My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting-
the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman argument.
I never believed in geocentrism and I have not met anyone of my church friends
who does. But, we do believe in a different kind of geocentrism, that with all
of God's creation, the Earth is the center of his attention.
Where in the Bible does it say 6000 years is the Earth's age. Again, you can
not put beliefs into someone and proceed to demolish it. Faulty logic. I have
never claimed the Earth is 6000 years old. Some of my friends do, and we
sometimes argue (discuss) it. But, really, even if I do, what scientific fact
- I mean real scientific fact, not conclusions and conjectures and
speculations, do you have to say that this is wrong. Yeah yeah, I know about
your shellfish study and your ice core data. At best they are not "settled"
science, just the opinion of some researcher.
So regarding your supposed contradictions, you acknowledge that it is difficult
to "draw out" and yet you proclaim it as a contradiction. Something is wrong
with that thinking my friend.
Yeah, just go ahead and weasle away. Most people do that when they been found
to be either lying or wrong.
NEXT!!!!
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
On 2/01/2013 4:59 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
First, you came up with the opinion of a man and proceeded to demolish it.
If this is not a clear example of a Strawman argument, I don't know what is. I
won't even bother to rebute this argument as it is clearly fallacious. I said
provide a statement FROM THE BIBLE, not some person.
This is not the opinion of one man, but was the strongly held opinion of the
whole of Christendom from the least to the greatest, and a matter for which
great scientists were threatened with torture and burnt at the stake. Within
that discussion are many statements *from the Bible* that support a geocentric
worldview. But like I said, this is one that we can likely agree on because
the scientific evidence has now persuaded modern biblical scholars (yourself
included) that they need to interpret those passages differently. I brought up
this point to illustrate that Bible interpretation is an evolutionary process
which we are in the middle of (and some of us are considerably more evolved
than others!)
Second, you question the integrity of the Bible by saying that it claimed
that the Earth is ~6000 years old. Please point to me where it says in the
Bible that the Earth is 6000 years old. This age is a conjecture by scholars
when they attempt to trace back the genealogy of people mentioned in the Bible.
This figure is by no means an agreed figure.
This figure is "by no means an agreed figure" for the simple reason that it
is no longer tenable (except by the most determined literalists), so of course
scholars have to come up with a different interpretation than the obvious
straightforward meaning of the text. The geocentrism argument has been
considered lost by almost everyone except the gentleman I pointed to. The
group you belong to has accepted that the 6000 year old earth is untenable but
doesn't yet know what figure to retreat to. Whether Noah's flood was local or
global seems to be an argument that your group has not yet considered very
seriously.
I know a Christian denomination that holds the entire Bible in the highest
regard, and yet happily teaches that all of Genesis before Abraham is not to be
taken literally but rather has deeper spiritual meanings (much as Jesus'
parables are not historical events but have spiritual meanings).
So you see that there is almost *no* point at which believers will be unable
to change their interpretation in order to keep their Bible as without error.
For myself I can't see why the book needs to have no errors. We don't demand
it of any other book so why this one.
...
You also mentioned Noah's flood and you provided Ice core "evidence", sea
shell "evidnece" etc. Show me the data for these?
I thought I did (see link preserved at end) - was the plotted data not data
for some reason?
All you have provided are conclusions of people. This is by no means
settled science. These are just conjectures and conclusions.
Regarding your statement the all the ice is assumed to have melted in
Noah's flood. Why would you assume that? What evidence do you have that that
indeed happened. Other researchers say the opposite of what you are assuming.
A global deluge would cool the Earth and form ice, not melt it.
Regardless of what happened (cooling or melting), one would expect a glitch
or discontinuity in the climate data don't you think?
If all the ice didn't melt then since it floats, there should have been
plenty of "dry land" for arctic animals and Eskimos to survive on?
Come on, this is your best scientific evidence? You can do better and it
does not help that you cop out immediately by saying that I will not look at
your evidence.
But I did point to the plotted data from the Vostok ice cores and the bethnic
foram and either you didn't even look at it, or you wrote off a vast amount of
very carefully and expensively obtained data as "conjectures and conclusions".
I think a global flood advocate should be able to explain how such long
unbroken and agreeing data sets are compatible with a global catastrophe.
Where is the glitch or discontinuity in the data record which marks Noah's
flood? Or what is the massive error made by the two independent groups of
scientists that have allowed them to get their x-axis wrong by two orders of
magnitude?
I did not say that you would not look at the evidence, I said that it was
pointless - as almost any scenario can be accepted by biblical inerrantists by
simply changing interpretation - with the exception of internal contradictions.
Regarding you claims of contradictions, please elaborate. What
contradictions?
The first is probably too difficult to draw out fully here as it requires
looking at the Hebrew characters to work out how the differences occurred.
The second is more straightforward (who wrote on Moses' second set of
tablets):
Exod 34:1 And Yahweh said to Moses: "You yourself chisel out two stone
tablets like the first that *I* might write upon the tablets the words that
were upon the first tablets that you shattered."
Exod 34:27-28 'And Yahweh said to Moses: "*You yourself* write these words
for upon the command of these words I have made a covenant with you and with
Israel." And he was there with Yahweh for forty days and forty nights, he
neither ate bread nor drank water but wrote upon the tablets the covenant words'
Deut 10:4 And he {Yahweh} wrote upon the tablets like the first writing (the
ten words that Yahweh spoke to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire
on the day of the assembly) and Yahweh gave them to me.
The third (where did Aaron die):
Aaron died atop the Mountain of Hor according to Num 33:38 (which is the 35th
stop in the Numbers itinerary).
Aaron died at a place called Moserah (the singular form of Moseroth)
according to Deut 10:6 (which is the 28th stop in the Numbers itinerary - see
Num 33:30-31).
But I have no intention of continuing this discussion on this forum.
From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
...
Checkout the agreement between the entire ice core data and the benthic
foramanifera core data (which come from tiny shellfish living and accumulating
on the sea bed) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. This data
is from such different sources that this agreement can only be produced by a
common driving mechanism (ie climate). Yet one would expect the arctic snow
fall to be far more affected by a global flood than the steady accumulation of
foramanifera on the sea bed (which would be scarcely altered by a flood). So
one can't suggest that many of the ice core layers were produced by multiple
snow storm events in a single year, and still have the two independent data
sources agreeing so well.
...
