Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 767/1184
(06-Nov-2003 at 03:13)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
By claiming that only the Christians didn't believe the Earth was flat the author shows how little about science or history he knows. He doesn't even show that the bible claims the world is spherical. The "circle of the earth" might just as well refer to a circular, flat Earth. Indeed, Mat 4,8 "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor" is only possible on a flat Earth.
He doesn't say that Christians never claimed the earth was flat, just that the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat. To claim otherwise shows just how little you understand Scripture.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
Why did he forget to mention how the bible repeadedly claims the Earth is fixed and unmovable? If the Bible is such a good source of scientific information, how could they get that "detail" wrong.

What about Job 37,18 "can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?" Does this fit with our scientific knowledge of space as a huge empty space?

When it comes to the role of the Sun and stars as celestial bodies rather the dieties the author is downright dishonest. Job 38,7 "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Isn't this claming the stars are alive?
So did you just pull all this from a website? If so, I'm sure you could have just as easily found one telling you how wrong you are.
#241  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 794/8194
(06-Nov-2003 at 07:45)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)

Actually, I said the rocks ranged from 0.27 Ma to 3.5 MA, so it would make sense that one of them was 3.5Ma... and like I said, I am trying to understand it better. This is what I have got so far:

*Argon dating can't be used on recent stuff cos it is inaccurate within the last 200K years
*How do you tell if something is recent? Do the test anyway, and fudge your answer
If that is what you got it's because you can't read (or think).
Argon dating is only one of several methods, it has a large error margin because it is used to date older samples. You can use it for any sample you wish (assuming it contains the right minerals, of course) but the usefulness depends on what accuracy you need for the answer. You don't have to "fudge" anything to show a sample is old.

Quote:
As far as I know, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but remains don't have a little label attached to them with a saying how old something is...
That's why you use dating techniques. C-14 dating, tree rings etc, and tree rings, which can date wooden objects, are more or less little labels.

Quote:
Nope, and I have no intention of it. But I still say that it isn't out of context, and you are only saying that cos it doesn't agree with what you believe.
How the #%" can you claim it isn't out of context when you haven't read the book? Are you some kind of psychic?

Quote:
Plus, what about the other quote? What about every quote that I can get that says something contrary to what you believe? Are they all out of context?
I don't know about that other quote and thus have no comment about it. Unlike you I don't pretend to be able to tell what a person believes after a single selected quote.
#242  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 795/8194
(06-Nov-2003 at 07:50)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
He doesn't say that Christians never claimed the earth was flat, just that the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat. To claim otherwise shows just how little you understand Scripture.
He claimed the bible said the Earth is a sphere, and that is wrong, it doesn't, if anything it supports a flat Earth. I don't have to "understand" scripture to see that, only read it.

Quote:
So did you just pull all this from a website? If so, I'm sure you could have just as easily found one telling you how wrong you are.
Yeah, I pulled the other quotes from a website. I don't know the bible by heart. And I find it amusing that you are unable to show how I'm wrong, only claim that I have to be. Don't you ever think for yourself, without using someone elses website for support? What does the quote about the sky "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" really mean?
#243  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1029/4773
Donated $9.31
(06-Nov-2003 at 14:59)


Dravid, you seem to know a great deal about the bible yes?

Well, since you are so sure you are right, do me a favour and go to this site Atheism Awareness, and try to beat this guy in a discusion. I challenge you.

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#244  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 768/1184
(07-Nov-2003 at 02:44)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
That's why you use dating techniques. C-14 dating, tree rings etc, and tree rings, which can date wooden objects, are more or less little labels.
Like the diamond they C-14 dated that I mentioned pages ago?

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
How the #%" can you claim it isn't out of context when you haven't read the book? Are you some kind of psychic?
Because I trust the guy who quoted it, that when he says he didn't take it out of context, he wasn't lieing.
#245  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 769/1184
(07-Nov-2003 at 03:27)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
He claimed the bible said the Earth is a sphere, and that is wrong, it doesn't, if anything it supports a flat Earth. I don't have to "understand" scripture to see that, only read it.
As far as I can see, he said "About 3,000 years ago, our Bible said the earth was round" and I agree with him.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) Yeah, I pulled the other quotes from a website. I don't know the bible by heart. And I find it amusing that you are unable to show how I'm wrong, only claim that I have to be. Don't you ever think for yourself, without using someone elses website for support? What does the quote about the sky "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" really mean?
I didn't say that I am unable to show you how you're wrong, just that you could have with a little bit more effort found out yourself.

As for the 'hard as a mirror of cast bronze'... first of all it is spoken by Elihu (not Job). So even if it did teach a flat earth, it would only show that Elihu believed such a thing - and just because the Bible records an historical event, does not necessarily mean it endorses it. Statements in the Bible aren't considered as inerrant unless either God is speaking, or it is indicated that the speaker is speaking a message from God. Elihu's statement does not fall into that category.

And the other issue is with the Hebrew. And I'm guessing that you porbably know about as much Hebrew as me! But as with any language, words don't always have exact replicas in other languages. The issue is does the word in question (for sky) mean something that is solid? The answer is no. It probably refers more to durability or stability or the sky (cos it's not going anywhere). Anymore detail then that, I'll confuse us both with Hebrew words!

But what about this passage?

Job 26,7-10 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it. He covers the face of His throne, And spreads His cloud over it. He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness.

At the time the book of Job was written there was no theory of gravity, no knowledge of a spherical earth, and no knowledge of water vapor. How did the writer know?
#246  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 770/1184
(07-Nov-2003 at 03:28)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Nimon)
Dravid, you seem to know a great deal about the bible yes?

Well, since you are so sure you are right, do me a favour and go to this site Atheism Awareness, and try to beat this guy in a discusion. I challenge you.
A great deal? I guess it's all relative. I know some stuff cos I try to live it. But I'm sure there are a whole lot more people better qualified to go to that site and have a little discussion.

Plus, why would I want to beat him or anyone? I'm not trying to win any competition.
#247  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 802/8194
(07-Nov-2003 at 07:20)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
As far as I can see, he said "About 3,000 years ago, our Bible said the earth was round" and I agree with him.
If by "round" you mean a circular disc I agree too, if you mean a sphere, I'd have to disagree. None of the "evidence" presented suggests a spherical Earth.

Quote:
As for the 'hard as a mirror of cast bronze'... first of all it is spoken by Elihu (not Job). So even if it did teach a flat earth, it would only show that Elihu believed such a thing - and just because the Bible records an historical event, does not necessarily mean it endorses it.
So, in the same way we hear aboud David talking about "the valleys of the sea" we should just consider that his opinion and no evidence for God? Or do we count all statements that can be interpreted as true as gospel while we discard the ones that are false?

Quote:
And the other issue is with the Hebrew. And I'm guessing that you porbably know about as much Hebrew as me! But as with any language, words don't always have exact replicas in other languages. The issue is does the word in question (for sky) mean something that is solid? The answer is no. It probably refers more to durability or stability or the sky (cos it's not going anywhere). Anymore detail then that, I'll confuse us both with Hebrew words!
How then do you know that the statements that you like are correct? Isn't it just as possible they really were wrong, just mistranslated to fit ideas the translator knew to be correct?

Quote:
Job 26,7-10 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it. He covers the face of His throne, And spreads His cloud over it. He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness.

At the time the book of Job was written there was no theory of gravity, no knowledge of a spherical earth, and no knowledge of water vapor. How did the writer know?
The "circular horizon" suggests a flat Earth with oceans all the way to the edge, just as some sailors once may have feared to fall off the edge of the Earth if going to far. Of course people of the time knew that clouds had something to do with water. How stupid do you think they were not to notice that it only rains when it is cloudy! Even animals know about that, even if they can't write poems about it.
That passage says nothing about any theory of gravity, and what is that stuff about the throne anyway. If it is hidden by clouds, shouldn't it be visible on clear days?

In all: your passage doesn't prove any of what you claim. It may be nice as poetry, but as far as scientific contents it has none, at least none correct.

Quote:
Like the diamond they C-14 dated that I mentioned pages ago?
Which I think I showed was a very dubious result. If you wish you can always get wrong results, nothing is simpler.

Quote:
Because I trust the guy who quoted it, that when he says he didn't take it out of context, he wasn't lieing.
Fine, just don't expect the rest of us who don't trust or even know that guy to believe you, especially not since I have read Gould. And do read Gould's book. If it was good enough for that guy you trust, it's good enough for you!
#248  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1031/4773
Donated $9.31
(07-Nov-2003 at 17:19)


Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)

A great deal? I guess it's all relative. I know some stuff cos I try to live it. But I'm sure there are a whole lot more people better qualified to go to that site and have a little discussion.

Plus, why would I want to beat him or anyone? I'm not trying to win any competition.
yes, I thought you might feel it like that. Well, see it this way then, you will very probably learn something, and its likely he will to. You can do it just for fun, I know I have fun often when I am debating. Just give it a try eh

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#249  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 771/1184
(11-Nov-2003 at 03:10)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
If by "round" you mean a circular disc I agree too, if you mean a sphere, I'd have to disagree. None of the "evidence" presented suggests a spherical Earth.
I do believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is round, as a sphere.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
So, in the same way we hear aboud David talking about "the valleys of the sea" we should just consider that his opinion and no evidence for God? Or do we count all statements that can be interpreted as true as gospel while we discard the ones that are false?

How then do you know that the statements that you like are correct? Isn't it just as possible they really were wrong, just mistranslated to fit ideas the translator knew to be correct?
Like I already said, the difference is in whether or not the speaker is considered to be 'inspired' or not. Take Job. He is cos he wrote Job, while Elihu is not considered to be inspired. David talking about the valleys of the seas in Psalms (I think) is also inspired.

And as for Bible translation there are a couple of 'methods'. One is to translate what you think the author was saying (they are called paraphrases) and the other is to translate what the author was actually saying (by translating each word). The latter tend to be more accurate translations.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
The "circular horizon" suggests a flat Earth with oceans all the way to the edge, just as some sailors once may have feared to fall off the edge of the Earth if going to far. Of course people of the time knew that clouds had something to do with water. How stupid do you think they were not to notice that it only rains when it is cloudy! Even animals know about that, even if they can't write poems about it.
That passage says nothing about any theory of gravity, and what is that stuff about the throne anyway. If it is hidden by clouds, shouldn't it be visible on clear days?

In all: your passage doesn't prove any of what you claim. It may be nice as poetry, but as far as scientific contents it has none, at least none correct.
I noticed you conveniently left off the bit about the earth being 'hung on nothing'... care to try and explain that one?

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
Which I think I showed was a very dubious result. If you wish you can always get wrong results, nothing is simpler.
Yeah I remember... I think it went something like, all creationist 'scientists' are frauds and liers so it can't be true. Kind of like closing your eyes and expecting that no one else around can see you.
#250  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 821/8194
(11-Nov-2003 at 07:53)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
I do believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is round, as a sphere.
Then shouldn't you supply some evidence for that? So far all you've come up with indicates a flat, circular Earth.

Quote:
I noticed you conveniently left off the bit about the earth being 'hung on nothing'... care to try and explain that one?
I left it out because it doesn't make any sense one way or the other. You are the one who thinks the bible is always correct, you tell me what it means! And I noted that you ignored all of my explanations for what that quote seemed to mean. You care to explain what that "drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters" is supposed to mean?

Quote:
Yeah I remember... I think it went something like, all creationist 'scientists' are frauds and liers so it can't be true. Kind of like closing your eyes and expecting that no one else around can see you.
When you can't answer you always go into claiming how unfairly creationists are treated. Well, if they have something important to say they had better learn to do it in respected journals.
#251  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1047/4773
Donated $9.31
(12-Nov-2003 at 15:56)


It seems you were right Bernel. They seem to afraid to respond to your post...

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#252  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 773/1184
(13-Nov-2003 at 03:04)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
Then shouldn't you supply some evidence for that? So far all you've come up with indicates a flat, circular Earth.
That would be your interpretation... I actually haven't cited any passages that I believe say the world is a sphere - all I did was say that the one you found didn't say the earth was flat.

Here's a site for you:
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
I left it out because it doesn't make any sense one way or the other. You are the one who thinks the bible is always correct, you tell me what it means! And I noted that you ignored all of my explanations for what that quote seemed to mean. You care to explain what that "drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters" is supposed to mean?
I find it hard to believe you don't have an opinion on it. And it means what it says - the earth is hung on nothing. Tell me, what would it mean if I said that my coat is hung on nothing?

And I avioded what you said cos I didn't really want to get into a discussion about Bible interpretation. But it refers to the 'line of separation' between day and night. Such a view of the curved horizon at sunrise or sunset can only be seen from very high altitudes (like where military jets fly)

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
When you can't answer you always go into claiming how unfairly creationists are treated. Well, if they have something important to say they had better learn to do it in respected journals.
Thats right... not only are they frauds and liers they can't get published in 'respected' journals. I guess there can be no way what they say is true.
#253  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 774/1184
(13-Nov-2003 at 03:05)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Nimon)
It seems you were right Bernel. They seem to afraid to respond to your post...
I apologise for having a life...
#254  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1048/4773
Donated $9.31
(13-Nov-2003 at 14:42)


Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)

I apologise for having a life...
I'm sorry but was I talking to you excusively? No?
And what does having a life got to do with waiting 44 hours before responding? I have a life, but I check UT every day, because I got time to do that little thing.

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#255  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 04:17.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.