Watchtower January 24, 2004 Share Watchtower Member January 24, 2004 http://www.csun.edu/%7Evcgeo005/wise.htm Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy January 25, 2004 Share auggybendoggy Member January 25, 2004 I don't have any thoughts but mannnn do I have a headache...thats a lot of info... I think I'll take it one at a time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane January 25, 2004 Share jane Member January 25, 2004 ive had a lot of thoughts on this stuff, and having read only a bout half of that just now, i cant truly say much. This guy(author of article) seems to laugh in the face of people who are using methods not yet proven(yet used as truth by "real" scientists) to disprove an arguement not yet known to be fact. Problem: There are things being taken for granted on either side of the arguement that have large repercussions down the road. Such as forming principles from a past that is unreachable by any physical means, let alone a strech of the imagination. Problem: Both mind-sets behind the arguments are faith-baised. Niether party acts completely objectively. jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy January 25, 2004 Share auggybendoggy Member January 25, 2004 Jane can you give an example... how the writer assumes too much? At least thats whay I understand you to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy January 25, 2004 Share auggybendoggy Member January 25, 2004 I think what is compelling concerning this issue is that some christians feel that if the earth is old that creationism is faulty. I don't believe Genesis is being scientifically detailed or literal. I don't think if there are millions of years between each literal day God must be a liar. I just think it may be possible God is telling he made man and sin entered the world via this man and woman. I don't buy the young earth view nor do I dismiss the adam naval theory. I simply don't know the answer to such questions but I still believe there is a God and he made man. I certainly don't buy the Gator laid a egg and out came a polar bear idea. Aug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane January 25, 2004 Share jane Member January 25, 2004 "Creationism has its philosophical roots in the Darwinian debates of the last century" Although the arguement essentially started then, the philosophical roots would be in Genesis, roughly written 3500 years ago. "The real battles (Schmidt 1996) between traditional science and Creationism " Talking about traditional science(though at the time the sciences were truly just becoming a realistic thing; 1684-1686 Newtons Laws, 1830 Principles of Geology Charles Lyell, 1785 James Hutton's Theory of the earth,1860-1890 Biology works of Ernst Haeckel, 1832 Uniformatarianism William Whewell, 1859 Origin of Species Charles Darwin) "One of the greatest anomalies in the history of scientific creationism and flood geology has been the near non-presence of well educated geologists " Though that is true and he goes on to state how the doctors Austin, Morris, and Wise are formidable foes, he neglects to mention in objective light that the work they do is not falsified, is not uneducated, is not non-scientific. These scientists take a very objective view on the research and dont judge things until the final results are in Institute for Creation Research. I have more(since im only 1/2 of the way down the article) but im out of time for today. Ill stop by to read Watchtowers rips on my stuff in a bit . God Bless jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar January 26, 2004 Share Crowbar Member January 26, 2004 "Because of it's absurdity...Biblical tale of Joshua keeping the sun from setting..." Well...I found this: ************************************************************** I think one of the most amazing things that God has for us today happened recently to our astronauts and space scientists at Green Belt, Maryland. They were checking the position of the sun, moon, and planets out in space where they would be 100 years and 1000 years from now.. We have to know this so we won't send a satellite, up and have it bump into something later on during its orbits. We have to lay out the orbits in terms of the life of the satellite, and where the planets will be so the whole thing will not bog down.. They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red signal, which meant that there was something wrong either with the information fed into it or with the results as compared to the standards. They called in the service department to check it out and they said what's wrong? Well they found there is a day missing in space in elapsed time. They scratched their heads and tore their hair. There was no answer. Finally, a Christian man on the team said, You know, one time I was in Sunday school and they talked about the sun standing still. While they didn't believe him,they didn't have an answer either, so they said, Show us. He got a Bible and went back to the book of Joshua where they found a pretty ridiculous statement for any one with common sense. There they found the Lord saying to Joshua, Fear them not, I have delivered them into thy hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee. Joshua was concerned because he was surrounded by the enemy and if darkness fell they would overpower them. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! That's right---The sun stood still and the moon stayed---and hasted not to go down about a whole day! The astronauts and scientists said, There is the missing day! They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshua's day was 23 hours and 20 minutes---not a whole day. They read the Bible and there it was about (approximately) a day. These little words in the Bible are important, but they were still in trouble because if you cannot account for 40 minutes you'll still be in trouble 1000 years from now. Forty minutes had to be found because it can be multiplied many times over in orbits.. As the Christian employee thought about it, remembered somewhere in the Bible where it said the sun went backwards. The scientists told him he was out of his mind, but they got out the Book and read these words in 2 Kings: Hezekiah, on his death-bed, was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die. Hezekiah asked for a sign as proof. Isaiah said Do you want the sun to go ahead 10 degrees? Hezekiah said, It is nothing for the sun to go ahead 10 degrees, but let the shadow return backward 10 degrees. Isaiah spoke to the Lord and the Lord brought the shadow ten degrees backward! Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes! Twenty three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in Second Kings make the missing day in the universe! ******************************************************** After checking through many websites, I've found that there is a lot of controversy over whether this is true or not. No one seems to have disproven it. I know, I'm only refuting the very last thing the article mentioned. On the whole I got the impression that this author was very well educated, and was desperate to hold on to his beliefs. He makes the same mistake so many people in the world do. Evolution is NOT science. So many lay people, and scientific minded people alike view creation as religion, and evolution as science. That, is a drastic mistake. Evolution takes more faith than believing a supernatural God created all this. We have the Bible that lays everything out for us and has NEVER been proven wrong. Yet people desperatly hold on to their desire to prove that we humans did it all ourselves. We are in control and we make the rules and no god has any power over us. That's the basis of evolution. It's not a search for the truth, it's the search for a way out of the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 26, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 26, 2004 from snopes.com (urban legend site) Regardless of the amount of time involved, the discovery of a "missing" period of time remains implausible. If the sun had indeed stood still for a day a few millennia ago, we would have no way of determining that fact through astronomic observations today. We have no frame of reference, no "cosmic calendar" or "master clock" to check against to see if we're overdrawn at the Bank of Time. The concept described here would be like giving someone a non-functioning clock and asking him to determine how much time had elapsed since the clock had stopped running. One could note the positions of the hands on the dial and make a reasonable guess about what the time of day was when the clock stopped running, but without knowing whether that time was A.M. or P.M., and without knowing the calendar date on which stoppage occurred, one could not possibly make any reasonable estimate about how long ago the clock stopped. Even the putative reasons offered for the scientists' performing the calculations described in this legend make little sense. We need not know about any "missing time" in the past in order to be able to launch spacecraft today. Even if the sun really did once stand still for a day, that would have absolutely no effect on where the sun, the moon, or the other planets are going to be one hundred or one thousand years from now. If we put a new battery in our stopped clock, all we have to do to get it back on track is to set it to the correct time  we don't need to determine how much time the clock "lost" while it wasn't running to be assured that it will display the correct time in the future. Although the notion of a "lost day" in time has been circulating for well over a century, the version cited here  the one that has been bedevilling NASA since the 1960s  achieved pre-eminence through the tireless efforts of Mr. Harold Hill, who was indeed both a real person and the President of the Curtis Engine Company. However, he had no real connection to NASA, he was not a "consultant in the space program," and he did not witness the events described. Mr. Hill heard a "lost day" legend that had been circulating for many years, embellished it with some details about NASA scientists, and delighted in repeating it when speaking before school groups. His version of the legend made its way into various church bulletins and was eventually picked up and spread by the mainstream media as well, and he devoted a whole chapter to it in his 1974 book, How to Live Like a King’s Kid. (This book lent additional credibility to his tenuous NASA connections  and thus to the legend itself -- when he stated that he "was involved [in the space program] from the start, through contractual arrangements with my company." His "involvement" was merely that the Curtis Engine Company had a contract with NASA to service electrical generators.) Even Hill's admission that he hadn't actually witnessed the events he described clearly wasn't intended to dissuade anyone from believing in the literal truthfulness of his story: "[M]y inability to furnish documentation of the 'Missing day' incident in no way detracts from its authenticity." Authenticity matters little, though  our willingness to accept legends depends far more upon their expression of concepts we want to believe than upon their plausibility. If the sun once really did stand still for a day, the best evidence we'd have for proving it would be the accounts of people who saw it happen. That is what the Bible is said to offer. Some of us accept that, and some of us don't. I left out the top half because it was Snopes going "opinion" on us...which isn't what we're looking for. (they also make erroneous assumptions as well). Either way...I'd say it's not true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 27, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 27, 2004 So you are saying the method they use to calculate this data about days is accurate tho any form of prehistoric dating is flawed and innaccurate.. And although you say Creation as reported in Genesis has never been proven wrong, it has never been proven right in any amount where as other theories are based on soemthing concrete and observable. Why hasen't there been found any complete modern human fossils found from say the flood, or sodom and gamorrah or anything biblical? Did you know bonobos can fashion stone knives? And use other tools? Do you realize we have a tailbone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 27, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 27, 2004 are you replying to me or Crow? Cause I was clearly saying that the "lost day" was an urban legend (that is to say that scientists "discovering" it is an urban legend) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane January 27, 2004 Share jane Member January 27, 2004 So you are saying the method they use to calculate this data about days is accurate tho any form of prehistoric dating is flawed and innaccurate..And although you say Creation as reported in Genesis has never been proven wrong, it has never been proven right in any amount where as other theories are based on soemthing concrete and observable. I guess its hard to look at either situation without faith in the math of all this. Problem: we weren't there. We can't get there. AKA, no observation whatsoever. This whole thing about uniformatarianism, well as far as I'm concerned its like saying because that BMW drove by my house today at 2:15:37PM, it did the same thing yesterday. Sound ridiculous in comparison? Well, just think about it. I see this happening today. I note it again the next day. And the next. And the next. And the next. Then one day, after 35 years of seeing this same Beemer cruise by at the exact same time every day, it doesnt. It comes by at 2:15:39PM. This proves what? That the present can predict neither the future nor the past. Because there are far to many variables, such as flat tires, and stop lights, and floods, and earthquakes, and geologic upheavals(not speaking of actual events, just phenomena) that happen suddenly and without warning. There is no way to say that Everything that we see now has been developing the same way forever. Where do we get the justification for that? I could say the same thing visa-versa, but it cant be made into science either way... Most of modern geologic and biologic evolutionary thought is based on Uniformatarianism, so I brought this up. Not that you referenced to this particular idea being concrete, but most of what you would most likely consider concrete is based on a foundation that is simply not concrete. Where can a house go without a firm foundation? Nowhere but down. my thoughts jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 27, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 27, 2004 "This proves what?" It proves that on those days that you observed the BMW, it Did go past your house.. And you could make a sounds assumption that after a year or so of observation that the BMW will "Most likely" go past you house at that given time. Tolerances built in ofr natural occurring delays(flat tires, sick etc). During that year, you could take a month and without even looking at the data, you could say I bet the BMW drove past at least 20 times.. And the fact that we can't say how everything develops evenly through out history gives more meaning to theories that may seem a bit more "left field".. We're not saying everything we think we know is right, but you are saying that everything we think we know is wrong. That dosen't seem like common sense to me. When that many people can believe in something based in facts, there must be something to it. And not believe due to fear of burning forever.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 27, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 27, 2004 When that many people can believe in something based in facts, there must be something to it. And not believe due to fear of burning forever.. do you need to throw thinly guarded insults out? I agree that you can make logical assumptions based upon seeing the BMW that often. But it still doesn't become fact that the BMW drives past your house every day at that time...I'm not totally sure that the BMW example fits here anyway. Either way you say when so many people believe something based on fact that there must be something to it. I disagree. Is it fact that species adapt to their environment? Yes. Do we have any evidence supporting a species adapting so much that it becomes another species? No. So why is it considered fact when the only thing that supports it is assumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 28, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 28, 2004 I was talking to anyone believing the sun stood still a day.. And yeah I saw u didnt agree with that.. Adapting to another species? We do.. Prehistoric Man fossils? Archaeopteryx and other feathered dinos.. Stickleback fish.. Those are set in stone so to say for us to make our assumptions.. And we have probably found a small percentage of whats really out there.. Think about how much surface the earth has.. Now think about modern scientists digging it up.. Do you think they're found everything? Do you think that in the 100 years we've been looking they've found quite a bit? Now Playaa, it's time for you to be honest with yourself.. How about These ? Scroll through with an open mind and ask youself, Man, or Ape? And the reason I brought up the burning in hell part was not an insult really.. It was me acknowledging the fact that if you Truely belived in Christianity, then you should be very aware and scared of the afterlife if you don't have it together.. Burning forever would be enough to make me believe I'd say thats a major motivator.. Evolutionists have nothing to gain, as many would say "everything to lose".. And PLayaa, your temper is really coming to the surface today.. I can honestly say that any of these conversations has made me that angry.. Whats up? Pm me or something.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane January 29, 2004 Share jane Member January 29, 2004 (edited) Hey. Wow watchtower, what I was saying is that assuming, no matter how logical it sounds cant make it fact. Do you know the difference between logic and fact? I know you do, dumb question. But my point is that if we see something happening, its easy to make that assuption that it goes on happening, and has been happening, though we may not have observed it before. Simple as that. " And the fact that we can't say how everything develops evenly through out history gives more meaning to theories that may seem a bit more "left field".. We're not saying everything we think we know is right, but you are saying that everything we think we know is wrong" No. I was saying that what is assumed by scientists is based on something they will never prove. How can we prove the earth is as old as they say? By judging what is happening today and saying the same thing(though not observed, repeated, hypothesis) happened forever ago. Like, um, everything they say. Albeit, these are logical, why should one believe just because its logical? What about if its true? Why does Christianity stand on the forefront of the "faith" stage and ridiculed for "belief" when our faith, and world-view take no more faith, when observed objectively, than the evolution point of view. Basically, how can my beliefs in God be more radical than beliefs in an old earth? Neither have been proven, to law or common sense. It is logical to find the answer in evolution. Its only less in the secular mind to find the answer in God. BTW, i am perfectly satisfied with my future. I'm not afraid of being cast in to an eternity of burning. Its just not why I believe in Christ. I believe He IS, because He IS. I believe because I have seen His love change my life and many others. I have witnessed His power in changing life, not only for the good, but sometimes, seemingly for the worse. He allows my life to lead on so that I may know Him better, wherever He knows I need to go. If I cant learn from some cake walk Im in, He leads me into a lions den. +edit+ and the beemer thing was weak...just trying to show that becasue something happened today and tomorrow doesnt mean that we can assume it happened yesterday. Edited January 29, 2004 by jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 29, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 29, 2004 the other day I heard a quote that explained this problem PERFECTLY! some people were talking about logic and learning through deduction and one said it's a great way to figure out the facts...then a girl replied: "when you work with logic you don't get fact, you get conclusions." (or something to that effect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 30, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 30, 2004 "Wow watchtower, what I was saying is that assuming, no matter how logical it sounds cant make it fact. Do you know the difference between logic and fact? I know you do, dumb question. But my point is that if we see something happening, its easy to make that assuption that it goes on happening, and has been happening, though we may not have observed it before. Simple as that." Why do you need something proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy January 30, 2004 Share auggybendoggy Member January 30, 2004 "sun stand still" I can do that....it already is so much for literal interpretation. is this a error in scripture? Should it not say "make the earth stop so the sun shines above us". or is it scientifically perfect? hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane January 31, 2004 Share jane Member January 31, 2004 (edited) Why do you need something proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Kinda my point about God... Edited January 31, 2004 by jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 31, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 31, 2004 Ok so then you have Some tangible evidence against None... believe both! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane February 2, 2004 Share jane Member February 2, 2004 lol i mean it takes faith, for both of us. Suxor eh? Not that neither side has a lack of evidence, it just comes down to the fact that, I cant bottle up God for a lab to test and I also cant bottle up Time to show the miracles or lack of which would prove evolution's timeline. I too am like Crowbar, I love to find something that just tweaks my interest. Debate my beliefs some more with good evidence, I want to see the stuff you can find. Its so much fun to learn from the other side of the coin. jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now