival as a general description of why life evolved and it has led to horrific results -

    "One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
    Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
    his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
    accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
    races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
    then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
    continually acting in the case of animals also.. because in every
    generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
    superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
    thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
    the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
    origin of species." Charles Darwin

    "Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
    shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
    brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
    war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
    themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
    to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
    abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
    and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
    Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
    of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
    great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
    till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
    even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
    means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

    http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/malthus/ch03.htm

    "Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find
    the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance
    along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted
    living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the
    danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave
    nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the
    disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter
    as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our
    historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence" Mein
    Kampf

    I came to evolutionary geology and biology through the works of Archbishop Steno and William Smith and these works are cause neutral in that they don't give a cause for evolution as Darwin's strain does and just as it may be unfair to redirect Darwinism towards Nazi doctrine it is also unfair to ignore it too.

    Behind the attempt to make Darwinism look like the picture of reasonableness,that website has to take a lot of liberties with history just as its counterpart in astronomy does.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    gkell3 wrote: »
    the empirical stamp on evolution which is Darwinism.
    I know the definition of these words but I literally have no idea what this sentence means.
    gkell3 wrote: »
    "In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began. Evolution accounts for the striking patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift."

    In the space of two sentences it informs the reader of two opposite things,I won't insult the reader's intelligence
    Please do so and explain what you are seeing.
    gkell3 wrote: »
    effectively it is promoting Darwinisn rather than evolution
    How?
    gkell3 wrote: »
    The rock strata already contains an evolutionary timeline from simple organisms to more complex ones yet who can say what balances external conditions influencing adaptation or internal inherited genetics.That's the problem with the aggressive Darwinism as it tries to re-engineer human conflict and human greed or survival as a general description of why life evolved and it has led to horrific results - quote quote quote etc
    Forgive me if I'm wrong - your posts are very difficult to sift through - but you appear to be saying that if scientists try to study various environmental conditions that allow certain traits to flourish, they are actual opening the door to social Darwinism and eugenic type programmes?


  • #458
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Creationism is an elegant truth that reveals the narrative of supernatural history. That alone is a reason to defend it. To promote it as a scientific fact is to both miss the point of the story and fail to recognize Gods creation as it exists all around us.
    I would love to know why they think God is in danger of what we find in His creation, only their world view is threatened and to defend that they ignore what God actually did. Who's turning their back on God? creationists or scientists?

    Young Earth Creationism is false. And while I believe Creationism in general is false, I am less bothered by the kinds that do not conflict with evolution.


  • #459
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    gkell3 wrote: »
    There are a number of things going on here that the unsuspecting reader probably is unaware of and especially where the origins of evolution through rock strata and fossil records run into the empirical stamp on evolution which is Darwinism.From that website -

    "In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began. Evolution accounts for the striking patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift."

    In the space of two sentences it informs the reader of two opposite things,

    No it doesn't. It distinguishes Darwinian evolution from abiogenesis.
    I won't insult the reader's intelligence as they can make their own mind up on it but effectively it is promoting Darwinisn rather than evolution which is less aggressive in pushing the reasons how and why animate life adapts.The rock strata already contains an evolutionary timeline from simple organisms to more complex ones yet who can say what balances external conditions influencing adaptation or internal inherited genetics.That's the problem with the aggressive Darwinism as it tries to re-engineer human conflict and human greed or survival as a general description of why life evolved and it has led to horrific results -

    Darwinian evolution is a well established, rigorously tested, reputable scientific theory that emerged from careful research, not social ideals. Also, your last sentence conflates Darwinism, the scientific theory, with Social Darwinism, the irrelevant socioeconomic philosophy.
    "One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
    Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
    his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
    accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
    races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
    then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
    continually acting in the case of animals also.. because in every
    generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
    superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
    thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
    the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
    origin of species." Charles Darwin

    "Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
    shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
    brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
    war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
    themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
    to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
    abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
    and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
    Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
    of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
    great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
    till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
    even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
    means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

    http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/malthus/ch03.htm

    "Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find
    the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance
    along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted
    living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the
    danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave
    nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the
    disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter
    as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our
    historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence" Mein
    Kampf

    I came to evolutionary geology and biology through the works of Archbishop Steno and William Smith and these works are cause neutral in that they don't give a cause for evolution as Darwin's strain does and just as it may be unfair to redirect Darwinism towards Nazi doctrine it is also unfair to ignore it too.

    Behind the attempt to make Darwinism look like the picture of reasonableness,that website has to take a lot of liberties with history just as its counterpart in astronomy does.

    None of the above is related to the modern synthesis of Darwinian Evolution. Darwin, like many people, got a lot of things wrong, and any misjudged attempt at extrapolating Social Darwinism from Darwinian evolution is irrelevant.

    Here is the modern synthesis of Darwinian Evolution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis


  • #460
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    Morbert wrote: »
    Darwin, like many people, got a lot of things wrong, and any misjudged attempt at extrapolating Social Darwinism from Darwinian evolution is irrelevant.

    Here is the modern synthesis of Darwinian Evolution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis

    No extrapolation done at all,just a straightforward series of texts that reflect the evolution of Darwin's view in his own words and on to the justification for tribal dominance based on the scarcity of natural resources allied with an aggressive mindset,you may not like it and call it 'social Darwinism' to suit the current perspective but I am not tarring Darwin as much as allowing him to speak.

    The true Christian delights in both beauty and efficiency in nature and the evolution of life based on that principle,it is how I approach evolution and especially in the highly specialized area of quaicrystal growth -

    http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

    It is just a different geometric way of looking at things that doesn't involve a desperate need to get from animate existence of a human back into an inanimate pool of chemicals nor does it require it.In short,creation has a geometry to it that gets left behind in the noisy fuss of Darwinism and creationism.


  • #461
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    gkell3 wrote: »
    No extrapolation done at all,just a straightforward series of texts that reflect the evolution of Darwin's view in his own words and on to the justification for tribal dominance based on the scarcity of natural resources allied with an aggressive mindset,you may not like it and call it 'social Darwinism' to suit the current perspective but I am not tarring Darwin as much as allowing him to speak.

    I.e. An extrapolation. Whatever you want to call it, and whatever Darwin's social views might have been, it is entirely irrelevant to the veracity of the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution.
    The true Christian delights in both beauty and efficiency in nature and the evolution of life based on that principle,it is how I approach evolution and especially in the highly specialized area of quaicrystal growth -

    http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

    It is just a different geometric way of looking at things that doesn't involve a desperate need to get from animate existence of a human back into an inanimate pool of chemicals nor does it require it.In short,creation has a geometry to it that gets left behind in the noisy fuss of Darwinism and creationism.

    A true scientist cares about what is evidenced. The modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution is supported by the evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    Morbert wrote: »
    I.e. An extrapolation. Whatever you want to call it, and whatever Darwin's social views might have been, it is entirely irrelevant to the veracity of the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution.

    The entire basis of the 'scientific method' inherited through Newton is based on the exact same principle,the antecedent methods and insights of Copernicus and Kepler are entirely irrelevant to the idiosyncratic approach Newton took hence the empirical relationship to astronomy is parasitic even though the approach tries to pass itself off as an evolutionary progression of astronomy.It cares only that the language of 'law' and 'evidence' suggests an authoritative position however I discovered early on that the followers of the 'scientific method' in astronomical matters cared nothing for Newton's approach beyond that it uses a language that appears to sound honest and direct but is actually full of obfuscations and distortions.

    Ask anyone here what Newton actually did beyond a superficial expression of 'laws of gravity' and they will quickly wilt,I actually know what he tried to do so I am safe enough yet I have sought out those who were intelligent enough and courageous enough to actually challenge people who operate with language that appears to lend them some sort of authority.Allan Poe presented a fairly good perspective on those who are fond of evidence and laws -

    "To explain: The Newtonian Gravity -- a law of Nature -- a law whose existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions -- a law whose admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the Universal phaenomena -- a law which, merely because it does so enable us to account for these phaenomena, we are perfectly willing, without reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help admitting, as a law -- a law, nevertheless, of which neither the principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been traced by the human analysis -- a law, in short, which, neither in its detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of explanation at all -- is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly explicable, provided we only yield our assent to -- what? To an hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis -- if the merest hypothesis -- if an hypothesis for whose assumption -- as in the case of that pure hypothesis the Newtonian law itself -- no shadow of a priori reason could be assigned -- if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law -- would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so miraculously -- so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, -- what rational being Could so expose his fatuity as to call even this absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer -- unless, indeed, he were to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did so, simply for the sake of consistency in words?"
    Edgar Allan Poe

    In short,what began in astronomy spread to the evolutionary sciences,almost an enactment of the aggressive behavior Darwinism espouses and in some way there is new version in today's world where the same aggressive principle works with global warming - if there is drought it is caused by global warming,if there are floods it is also global warming,heatwaves are caused by global warming and so are severe cold snaps so in fact it is a multi-purpose theory that covers anything and everything the proponents wish without encountering any sort of objection.

    It is not the science of evolution that should occupy Christians but the evolution of science,how terrestrial and astronomical sciences which once sat comfortably within Western Christianity ended up as a platform for attacking faith.


  • #463
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Declan Lander wrote: »
    He's bat****. On another thread I saw him pretending Catholics worship statues, so he's either free Presbyterian or some other type of neanderthal northern ireland evangelism I would say. When Catholicism in Ireland has been killed off, these types need to be next.

    By the by, even though I'm responding to a troll post. I'll do it anyway.

    Although I disagree with wolfsbane's approach on creation. (I think that natural science can tell us much about God's hand in creating humanity as He spoke in the Genesis accounts).

    I think that wolfsbane is someone I can wholeheartedly say is a brother in Christ in sharing the Gospel of salvation, that is Jesus Christ crucified on our behalf, putting sin to death, and Jesus Christ resurrected bringing us to new life. That is the most important truth of all.

    Ultimately, I feel that ultimately non-believers are making the greater error in judgement, insofar as rejection of Jesus will lead to condemnation. It is a fundamental denial of reality to deny God's existence and lordship over Creation, and ultimately a denial that will have far greater consequences.


  • #464
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Ask anyone here what Newton actually did beyond a superficial expression of 'laws of gravity' and they will quickly wilt,
    Turn base metal into gold?


  • #465
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    gkell3 wrote: »
    The entire basis of the 'scientific method' inherited through Newton is based on the exact same principle,the antecedent methods and insights of Copernicus and Kepler are entirely irrelevant to the idiosyncratic approach Newton took hence the empirical relationship to astronomy is parasitic even though the approach tries to pass itself off as an evolutionary progression of astronomy.It cares only that the language of 'law' and 'evidence' suggests an authoritative position however I discovered early on that the followers of the 'scientific method' in astronomical matters cared nothing for Newton's approach beyond that it uses a language that appears to sound honest and direct but is actually full of obfuscations and distortions.

    Here are examples of an Astronomy paper

    "Composite Quasar Spectra from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey*"
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/122/2/549

    "THE STAR FORMATION EFFICIENCY IN NEARBY GALAXIES: MEASURING WHERE GAS FORMS STARS EFFECTIVELY "
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/136/6/2782

    "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant"
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/116/3/1009

    "A Catalog of Neighboring Galaxies"
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/127/4/2031

    "THE WIDE-FIELD INFRARED SURVEY EXPLORER (WISE): MISSION DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL ON-ORBIT PERFORMANCE "
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/140/6/1868

    A small sample from the IOP Astronomical Journal
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881


    Astronomy, like Darwinian evolution, is a rigorous, thorough, reputable scientific field, consisting of careful and methodical research.
    Ask anyone here what Newton actually did beyond a superficial expression of 'laws of gravity' and they will quickly wilt

    He contributed to infinitesimal calculus, variational calculus, Newtonian mechanics, and the Newton-Rhapson root-finding method. Techniques still used 300 years later
    ,I actually know what he tried to do so I am safe enough yet I have sought out those who were intelligent enough and courageous enough to actually challenge people who operate with language that appears to lend them some sort of authority.Allan Poe presented a fairly good perspective on those who are fond of evidence and laws -

    In short,what began in astronomy spread to the evolutionary sciences,almost an enactment of the aggressive behavior Darwinism espouses and in some way there is new version in today's world where the same aggressive principle works with global warming - if there is drought it is caused by global warming,if there are floods it is also global warming,heatwaves are caused by global warming and so are severe cold snaps so in fact it is a multi-purpose theory that covers anything and everything the proponents wish without encountering any sort of objection.

    It is not the science of evolution that should occupy Christians but the evolution of science,how terrestrial and astronomical sciences which once sat comfortably within Western Christianity ended up as a platform for attacking faith.

    The relation between Christianity and science and the history of the relation between history and science, while interesting to some, is irrelevant to what scientific theories are supported by the evidence. Astronomical evidence, for example, tells us Newton's law of gravity is not correct, but is instead an approximation. This would be the case regardless of any level of prestige Newton might have had.


  • #466
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    Morbert wrote: »
    The relation between Christianity and science and the history of the relation between history and science, while interesting to some, is irrelevant to what scientific theories are supported by the evidence. Astronomical evidence, for example, tells us Newton's law of gravity is not correct, but is instead an approximation. This would be the case regardless of any level of prestige Newton might have had.

    Twice in the last few months I presented the origins of the calendar system and how the 24 hour day keeps in step with one rotation of the Earth and twice those posts vanished because empiricists do not like what they see as they argue against 1461 rotations in 1461 days and do not believe that all the human experiences within a 24 hour day keep in step with one rotation.

    It is inconceivable that anyone apart from the most indifferent person would argue against the common experience of one rotation and one 24 hour day falling out of step yet 'Newtonian gravity' works off a system of 1465 rotations in 1461 days as they lunged at a conclusion in the late 17th century that doesn't fly.

    I have expressed my disappointment with Christians on this matter before and can leave it at that.


  • #467
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    gkell3 wrote: »
    Twice in the last few months I presented the origins of the calendar system and how the 24 hour day keeps in step with one rotation of the Earth and twice those posts vanished because empiricists do not like what they see as they argue against 1461 rotations in 1461 days and do not believe that all the human experiences within a 24 hour day keep in step with one rotation.

    It is inconceivable that anyone apart from the most indifferent person would argue against the common experience of one rotation and one 24 hour day falling out of step yet 'Newtonian gravity' works off a system of 1465 rotations in 1461 days as they lunged at a conclusion in the late 17th century that doesn't fly.

    I have expressed my disappointment with Christians on this matter before and can leave it at that.

    What?


  • #468
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    Mod Edit

    Please note that we do not discuss the moderation of other Fora here. If you have a problem with the moderation of any Forum, including this one, then please address it with the relevant mods by PM. If that fails you may PM a CatMod. Alternatively there is Feedback or the Dispute Resolution thread.


  • #469
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    gkell3 wrote: »
    It is very simple ,the creationists do not respond to the information that many species have come and gone over many millions of years whereas the empirical community believe in something worse - they refuse to accept that one 24 hour day keeps in step with one rotation day after day.
    The responses you have received on the Astronomy board have been excellent, with many people going to the trouble of making visual aids and baby-stepping you through the apparent disjunction between actual rotation of the earth and perceived rotation of the earth (with reference to the sun and other stars). You don't appear to have addressed these points with anything other than pleas to common sense and vast tracts of quoted prose.
    gkell3 wrote: »
    I will not pursue this any further here as I couldn't bear to feel that way again.
    Ah, that's good then.

    ETA: PDN, had written this before your moderation above...


  • #470
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    doctoremma wrote: »
    The responses you have received on the Astronomy board have been excellent, with many people going to the trouble of making visual aids and baby-stepping you through the apparent disjunction between actual rotation of the earth and perceived rotation of the earth (with reference to the sun and other stars). You don't appear to have addressed these points with anything other than pleas to common sense and vast tracts of quoted prose.


    Ah, that's good then.

    ETA: PDN, had written this before your moderation above...


    The Earth turned once yesterday will turn once in 24 hours today and will do it all over again tomorrow and the day after that and so on,there is nothing to cause a divergence between one 24 hour day and one rotation as it is the primary experience everyone has of planetary dynamics.It takes a special person to insist on a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance so rightfully the empirical community falls below even the standard of a creationist,that is not an insult but a fact.

    The full outlines which link the 24 hour day with one rotation to the Lat/Long system and the AM/PM cycles were described but vanished without objection as will this post.


  • #471
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    gkell3 wrote: »
    rightfully the empirical community falls below even the standard of a creationist,that is not an insult but a fact.
    OK, to try and get this back on track to the topic at hand...

    Regardless of who is right/wrong about the earth rotation thing, you are saying that empirical science when wrong is worse than no science at all? Where the judgement that the conclusion is wrong is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever?

    How do we ever learn about things?


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    doctoremma wrote: »
    OK, to try and get this back on track to the topic at hand...

    Regardless of who is right/wrong about the earth rotation thing, you are saying that empirical science when wrong is worse than no science at all? Where the judgement that the conclusion is wrong is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever?

    How do we ever learn about things?

    There is no right or wrong,the Earth turns once in 24 hours and everyone,even the most indifferent person,Christian or not,experiences a rotation of the Earth so the question remains as to why the empirical community would ,against all human experience and common sense,promote a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance. In front of an audience where Christianity is classed as little more than superstition,these shining examples of empiricism can't explain why the temperature rises and falls during a 24 hour period,why daylight turns to darkness and why the sun rises and sets due to the rotation of our planet and always and always one 24 hour day keeps in step with one rotation without any divergence.

    Somehow it doesn't sink in,there are many sensible Christians here with normally plenty to say yet suddenly become speechless at this juncture even though it is impossible to ignore.The Christian Church instituted the omission of 10 days and rotations to restore the Easter festivals to the orbital points of the equinoxes whereas today it is nearly impossible to find a person who can match 1461 rotations with 1461 days/4 years.

    Maybe there is some dependency between the empiricist and the lukewarm Christian that I am missing out on but it is disturbing regardless.


  • #473
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    gkell3 wrote: »
    There is no right or wrong,the Earth turns once in 24 hours and everyone,even the most indifferent person,Christian or not,experiences a rotation of the Earth so the question remains as to why the empirical community would ,against all human experience and common sense,promote a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance.
    Perhaps you and I have a very different definition of empiricism? Can you tell me how you have arrived at your position, if not empirically? I don't especially care about the objective veracity of your position, I want to know how you've arrived at your conclusion.


  • #474
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Perhaps you and I have a very different definition of empiricism? Can you tell me how you have arrived at your position, if not empirically? I don't especially care about the objective veracity of your position, I want to know how you've arrived at your conclusion.

    I posted the line of reasoning twice on other forums and the explanations simply vanished so I am not going to post the explanation again even though it is so much common sense.

    It is one of these things where silence is just as good as supporting an errant view and with the empirical community committed to a view that there is a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance,you have no reason to complain as nobody has objected to that unsightly assault on common sense.

    The ability to reason ends with a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance while the ability to reason begins with 1461 rotations in 1461 days so it is there I take my stand and if no other Christian supports the latter view then it looks like you have a valid point about what passes as Christianity today.


  • #475
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    gkell3 wrote: »
    I posted the line of reasoning twice on other forums and the explanations simply vanished so I am not going to post the explanation again even though it is so much common sense.
    I don't want to see your actual reasoning - as I say, it's not relevant.

    What was that reasoning based on? Observation? Intuition? Logic? Common sense?


  • #476
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I don't want to see your actual reasoning - as I say, it's not relevant.

    What was that reasoning based on? Observation? Intuition? Logic? Common sense?

    I would say the conclusion that the Earth turns once in 24 hours and remains that way day after day contains all of the above.How you are going to match cause and effect with a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance is not my business as the explanation of the Lat/Long system in tandem with the AM/PM cycles has a history to it that covers the great calendar systems of the Egyptians to the Christian calender adjustments to the creation of accurate watches everyone here takes for granted.The person who was responsible for the timepieces,John Harrison,faced horrendous opposition from the empiricist community but eventually the world got a watch that really was accurate -

    "Now, in the former part of this book, I have treated about matters
    pertaining to the strictness of measuring time; and have shewn the
    deficiencies of such means as Mr. Graham had taken or made use of for
    that purpose; and I have also treated of the improper, troublesome,
    erroneous - tedious method, which the professors at Cambridge and
    Oxford would have to be for the longitude at sea:"

    " But indeed, had I continued under the hands of the rude
    commissioners, this completion, or great accomplishment, neither
    would, nor could, ever have been obtained; but however, providence
    otherwise ordered the matter, and I can now boldly say, that if the
    provision for the heat and cold could properly be in the balance
    itself, as it is in the pendulum, the watch [or my longitude
    time-keeper] would then perform to a few seconds in a year, yea, to
    such perfection now are imaginary impossibilities conquered; so the
    priests at Cambridge and Oxford, &c. may cease their pursuit in the
    longitude affair, and as otherwise then to occupy their time."

    John Harrison

    So,I accept hostility as a matter of course,it does not mean I like it but an innovative and creative mind must withstand the hatred as much as the silences to push through ideas which benefit the wider community.Far from the screeching crowd and their idea of human control over global temperatures are the great Christian sentiments now denied most people -

    http://www.webster.edu/~barrettb/canticle.htm


  • #477
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    gkell3 wrote: »
    I would say the conclusion that the Earth turns once in 24 hours and remains that way day after day contains all of the above.
    Not interested in lengthy quotes so don't bother with any more!

    So you've used empirical methods to derive your conclusion?


  • #478
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    gkell, after looking through the Astronomy thread, I have to wonder if you are being entirely serious. People patiently explained your mistakes, you consistently ignored their points and spammed quotes.

    If you wish to be the new troll, welcome aboard.


  • #479
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Morbert wrote: »
    gkell, after looking through the Astronomy thread, I have to wonder if you are being entirely serious.
    I tried to follow it. I found that Jackie Chan said it best.


  • #480
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Not interested in lengthy quotes so don't bother with any more!

    So you've used empirical methods to derive your conclusion?

    The distinction between creationism and empiricism is incidental,it is not your avoidance of the the 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance which leads to the inability to discern the effects of one rotation within a 24 hour period but rather the avoidance by Christians even though every known principle supports the common sense view -

    "The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
    following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
    parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
    Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
    axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
    those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
    Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
    those degrees) and it must follow, that from the time any one of
    those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
    minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
    that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
    with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
    minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
    quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
    can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
    visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
    until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
    only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
    such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
    what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
    clearly discovered." John Harrison

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9dso7ATlSk&feature=related

    When among people who can't figure out that the Earth turns once a day and remains that way there is precious little Christianity under discussion and even less science for there is nothing lower than the false conclusion regarding the day and the turning of the planet.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    gkell3 wrote: »
    The distinction between creationism and empiricism is incidental,it is not your avoidance of the the 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance which leads to the inability to discern the effects of one rotation within a 24 hour period but rather the avoidance of Christians even though every known principle supports the common sense view -

    "The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
    following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
    parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
    Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
    axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
    those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
    Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
    those degrees) and it must follow, that from the time any one of
    those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
    minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
    that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
    with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
    minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
    quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
    can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
    visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
    until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
    only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
    such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
    what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
    clearly discovered." John Harrison

    When among people who can't figure out that the Earth turns once a day and remains that way there is precious little Christianity under discussion and even less science for there is nothing lower than the false conclusion regarding the day and the turning of the planet.

    For anyone who is remotely interested. gkellx's ramblings have been thoroughly and entirely refuted here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056554296

    Also, a well written article on the Earth's rotation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_of_day


Advertisement