Posted on 09/05/2011 5:17:21 PM PDT by SJackson
You are WELCOME! I totally agree.
No, but ignoring the answers to those questions like the creationist do certainly does
Indeed, I always like to point out how Evolutionary the Genesis account of creation is. I will go as far as agreeing that it’s uncanny. But how does this somehow debunk evolution?
And of course, you are projecting a lot of modern concepts into it. There’s nothing about spheres in Genesis. The Bible is “flat earth all the way through,” as I once read. ( Lucretius, our ancient champion of materialism, was likewise. ) “The firmament” is the heavens, and “the waters above the firmament” are a quasi mystical idea, very probably based on the idea of the Milky Way as a cosmic river. All this stuff goes way back.
Indeed, monkeys are turning into chess masters in front of us all the time.
You wish to disagree with “Spheres” ? 8<)
Hmmn.
In a different translation, the word is also used: But, what is the shape of a Roman architectural “vault” when viewed from below? (Looks pretty much like a hemi-sphere to me, doesm’t it?)
More specifically, a couple of Sundays ago I read something like this: “Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters (fluids/gasses/plasmas) to separate one body of waters (fluids/gasses/plasmas/dust) from the other. And so it happened .... And God called the dome “the sky.”
Can't get any more definitely spherical than that. The “sky” most absolutely does separate the “waters above” from the “waters below” ....
Now, considering “gasses” weren't even individually NAMED until the 1700’s, and plasma's didn't get identified until the early 1910’s (after neutral atoms were identified, then ions) then trying to get itinerant shepherds to identify plasmas and interstellar gasses into huge flaming balls immensely larger than the earth might be a bit difficult without math.
And writing.
And blackboards.
Only problem is, those early writers who you quote trying to make excuses for Genesis didn't know their nuclear physics and paleontology and geophysics in enough detail to comment on the subject.
Ok. So why is it true?
But you referred to, “ ... interstellar plasmas, gathering together and cooling into the individual spheres (the planets and their atmospheres) and the sun ...”
I say that these concepts and this imagery is alien to the Genesis account.
What a load of ridiculous twaddle.
Well, you could almost say so. Monkeys have always been recognized as being akin to us in one way or another, and the discovery of the great apes to European science caused a sensation. I believe this was in fact a great stimulation to Darwin's thinking.
These beings "placed on this isthmus of a middle state" were certainly not recognized Biblically.
I say that these concepts and this imagery is alien to the Genesis account.
Nope.
That exactly what He did: Gathered the waters above (the interstellar gasses and fluids) into their spaces (up there, spheres naturally accrete by what we now call gravity) and, below His dividing line of the atmosphere (”the sky”) the dust and plasmas and gasses and ice and water accumulate into the earth's atmosphere and mantle.
Again, under the influence of gravity these “waters” also become a sphere. With one ocean cleverly gathered into one basin around one continent. (That later broke up as the crust and liquid mantle moved around. Which we did not confirm until the satellite and under-ocean imagery came out in the mid 1960’s.)
Well, QM certainly precipitated an epistemological revolution of one sort or another. How would you characterize it?
Who was going around saying that “scientific knowledge is divine and absolute”?
Edmund Halley, as quoted. Newton himself certainly adjudged his determinations to be absolute, as outlined in his Preface, where he equated mechanics to geometry. I think it was implicit to him that this geometrical plan of the world was divine. What else?
fixed.
[...] in the 20th century that science was forced to humble itself. It had to accept that scientific knowledge was human and relative, not divine and absolute.
I see no evidence for this statement. I have a great love and affinity for Newtonian science, and I find him to be the last gasp of science in the name of truth, for truth's sake.
Science used to be based in the lack of errata, not in the subject matter itself - Nowadays, the errata is seldom even published... Hence the new religions of Darwinism and Anthropogenic Global Warming gain a place to cast down roots. Such direct manipulation of outcomes occurs as to cause any right-minded individual to experience the mental equivalent of retching - and 'science' is the mental equivalent of the bad taste after that retching.
It’s very strange to me that you would elide “It was with QM” from my statement, “It was with QM in the 20th century that science was forced to humble itself. It had to accept that scientific knowledge was human and relative, not divine and absolute.” and then proceed to say, “I see no evidence for this statement” !
Your elision comprised almost the entire history of science in the 20th century! Of course you don’t see it, you erased it!
I omitted QM because my observation is not directed at a specific discipline, but at the whole - I did not wish to give the impression that I was singling QM out particularly, except in that the reference does not wash wrt science being humbled in the least...
And I will reiterate that I do not see any evidence of science having been forced to humble itself whatsoever. From flights of fancy like the Alar and DDT scares to the purely political manipulations of the coming global iceage of the 70's, the coming global warming of the 90's forward.. Or the incomprehensible acid trip of string theory... science continues to declare as fact things which are not only *not* fact, but very often made up of whole cloth. Need I mention the vapid vacillations of Psychology? Or the unparalleled hubris of archaeology and anthropology?
Biology, like any other science is astute when it sticks to it's basics - But becomes nothing more than anal seepage when harnessed to do the bidding of the EPA. Geologists fabricated low numbers for the Bakken formation and many others, giving the illusion that our onshore oil is all gone... There's the infamous hockey stick warming model, the blatant manipulation of weather station placement and data... and a myriad more stand in the wings to be called forth to show duplicity, complicity, blustering ego, and outright ignorance which is declared from the mountain tops as unadulterated 'science', and settled science at that.
No, I would much prefer the old way, where one single piece of errata was enough to tear down a theory... Where a guy in a garage could discount the most learned university professors. However limiting that may be for the scientist, it is certainly honest, and in my opinion, is the very (and only) thing which causes science to be humbled. And that, FRiend, is wholly absent.
I’d say science is all about truth.
Questions are a tool towards that end.
I should have said “real science”....
Why did Einstein?
Incidentally: if Einstein were around today, what do you think he would be called for questioning "settled" physics? If I recall correctly, he was called some bad names.
Yes, but that misses the point entirely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.