The Sun Stood Still

[bob b]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

From the comments offered by him, you, Ninevah, and Mustard Seed it's obvious you guys don't. Not even the basics.

Depressing really.

What I find depressing is that an intelligent young man cannot recognize that "the tide has turned" and that new findings in biology have made obsolete the idea that lifeforms can transform into new types by the now seen absurd notion of "copying errors".

Almost every day new findings reveal even more details of design that show us that even the simplest cell is "light years" more sophisticated in its operations than the most successful of human engineered designs.

At some point the entire world will recognize this.

Why not be on the leading edge of science instead of locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days?

Darwin got many things right, but like his worshippers today, did not recognize that excessive extrapolation, something warned against in Freshman science lectures, "is not scientific".

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by bob b

What I find depressing is that an intelligent young man cannot recognize that "the tide has turned" and that new findings in biology have made obsolete the idea that lifeforms can transform into new types by the now seen absurd notion of "copying errors".

Almost every day new findings reveal even more details of design that show us that even the simplest cell is "light years" more sophisticated in its operations than the most successful of human engineered designs.

At some point the entire world will recognize this.

Why not be on the leading edge of science instead of locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days?

Darwin got many things right, but like his worshippers today, did not recognize that excessive extrapolation, something warned against in Freshman science lectures, "is not scientific".

Got any particular cites to the statements in your first paragraph?

And I think I would be careful criticizing those "locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days". Seems to me that your paradigm is a bit older than that. So if the age of the paradigm is your issue I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: The Sun Stood Stll

Re: Re: Re: The Sun Stood Stll

Originally posted by bob b

I found this on the web. It is interesting but I can't vouch for it.

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/

Thank you I finally got around to reading the link...

I had no idea there were so many accounts from such a wide range of places concerning this....

I'll do a little digging and see what I can come up with from the leads in the link. This is as fascinating as comparing the flood accounts...

 

[aharvey]

maybe time for a change, Strat?

maybe time for a change, Strat?

Originally posted by Stratnerd

From the comments offered by him, you, Ninevah, and Mustard Seed it's obvious you guys don't. Not even the basics.

Depressing really.

Strat,

I was completely serious in my last thread about the fruitlessness of trying to conduct honest discussions with people who believe in righteous lying. Especially lately, it seems like these guys feel like they've "discovered" a "successful" strategy, and it is deeply rooted in the, er, flexible ethics their righteousness gives them; and it seems also to me that it may well be successful as long as we allow ourselves to be locked into this endless, unproductive dance.

An interesting thing has happened in Statesboro recently. Evolution had become quite the hot topic in the general community thanks in part to events elsewhere in the state. So when our "Evolution: the science of change" exhibit opened up Feb. 12, we were expecting rather a bit of controversy of the "pouring gasoline on smoldering embers" variety. But in fact, the only negative reaction we've heard, in person, secondhand, reported by the local press, or otherwise, was from one person before she went to see the exhibit. From instructors who have seen the exhibit, we have heard that it presents the concepts and the evidence in an extremely organized, understandable, and convincing manner without being "in your face" about it. And finally, I've watched community members working through the exhibit panel by panel, and they seem to "get it," even though of course I have no way of knowing whether they "believe it."

My point is that, as interesting and compelling as this issue is, some venues may be more productive than others. What say you about exploring some more productive alternatives?

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by Jukia

Got any particular cites to the statements in your first paragraph?

And I think I would be careful criticizing those "locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days". Seems to me that your paradigm is a bit older than that. So if the age of the paradigm is your issue I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

If you are criticizing the religious hierarchy, I agree with you perfectly.

Ernst Mayr points out in his book that the religious hierarchy taught that "things were created perfectly and never change". This is a true statement, BUT Ernst erred in implying that this is what the Bible teaches. The confusion comes about because the religious hierarchy has always had a tendency to absorb ideas from other cultures and incorporate them into their theology. Thus, many Christian writers have incorporated pagan Greek ideas into their philosophy. A good example was what happened to Galileo in his struggle against the ideas of Aristotle, a pagan Greek.

The stories in the Bible are not human devised paradigms, they are a combination of eyewitness reports and writings by people inspired by the Holy Spirit. They do not teach science, but they do teach what happened (history) and who is behind it all.

Manytimes the history recorded in the Bible is challenged by men who have devised their own version of what happened in the past. One reason I have come to favor the Biblical account is because I am old enough to remember some of the times when men have claimed the Bible was wrong about history, and I have lived long enough to see new findings authenticate the Bible account and send the critics back to the drawing board.

I fully expect this long term trend to continue.

 

[Stratnerd]

Why not be on the leading edge of science instead of locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days?

sure, what science do I do then? What project did you have in mind?

 

[Jukia]

I suspect your knowledge of Galileo is a flawed as your understanding of science.

 

[Stratnerd]

AH,

What say you about exploring some more productive alternatives?

what did you have in mind?

I was completely serious in my last thread about the fruitlessness of trying to conduct honest discussions with people who believe in righteous lying.

I'm quite familiar with this... I've been able to lecture freshman biology!

Look how long it's been taking to get BobB to give a single definition.

 

[billwald]

I have no problem "believing" that Joshua's "long day" was a miracle done by God.


"The upshot is that there appears to be solid evidence from the Bible and from folklore around the world that there was one day which, depending upon geographical location, presented the inhabitants of the earth with an unusually long span of daylight or night."

The upshot is that there is no "scientific" evidence or "scientific" way to investigate it and thus it is a metaphysical problem, not a scientific problem. Your referenced webcite is a a bunch of cracked pots.

 

[Stratnerd]

you know that's an excellent point that I think goes over some people's head...

they look for "scientific evidence" of super speciation, super tectonics, super nuclear decay, super life spans, etc. Why not just invoke miracles?

 

[satalien]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

you know that's an excellent point that I think goes over some people's head...

they look for "scientific evidence" of super speciation, super tectonics, super nuclear decay, super life spans, etc. Why not just invoke miracles?

'cause then they know they can't get it into science classes.

 

[Stratnerd]

I guess that's there the Discovery Institute takes over - their primary goal is to get miracles accepted as explanations.

I guess they can just redefine science!

 

[Rolf Ernst]

bob b--I have seen some excellent posts from you, and believe you are a real asset to TOL. Thanks for being around!

 

[Stratnerd]

Alan,

What say you about exploring some more productive alternatives?

what did you have in mind?

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

bob b--I have seen some excellent posts from you, and believe you are a real asset to TOL. Thanks for being around!

Thanks for the encouragement. :thumb:

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

bob b--I have seen some excellent posts from you, and believe you are a real asset to TOL. Thanks for being around!

I second that

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I second that

Thanks for the encouragement. :thumb:

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Even "scientists" are abandoning evolutionary "theory" because of the real scientific discoveries which have come since the discovery of DNA. The movement of science as a whole is toward "intelligent design." by some amorphous, supreme intelligence. That is their way of maintaining their individual "scientific" integrity without acknowledging "The God Who is There," (as Francis Schaeffer titled one of his Christian classics) in a day when the evidences for intellectual design are increasingly overwhelming.

Without fail it will be just as Jesus said: "If you believe not that I AM He, you shall die in your sins."

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Even "scientists" are abandoning evolutionary "theory" because of the real scientific discoveries which have come since the discovery of DNA. The movement of science as a whole is toward "intelligent design." by some amorphous, supreme intelligence. That is their way of maintaining their individual scientific integrity in a day when the evidences for intellectual design are increasingly overwhelming.

Really? And you know this how??? I think you are wrong.

 

[Stratnerd]

Even "scientists" are abandoning evolutionary "theory" because of the real scientific discoveries which have come since the discovery of DNA.

really? If anything it confirms evolutionary theory.

The movement of science as a whole is toward "intelligent design." by some amorphous, supreme intelligence.

really? I just thought it was the same folks that brought us creationisms but now they've just given it a new flavor.