Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#13401 08/18/06 12:43 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
It seems we have a problem with classification.
Is the Bible fiction or non-fiction. I suppose we could run a poll and eliminate a great deal of discussion. Lets supose a tie. That would at least tell us you are getting no-where arguing.

DA: G1:3 gives us light. G1:11 give us plants.
jjw

.
#13402 08/18/06 04:37 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
The bible is indisputable fact written by god right up until you find an obvious failure. Then it is allegorical stories inspired by god.

I don't know if you have ever taken a university level class in historical religion. But one of the things that would frost these troll's cookies would be if they were confronted with the belief system of their religion just 100, 200, or 500 years ago.

They are rendered safe in their belief system through the lack of education and knowledge of history. And here's a classic example: Christians in Tuscany are fighting about right now.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/07/1102182260709.html
Now that is religious art.


DA Morgan
#13403 08/18/06 04:45 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw wrote:
"DA: G1:3 gives us light. G1:11 give us plants."

That is a misreading jjw. Let me demonstrate:

Genesis 1:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The is the creation of spacetime.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Light ... that has nothing to do with our sun as I will prove in a minute. Lets call this the microwave background radiation.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit

Here are the green plants. There is light but no light on earth again as I will prove next.

1:16 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.

That greater light ruling the day. We call that the sun.

And now the slam-dunk:

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Demonstrating there was no light on earth until the sun was created. And we know the word of God can't be wrong.

I just love a heartwarming fairytale. Especially one written by ignorant middle-eastern tribespeople living as hunter-gatherers.


DA Morgan
#13404 08/19/06 01:14 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
Quote:
DA Morgan said:
If you are going to believe in the text then you can't pick and choose which sentences you choose to acknowledge.
Of course I acknowledged that "sentence" completely, even commenting on it. I just correctly pointed out that in the context, the act wasn't celebrated as virtuous. I think it's fairly apparent that every verse in the bible can't be considered "an instruction on how to act to be considered virtuous."

I assume you know that Lot's righteousness was attributed by faith (trust in God) and not earned by actions or denied by failures. Like every person in God's creation, we will all be justified by faith if we are to be justified at all.

Whether you believe in the bible or not: if you believe in evolution, you should be willing to consider that evolution has "preserved" faith-based belief systems because they have been beneficial. Otherwise, they would have been eliminated by natural selection.

In that view, it is difficult to ascertain why you hold faith in such low regard, even resorting to pejoratives to discribe those who adhere to biblical teaching.

Quote:
DA Morgan said:
But one of the things that would frost these troll's cookies would be if they were confronted with the belief system...
Noting of course that a reader doesn't have to limit themselves to this thread to find examples of that.

Samh

#13405 08/19/06 08:55 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
SaMH wrote:
"Of course I acknowledged that "sentence" completely, even commenting on it. I just correctly pointed out that in the context, the act wasn't celebrated as virtuous."

I think you are wrong and a good friend of mine who is a Lutheran Minister says that for a fact you are wrong.

The entire story of Lot is one of god saving, alone, a good person from an evil and wicked city. The person saved IS intended to demonstrate moral uprightness. And, in fact, if you actually had a real understanding of biblical scripture you would know that the point of the story relates to the fact that the life of a man is worth many times that of a woman. That saving the life of a male stranger is more important than the virtue of a daughter. Lesson leaned.

Stoned any adulterers lately?


DA Morgan
#13406 08/19/06 11:45 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA: You are more entertaining than you suspect.

You profess to call the biblical offerings trash and unworthy of any serious consideration. You then come up with a biblical ?space time? to argue your point.

?jjw wrote:
"DA: G1:3 gives us light. G1:11 give us plants."

That is a misreading jjw. Let me demonstrate:

Genesis 1:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The is the creation of spacetime.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Light ... that has nothing to do with our sun as I will prove in a minute. Lets call this the microwave background radiation.?

I think there is no ?space time? in the bible but I am impressed that you think those ?idiots? were so far ahead of the rest of us so long ago. Really!! Microwave background radiation, discovered by?....?
jjw

#13407 08/19/06 11:56 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA: FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Those confused people at Wikipedia think that the Electromagnetic background radiation, assumed to flow from the Big Bang, was not discovered until 1965. That is 1965 AD, DA.
jjw

#13408 08/20/06 12:22 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw wrote:
"
You profess to call the biblical offerings trash and unworthy of any serious consideration. You then come up with a biblical ?space time? to argue your point."

I try not to lower myself to the level of hypocrisy of those I criticize. I have taken a lot of classes on religion so I know something of what I speak unlike those that criticize evolution or other scientific propositions. Much like Thomas Jefferson I read profilically.

jjw wrote:
"I think there is no ?space time? in the bible but I am impressed that you think those ?idiots? were so far ahead of the rest of us so long ago. Really!! Microwave background radiation, discovered by?....?"

Actually I don't think any of the pseudoscience trolls here at SAGG can think that deeply. But the halls of academia contain those that try to be both scientists and cling to their religion. They profer arguments of this type so I've heard it more than once.

The point here is that the biblical text clearly separates 'light' from 'sun and moon' and one must presume that the word 'light' refers to something though personally I think it all refers to eating too many mushrooms or smoking too much weed.

And no Kate this is not an insult. It is rather science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_mushroom

The background radiation was discovered in '65. But don't forget it is turtles all the way down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


DA Morgan
#13409 08/23/06 08:27 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
A minor point DA:

When reviewing the biblical version of the origin of this Solar System I like to think of "let there be light" as refering to the ignition of the Sun, its beginning, after which it settled down to a Star providing continuous light as referred to later on. I am just unable to think of a massive object turning into a blast furnace casually or silently- or for that matter, instantly.

As to the second "light" your referring to reflected light from the Moon I suggest that contention has no factual basis in the bible or any where else. Conceivably from what is known the Moon was not even a companion of Earth at the beginning. Some other light source is being referred to. One possibility is a binary star companion, now gone dark. We don't know much.
jjw

No importance. It simply shows how we are divided on the "science" contained in the book.

#13410 08/23/06 08:46 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
The only possibility of a binary gone dark in this system is one of the gas planets and they are not near big enough. Another star (even the smallest possible one) would have a major gravity pull that would cause us to have a highly variable change in the year.

Another point is that the sun took a very long time to start flaming at the fusion level. It would have been producing light from a heating level long before it reach critical mass for fusion. Of course the earth would not have been around to enjoy that weaker light. If you read what da wrote there, you will see that he put the sun and moons light coming at the same time. because the sun would have been needed for the plants.

as far as the moon not being part of the earth in the beginning, yes it was not. Unfortunately, nothing has survived completely intact from that period because the planetoid that created the moon struck the earth, melting most of both the earth and the material that became the moon. the material that became the moon basically solidified while in space, then gravitated together to form what is now the moon. No plant or animal survived from preimpact.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13411 08/23/06 09:19 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Dehammer:

You tell me:
"The only possibility of a binary gone dark in this system is one of the gas planets and they are not near big enough. Another star (even the smallest possible one) would have a major gravity pull that would cause us to have a highly variable change in the year."

You may need to open up your thoughts to more possibilities. First of all the Gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn, are located far to close to the center of the system to hint at anything more than what they are. Also it is worth noting that the density of the large planets increases after you pass Saturn (the least density) and continue in kind up through Neptune. Do you believe in coincidence as the building blocks of this Solar System? Any Binary object must be a great distance off and allow for the Sun to remain at the center of gravity and I know that is not the way of binaries. The point is that the hypothetical object could have barely been Star material and reduced itself along the lines of Jupiter but smaller and denser. All conjecture.

My personal contention is that there is a large object out there and/or a lot of trash which gave our SS the shape we find it in. As to the light by night I contend it was a brilliant planet Venus located about where Nars is now before it made the trip inward during a severe calamity in the system. All conjecture.
jjw

#13412 08/23/06 10:46 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
thats the thing though. if it were big enough to be a star even for a small time, it would be big enough to pull the earth's orbit out of a near (relatively speaking) circle. All of the planets, but especially those farther out, would be pulled out when they move toward the second, burnt out star, binaries dont have individual oort clouds. the sun is too young to have a burnt out twin without it giving off some sort of energy.

do you have any evidence that venus was nearer mars (where did mars come from) and somehow went into the orbit its in now. it would take billions of years for it to stablize in such an orbit. definiately much less than the 5000 or so that biblical scholars claim the earth has existed.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13413 08/24/06 05:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw wrote:
"When reviewing the biblical version of the origin of this Solar System I like to think of "let there be light" as refering to the ignition of the Sun"

I can understand why but the text, as you can see, clearly contradicts that in that it states that the sun and moon were not created until later.

Go figure!

My guess is that the word "light" here is a mistranslation and likely was more a reference to some form of enlightenment but I can't know for sure.


DA Morgan
#13414 08/29/06 05:31 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Wow, DA, we actually agree with something. The word "light" can be a mistranslation from the Hebrew. By studying the Hebrew script, I found that the word used is "or" (with some accents; I don't have the Hebrew characters). The word doesn't have to mean literal light, it is sometimes used as a positive attitude like the term "there's a light at the end of my tunnel" showing the contrast between what it was and the positiveness which is to come. But I'm not a scholar of the Hebrew texts so I don't know for sure; I can just read and translate.

#13415 08/29/06 11:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Tim wrote:
"I can just read and translate."

What languages can you read and translate?

Certainly not ancient Hebrew
Certainly not Aramaic
Certainly not Sumerian

What is the relevance of your statement?

If you get to college, and hopefully a real academic institution and not some bible college, take a class on comparative religion. Preferably not one taught by someone of your own faith.


DA Morgan
#13416 08/30/06 04:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
I happen to know some Hebrew and Greek. And I want to go to a Christian college.

#13417 08/30/06 04:36 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"And I want to go to a Christian college."


You can go to college to learn or you can go to college to have your beliefs reinforced. Some people are 'intellectually' better suited to a life in the clergy than to a life in science.

#13418 08/30/06 05:33 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Tim, here is an example of the problems of the bible.

there is a very famous line in the bible, that when someone i knew used a computer translator on the ancient hebrew texts, came out (roughly) "thou shall not listen to a soul poisoner". According to some research, the term sould poisoner, meant someone that preached hate.
The modern hebrew translation is something that can go "you will not take (life, substance, food or several other words are possible) from a ***" (the asterics are because there is no actual current word that matches exactly: closest approaximation is witch but only if its misspelled). the version you find since king james says, "thou shall not suffer a witch to live". The ancient world did not see witch's as soul poisoners, as they did not preach hate.


hmmm, i wonder in todays world, who would classify as preaching the words of hate mongerers.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13419 08/30/06 08:02 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Tim wrote:
"I happen to know some Hebrew and Greek. And I want to go to a Christian college."

Why a Christian College? Afraid to be exposed to the rest of the people you share this planet with? Afraid they may think thoughts you don't think? Eat food you don't eat? Believe things you don't believe? What are you afraid of?

The point of going to college is to learn new things and be exposed to new things. Climbing into a bomb shelter that only contains people that think what you think because they have been and will be taught what you have been taught is not a real college experience. Show some courage.

And, BTW, the Torah was not written in modern Hebrew so you can't read it I expect. Which makes me wonder what you've actually been given to read.


DA Morgan
#13420 09/09/06 01:04 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
Religion cannot be approached with a scientific mind. Religion is foundated on belief and faith - not the rock hard facts of reason. Science and Religion now are poles apart in ideology but they have common roots based in ancient times.


Darkness is but the sum total of Creation inclusive of the Light.
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5