If I showed you evidence that would that prove God to you would your presuppositions prevent a belief again?There is plenty of evidence for knowing God. Evidence of impossible things that are in the Bible, such as, eye witnesses with dedication to truth, 40 people penned a cohesive message of salvation over 1600 year period, etc.
We don't show evidence of the Bible with science because that would render science the authority. The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. There is even scientific truths in the Bible that would be impossible to know back when it was written a brief list of Atoms (Hebrews 11:3, written 2000 years ago), Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11), Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6), round earth (Isaiah 40:22) , Second Law of Thermodynamics the Law of Increasing Entropy (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25,26; and Hebrews 1:11), Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41), Light moves (Job 38:19,20),Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6), Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).
Job 38:35 written 3,500 years ago said that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech but did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn't discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12), Dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24), Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? (Genesis 17:12) Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is at the highest levels.(LW)
On and on, a handful more things that can be pointed out but you get the point. Others blogs have posted about these things also. I enjoyed the layout and organization of this one called Clarifying Christianity. A website that also claims: "We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible."
My point is that man doesn't/hasn't always known the truth that's in the Bible. Look Doctors/scientists used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died. Over 3000 years ago in Leviticus 17:14 it has always said that blood is life.
Are all of these points made acceptable to you, is another question. Obviously, the evidence presented so far doesn't allow atheists to believe so why should this be any different. I am sure your presuppositions are still in place.
FAIL
ReplyDeleteHebrews is talking about an unseen spiritual realm. Indeed, atoms are not invisible.
Blood, while needed to keep us alive, is not the source of life. If it were, tranfusions should be able to raise the dead. Blood only helps to keep life from slipping away. Similarly with air.
Jonah 2:6-7 seems to be talking about the abyss as the end of life or the afterlife. The phrase "the roots of mountains" (New American Bible) seems to suggest that the people thought mountains were distinct forms that had roots under the earth. My reading of 2 Samuel speaks of "wellsprings of the sea" and "foundations of the earth" (both fictitious) but no valleys or mountains.
My translation doesn't even render it "circle" of the earth. I presume yours does. In any event, it would still be referring to a flat disk.
Your references to things wearing down was not unknown at the time. People observes that things wore down.
"One differs from another in brightness" (New American Bible) The people could see that. (Now if it had said that they were really balls of gas -- but I digress.)
Job 38:19, 20 is claiming that light and darkness are beings with dwelling places. That would be a scientific falsehood.
Winds blowing in cyclones were not unknown at the time. (I'm not even going to look up that biblical text. It was something known to the people the way you stated it.)
My copy only talks about "sources" of the sea. People could guess that there would be some source.
Job38:35 talks about lightning (not light) and how only the biblical god can control it.
Job 40:15-24 talks about a "behemoth." It has only recently been re-interpreted to be talking of a dinosaur. Further, the wording suggests that it should be an animal with which the people were familiar, which rules out dinosaurs.
The choice of the eighth day was likely based on trial and error and then codified in their sacred book.
Yes, I'm sure you could on with things equally impressive. Your "evidence" is mostly a re-interpretation of ancient texts to fit modern knowledge. If someone did that with any other religious book, I'm sure you would cry foul.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteIt appears you failed in your logic.
"atoms are not invisible."
Have you even seen an atom? No matter what atomist propaganda there is to the contrary, no one has seen an atom. The only way to belief in this preposterous hoax is to have faith in science, which apparently can tell you all about stuff you haven't seen, can't see, and will never see anyway!
Don't be coy, blood is life.
" My translation doesn't even render it "circle" of the earth. I presume yours does. In any event, it would still be referring to a flat disk."
So tell me Einstein, how did people even know that the earth was a "circle" when people in the 1400-1500 thought the earth was flat. Come on now, use some logic here.
" My translation doesn't even render it "circle" of the earth. I presume yours does. In any event, it would still be referring to a flat disk." I provided links just for you
"Job 40:15-24 talks about a "behemoth." It has only recently been re-interpreted to be talking of a dinosaur."
Dude! You are cracking me up. The word dinosaur wasn't "invented" until 1841. Nuclear war wasn't in the Bible either, but clouds of fire ( a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself,) sure is. To be kind as possible, your logic is flawed.
"The choice of the eighth day was likely based on trial and error" Yawn, do you have proof of this statement?
" I'm sure you would cry foul." Now that is the most accurate thing you have said. FOUL!
Come on Dan! You know you are reinterpretting to fit your expectations here:
ReplyDeleteHebrews 11:3
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Now, take a look at the entire thing, and you will note that this is talking about having faith in god despite you cannot see him. This is not talking about any atoms. This is saying that despite you cannot see god, he made the whole thing.
Leviticus 17 was used as an excuse not to give transfusions to badly bled people, because you cannot eat blood. Yet, blood is not the source of life, as pvblivs was explaining, but certainly without blood you die. In any event, it is not surprising to find something referring to blood as a source of life. Do you really think that people of old times would not notice that if you bled profusely you die? Such an experience does not require any "revelation."
2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6
Well, in samuel you have "channels," which might refer to currents (oceanic and windy), which only need sailor experience, or might refer to routes takes by sailors to go from one place to another. As for Jonah, what makes you think people could not imagine that the geology we observe in land does not imply the same for ocean floors?
The round earth, come on! Anybody could think the earth is a circle (a flat one, circle and sphere are not the same thing, you know?). After all, if you look around you in a big valley it looks like you see a big circle, you cannot think of a square.
I could continue, but this only shows how much wishful thinking is done about the bible revealing things, when either it does not, or the discoveries are not that hard to conclude without the bible. Seems like you underestimate people of old times way too much. The greeks had already discovered that the earth is a SPHERE at least twice, navigators had to know about currents, bleeding can kill you ...
Actually, I am surprised that the bible does not have much more knowledge. After all, those writing it were not necessarily fools. They were not gods though.
G.E.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteIf atoms were truly invisible, then collections of atoms, no matter how large, would be likewise invisible. Do you see where I am going with this? Logically, we must conclude that atoms are either visible or fictitious. For something to be invisible, it must be impossible to see even at its own scale.
"So tell me Einstein, how did people even know that the earth was a 'circle' when people in the 1400-1500 thought the earth was flat. Come on now, use some logic here."
Similar to Get Education's explanation. If you stand on a tall mountain, the horizon appears smooth, without corners. This suggests "circle" as in "flat disk." Interestingly, the people in the 15th century thought the world was flat because the bible told them so. The early Greeks decided the earth was a sphere. It's a little surprising, but not impressive in itself. What is impressive is that they measured it -- correctly. That takes some doing, even today.
You left out "Further, the wording suggests that it should be an animal with which the people were familiar, which rules out dinosaurs." As that part was rather important, you have just been caught quote-mining.
"'The choice of the eighth day was likely based on trial and error.'
"Yawn, do you have proof of this statement?"
I don't have to. Your claim was of scientific truths that impossible to know back then. The details of why the eighth day was best are not present in the bible and the method of trial and error demonstrates that it was possible for them to know the eighth day best without divine intervention. It is my own judgement that that how they likely came to that knowledge.
"'Your 'evidence' is mostly a re-interpretation of ancient texts to fit modern knowledge. If someone did that with any other religious book, I'm sure you would cry foul.'
"Now that is the most accurate thing you have said. FOUL!"
I took the liberty of restoring the context to my original quote. Now you just let me know if it changes the impression of your words. (Of course, since I only corrected my own quote, that would mean that you were being dishonest. I kept your response verbatim.)
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete" If atoms were truly invisible, then collections of atoms, no matter how large, would be likewise invisible. Do you see where I am going with this?"
Yes, I do now, I concede to that point but I also want to point out to date no one has observed one. We observe the effects of one but not one, to man they are still invisible even with instrumentation.
"Logically, we must conclude that atoms are either visible or fictitious." Not necessarily, also logically that doesn't apply to everything.
But back to defending the Bible, visible things are made of ( a collection of)invisible things. True statement still. How could they possible know this? The seen things are made of things that remain invisible. The Bible is still making a true statement. Moving on.
" You left out "Further, the wording suggests that it should be an animal with which the people were familiar, which rules out dinosaurs." As that part was rather important, you have just been caught quote-mining."
Oops you're right I did 'quote mine' fine I will address it now.
""Further, the wording suggests that it should be an animal with which the people were familiar, which rules out dinosaurs."
Which rules out dinosaurs? That is a huge assumption. Wouldn't they be familiar with dinosaurs 'if' they did roam the earth with man, or am I missing something here?
"Yawn, do you have proof of this statement?"
I don't have to. Your claim was of scientific truths that impossible to know back then.
You're right you don't have to, I got confused.
"(Of course, since I only corrected my own quote, that would mean that you were being dishonest. I kept your response verbatim.)
I did take you out of context which was wrong I concede. Was that dishonest though? Confused, yes dishonest? I don't feel it was, but possibly. I apologize.
admittedly, I am getting flustered with the fallacy attacks. But that isn't a excuse but I need a break. I'll chase my kids around for a while and get back to it all.
As pvblivs said
ReplyDeleteFAIL
31,103 verses in the bible and you were able to find less than 20 that bore some vague resemblance to recognized scientific fact. Thats about .064% the bible that might have some demonstrable prophetic truths to it. Of course even your best picks from the book aren't without their huge shortcomings as pvblivs and GE elucidated. If only 1 Kings 7:24 could have actually given a good representation of pi, well better than 3.14106 as it was known to the Greeks at the time, instead of 3 you might have some actual irrefutable evidence. If only god could have told the Hebrews something prophetic, but then again he doesn't exist so I guess that would be impossible.
FAIL?
ReplyDelete"31,103 verses in the bible and you were able to find less than 20 that bore some vague resemblance to recognized scientific fact. Thats about .064% the bible that might have some demonstrable prophetic truths to it. Of course even your best picks from the book aren't without their huge shortcomings as pvblivs and GE elucidated.
I said in the post: "The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate." How did I fail that statement?
As for your false claim that the Bible was showing Pi accurately. I saw no evidence of that. The Bible makes no claim about the value of pi. It simply records that the circular basin built for Solomon's temple in fact measured "ten cubits from rim to rim and thirty cubits around it," a cubit being about 17.5 inches (or ~44.45 cm) I did find, just for you, two websites that explain the situation in detail if you are interested. Here and Here
@Dan--
ReplyDeleteHave you even seen an atom? No matter what atomist propaganda there is to the contrary, no one has seen an atom. The only way to belief in this preposterous hoax is to have faith in science, which apparently can tell you all about stuff you haven't seen, can't see, and will never see anyway!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://bp1.blogger.com/_0QcVd5DnR1s/RvWu1tzQzdI/AAAAAAAAANA/AEuf7gYYbXc/s1600-h/atom_lattice.gif
I wonder what else you're wrong about?
It always makes me smile to see someone complaining how feeble science is on their computer and posting those Luddite comments on the internet for the rest of the world to read!
And for some strange reason, it's always some religious fanatic making ignorant comments like that.
Why do you suppose that is, Dan?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou failed because you also said:
There is even scientific truths in the Bible that would be impossible to know back when it was written
So, FAILED just as theaceofclubz said.
Annoyingly,
G.E.
Forgive me Captain howdy but I will remain a skeptic since the only place I found that link is from Richard Dawkins website. Granted the picture is hosted
ReplyDeleteThis picture that you include is actually a misrepresentation of an atom. These aren't atoms 'per se' we only see atoms when we look for their macro effects (shadows, and such).
Here is another example of Macro effects of an atom and this is the scanned surface of sodium chloride
Think about it though anybody can take a picture of atoms. My webcam can take pictures of atoms by taking a picture of any object. A group of atoms, like Pvblivs pointed out, is seen otherwise we would all be invisible but the collection of atoms isn't what is invisible. The Bible claims that the visible "collection of atoms" is seen by the invisible "singular atom" no one has a picture of an atom. Still factual. agree?
Let me finish my thought:
ReplyDeleteGranted the picture is hosted by a student/professor at Department of Astronomy at UV
Again dan,
ReplyDeleteThe bible does not say ANYTHNG about atoms, it says that the visible is made of the invisible, meaning god. Try and read the CONTEXT of that Hebrews 11 thing.
Annoyingly,
G.E.
I said in the post: "The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate." How did I fail that statement?
ReplyDeleteIf the bible were scientifically accurate then it should not be child's play to go back and correct the passages you chose.
The earth is not a circle, it is a sphere. Even an analogy to a spherical object would have been better.
FAIL
"Blood is the source of life and health," how is this a scientific claim exactly. "The source" implies an exclusivity of importance. However, digestion, respiration, lymph... pretty much any system in the human body is at least as responsible for life to be possible.
FAIL
Even if we ignore the above it holds no weight. It merely points out that ancient peoples were aware that if you bled profusely, you die.
DOUBLE FAIL
There are other claims that you made as scientifically accurate that amount to little more than observation of surroundings.
Among those in this category are: Each star is different, Winds blow in cyclones, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
FACEPALM FAIL
Most of the others you cited require the reader to strain the meanings of the passages to fit it into the explanation you want it to. See Second Law of Thermodynamics (again), and Ocean contains springs (hydrothermal vents are the same as the water table being higher than land level. O'RLY LOL)
FAIL TIMES YOUR MOM
Look, my whole point is this. If you want to post this type of drivel at some fundamentalist fan blog, that's cool. Fundies love this type of stuff. But posting it on a blog titled "Debunking Atheists" is just going to get you laughed at.
And my pointing out of 1 Kings 7:24 was not to claim that the bible said pi = 3. Its to point out that your omniscient, omnipotent deity slipped up on a golden opportunity to verify his validity. He failed too.
Actually the Hebrew word used can be translated as either a circle or a sphere. FAIL to you.
DeleteDo you have to be so rude to bring someones mom into it? Or does your religion of evolution-ism allow such immoral behaviour? Oh I forgot, you guys can do anything you feel is right.
All the claims in the bible are scinetifically accurate. God didn't fail at anything. It is you who has failed to acknowledge God and what is written in His Word as truth. All the scripture is scientifically correct, even if you can observe dust blowing in the wind. It doesn't matter. It is not incorrect. Your whole argument is "Well, that isn't very impressive today because we know that stuff". It's just an excuse to deny accountability to God. Unfotunately for you, you will face God, not matter how much you laugh now. And we don't care if Atheists laugh. You guys believe apes evolve into humans given enough time, under the false guise of mutations and variations within kinds. You believe everything came from...nothing. Now there's some pseudo science for you. Lol
@dan--
ReplyDeleteForgive me Captain howdy but I will remain a skeptic since the only place I found that link is from Richard Dawkins website. Granted the picture is hosted
This picture that you include is actually a misrepresentation of an atom. These aren't atoms 'per se' we only see atoms when we look for their macro effects (shadows, and such).
~~~~~~~~
You're suggesting that physicists are just blindly guessing when they talk about matter being composed of atoms. You speak of "atomist propaganda."
I'm trying to show that you're talking right out of your hat, and I'm being polite. Physicists have actually photographed atoms in a lattice. I showed you such a photo. It took 2/1000ths of a second to find on google. Now you want to quibble about resolution of the photograph.
Here's a challenge for you. You say scientists are full of it when they talk about things like atoms, even after being shown a photograph. You insist there really is a God, and your opinion on the matter is not only correct, but actually inerrant--you're not only right, but it's actually impossible for you to be wrong. Your God--you insist--is really there.
Okay--Physicists are able to produce a photo of atoms. Provide me with a photo of God. Or a demon. Or an angel. Or the Holy Spirit.
You're trying to sell me on the notion that the Holy Book you prefer is scientifically accurate. Your Holy Book describes the sun as actually moving across the sky. That means the writer of that Holy Book didn't know that the sun only appears to move--it's actually the earth that's moving. You probably don't believe that, but it's true. That raises troubling questions. If the Holy Book you prefer is that wrong about matters of established fact, then how worried should I really be about your unverifiable threats of an afterlife?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteYou have things the wrong way round here. You have given what you consider to be proof for something you have not yet defined. Science works by requiring a falsifiable definition (hypothesis) of what it is you are attempting to prove PRIOR to providing proof.
1 Timothy 1:7 (King James Version)
ReplyDeleteKing James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
Read St. Augustine on Science and Scripture.
captain howdy,
ReplyDelete(1 Timothy 1:7) ouch
You're right you offered proof to the contrary, although my presuppositions are still firmly in place. You have proven your point though. I will reserve the fact, on the other hand, that atoms are only observed through macro effects until proven otherwise.
@dan--
ReplyDeletecaptain howdy,
(1 Timothy 1:7) ouch
You're right you offered proof to the contrary, although my presuppositions are still firmly in place. You have proven your point though.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, thank you, Dan.
Let me also say that I appreciate your moderation policy. I'm used to posting to Ray Comfort's site, and it's frequently been 18 hours between the time I submit a comment and the time it appears on-screen.
And finally, let me just say that I'd like to see less argument between you Christians and we atheists, and more dialog.
Less heat and more light.
Captain howdy,
ReplyDelete"And finally, let me just say that I'd like to see less argument between you Christians and we atheists, and more dialog.
Less heat and more light."
My friend, you are now preaching to the choir. My hat is tipped in your direction. Great point
Dan- you have taken very simple statements from the Bible and attributed rather complex modern scientific meanings to them. I have two questions:
ReplyDeleteOne- if you say that Isaiah 40:22 shows knowledge of the Earth's sphericity, what are we to make of the numerous places in the Bible where the Earth is referred to as being flat? For instance:
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
(there are lots more here)
Are these just "figurative"? If so, how can you tell when the Bible is being "figurative" and when it's being "literal"? This is, of course, a very general problem for Christians in interpreting the Bible, and one for which I have never heard a satisfactory answer.
Two- most of the quotes mentioned in this thread are pretty vague (with the exception of 1 Kings 7:24, which clearly states that pi=3- however, even though God missed a great opportunity to wow us here, I'll chalk this one up to the slack tolerances of architectural instructions), and it takes a lot of reading between, under, and over the lines to get them to yield the scientific marvels you claim for them. My question is: just how vague does a quote have to be before even you will admit that it probably doesn't mean anything scientific? For instance, would you go as far as Jack Chick, and say that Collossians 1:17 ("He himself existed before anything else did, and he holds all things together." - ISV) shows why protons stick together in nuclei, even though they repel one another: because Jesus holds them together? How do you know where to draw the line?
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)"
Thanks, I almost forgot that one. The four corners of the earth is still used today, we can easily deduce that it means North, South, East, West meaning all over the earth.
"ENDS OF THE EARTH" refers to the whole earth
Like Job 37:12 "And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth."
Job 28:24 "For He looks to the ends of the earth, And sees under the whole heavens,"
If you take words out of context one could argue it may appear the Bible claims flatness. Also you have to take into account how they talked and the etymology of the language. Ends of the earth, four corners of the earth are expressions of "all over the earth" and the evidence points to it in other verses like Job 28:24.
"If so, how can you tell when the Bible is being "figurative" and when it's being "literal"?"
Really? For me it is obvious that it's a parable or a hyperbole. The context and language used makes it 'mostly' obvious. I can't think of any exceptions to the rule at the moment.
"If a man walks in the woods..." parable or hyperbole
"If you sin you will burn..." literal
"For instance, would you go as far as Jack Chick, and say that Collossians 1:17 ("He himself existed before anything else did, and he holds all things together." - ISV) shows why protons stick together in nuclei, even though they repel one another: because Jesus holds them together? How do you know where to draw the line? "
First , I love that tract, thanks. Second I don't know what verse you are talking about but Colossians 1:17 is talking about Jesus, true. By the reference of the other verses
Colossians 1:16-17 "all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (KJV)"
Without Him nothing exists, it says. That leap that was made was probably because of the liberal translation. I stick to a more consistently more accurate "conservative" translation myself.
9previous post removed because I had the wrong greek guy named instead of Eratosthenes)
ReplyDeleteHere's a christian site which talks about science and the bible.
Dan:
So tell me Einstein, how did people even know that the earth was a "circle" when people in the 1400-1500 thought the earth was flat. Come on now, use some logic here.
You should probably watch your tone here. From the site I linked to, it shows even the Egyptians knew the shape of the earth.
There's nothing to say that just because something was known once that the knowledge couldn't get lost again. Use some logic here.
From the site I linked to above:
Isaiah 40:22 - The circle of the earth"
According to Morris this verse describes a spherical earth. The Hebrew word is hwg. I believe that this refers to the circular horizon that vaults itself over the earth to form a dome (Meyers 1989, 63-9).
The Babylonian Map of the world clearly shows a circular earth surrounded by a circular sea (Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 1960, part xxii, pl.48; for a translation see Horowitz 1988, 147-65; 1998, 20-42). The äamaö Hymn which is written to the Sun-god says, "You climb to the mountains surveying the earth, you suspend from the heavens the circle of the lands." The phrase "the four corners of the earth" which in Akkadian is kip-pát tu-bu-qa-at eerbitti, can be literally translated "the circle of the four corners" (Grayson 1972, 105).
Upper & Lower oceans with circular earth from Tutankhamun (King Tut) 14th Century BC.
In Egyptian literature the Hymn to Ramses II found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel says, "like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world" (Erman 1927, 258-9). There is another similar phrase in The War Against the Peoples of the Sea" which comes from Ramses III’s temple of Medinet Habu which says, They laid their hands upon the lands as far as the circuit of the earthÖ" (ANET 1969, 262). Keel in his book The Symbolism of the Biblical World (pp. 37-40). Has many Egyptian drawings showing a circular earth surrounded by a circular sea.
Then there was Eratosthenes:
Over two thousand years ago Greek astronomers knew that the Earth was sphereical. During lunar eclipses the Moon passes through the Earth's shadow. The Greeks noticed that the shadow cast by the Earth was always circular, and the only object that always casts a circular shadow is a sphere. Therefore, the Greeks concluded that the Earth was a sphere.
However a nagging question was how big was the Earth? About 200 BC. Eratosthenes, a Greek astronomer, discovered a way to measure the circumference of the Earth. He had heard reports from the city of Syene Egypt, which was on the equator, that the Sun shown directly down vertical wells on the first day of summer. Eratoshtenes did not observe such phenonmenon at his home, thus he concluded that the Sun never reaches Zenith at his home in Alexandria 7o north of Syene.
Eratosthenes measured the Sun to be about 7o south of his local zenith on the first day of summer (the summer solstice). Based upon this observation is concluded that distance from Alexandria and Syene must be 7/360 or 1/50 that of Earth's circumference since 360o make up a complete circle.
At the time the standardunit of measurement was called a stade and is thought to be about 1/6 of a kilometer. The distance from Syene to Alexandria was about 5000 stades. Thus, Eratosthenes estimated the Earth's circumference to be about
50 x 5000 = 25,000 stades = 42,000 km.
The modern value for the circumference of the Earth is 40,000 km. So Eratosthenes was correct to within 5% of the actual value.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"So tell me Einstein" isn't a compliment to an atheist then?
OK I concede I was getting harsh I retract my apparent anger. I apologize Pvblivs.
Reynold,
You stated you case well and thanks for that well constructed website. I learned a couple of things today. Thanks
Meh, no problem.
ReplyDeleteLet's take a look at the science in Genesis shall we? Genesis 1:1-5 earth was formless and void...and god created light and dark on the first DAY...now how is it if the earth is formless and void how can you tell what a day is? Science rule number 1 broken. And what is this light? Where did it come from? Its not the sun, the sun hasn't been CREATED yet. It also states that there was only water, now in space water freezes on contact. But who would know that in the ancient middle east? Science rule 2 busted Ok, the mysteries of god, maybe? Day 2 Genesis 1:6-8 god created the sky to separate the waters...ok was the water floating around in this bubble? Without the sun to warm it up wouldn't it be pure ice? How could this bubble be controlled without any force of gravity or magnetism? Science rule number 3 annihilated. End of day 2...Still the question plaques my mind, how on earth is that considered a day? But faith is all I need so lets move on...Day three Genesis 1:9-13 god separates the (still frozen???) water and land..............Wait a minute. The earth couldn't be all water, could it? Wouldn't there HAVE to be a molten core for land to even appear? Science rule 4 crushed. So ummmm, contradiction? NO, I have to keep my faith even if it doesn't make sense!!! Lets move on. God then creates plants and trees. Have you seen the sun yet? How on earth can plants and trees survive without uv light, warmth and liquid water? science rule 5 shattered!! End of day 3. Day? how is that determined again? I am confused, but god's ways are mysterious so I refuse to question such things. My faith shall carry me through. Moving on. Day 4, hey we can actually call this a day now! god made the sun and the moon!! I knew god knew what he was doing!!! Even though the plants are all dead and frozen solid but god did it!!! My faith has carried me through!!
ReplyDeleteDay 5 god fills the sky birds and the still frozen seas (What you can't expect the seas to magically melt in a day can you?) with fish...god is good!! science rule 6 demolished. Day 6 god creates all the animals of the land and he creates humans to cultivate the still dead plants and trees. science rule 7 trashed (can they be regenerated in a day? Sure when gods behind this crazy mess!)
Day 7 PHEW!!!!! It's so hard to create a world that goes against every scientific law imaginable!!! Its time for bed!!!
ProudmAtheist,
ReplyDeleteThis was an older post so I would refer you to a newer post to answer this.
I respond now with, I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative.
You see, we all have rescuing devices. We're going to interpret Scripture with the revelation that God does not lie. You will interpret it with your "subjective" view of logic. I can reconcile certain things the Bible says to a Christian, and we do. I am not going to reconcile with non Christians because you are going to bring your assumptions that God doesn't exist, that God can lie...
...If you are not entering with the assumptions that God cannot lie then you are entering with an incorrect assumption and there is no reason to discuss anything about God or the Bible with you.
You're going to come in with your interpretation, just as I am going to come in with my interpretation based on God's revelations.
You are simply unable to UNDERSTAND or know the truth UNTIL you repent. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26
Ok, stick your head in the sand and say "lalalallalalalala I can't hear you!!!!" Typical. Your "authoritative" sources only wish to spin what is written in BLACK AND WHITE to what you think is right. If god is the author, who are you (or any appologist) to presume to know the mind and writings of god? I don't read and assume. I read and analyze. If it goes against what scientists have spent YEARS experimenting, I see it as pure mythology.
ReplyDeleteYou forget, I was once a christian. I know what the appologists say, and its a big steaming pile of bull crap.
ReplyDelete>>Ok, stick your head in the sand and say "lalalallalalalala I can't hear you!!!!" Typical.
ReplyDeleteMy irony meter just exploded with that one.
>>If god is the author, who are you (or any appologist) to presume to know the mind and writings of god?
You're RIGHT and I completely agree. John 14:26, 1 John 2:27
>>I don't read and assume. I read and analyze.
Again, who are you trying to convince, me or you? AND how has that worked for you? You went astray somewhere. It happened to Eve too when she questioned God's Authority and placed Him on trial (as a criminal).
>>If it goes against what [secular]* scientists have spent YEARS experimenting, I see it as pure mythology.
*I corrected it for you
D’Souza said "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."
But I disagree with that in part because there are plenty of Christian Scientists. There is even theistic evolution that many believe.
But Bahnsen drove it home with:
"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism."
>>You forget, I was once a christian.
You forgot that is merely a bare assertion that flies against the ONE Authority who claims differently. Would you like the verses again that counter that position, or is your DOGMA sound?
The *secular* scientists (as you put it) DO NOT put the cart in front of the horse and ASSUME god did it. They look at accountable and provable FACTS If a secular scientist found "god" They would be the first to appologize. But NO SUCH PROOF EXISTS!!! Christian scientists on the other hand ASSUME god did it and mold whatever "science" they discovered to prove "god did it." Like I said...putting the cart in front of the horse.
ReplyDelete"Would you like the verses again that counter that position, or is your DOGMA sound?" No thanks. ancient books written by ancient assholes is not my authority. PROOF is. Your bible isn't proof. It's just another way for you to keep your circular reasoning going. It's never ending and it gets annoying. I have no dogma. definition an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2.
a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3.
prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
I make no claim to unquestionable truth. I have stated that in my previous post about gravity. If it changes, so does the "law" of gravity. Science is always changing to keep up with new discovery. Your "Scientists" (ha what a joke) doesn't change because god never changes. So good luck with your dogma buddy.
>>Your bible isn't proof. It's just another way for you to keep your circular reasoning going.
ReplyDeleteHopefully to save intellectual honesty, you conceded that we can have certainty via revelation but still, is 'begging the question' absolutely fallacious?
You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
circular reasoning: god is real, I believe it, the bible says it, that settles it, which goes back to god is real. Circular reasoning. Stop running around in circles, your making me dizzy.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Christian once. I know that it's really hard to challenge a deep-rooted belief (especially if it's indoctrinated to you since childhood), but to be honest to myself, I can't really hold my faith simply because there's no evidence attributed to defend my faith.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I must choose between truth and "word of god", I will go to the truth.
Please open your mind because all the truth in the world can't shake your 'faith' if you yourself don't open your mind.
I have a good website to point out the mistakes of all the vague and over-generalization claims above.
http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item65.htm
"You cannot reason out of Christianity if Jesus is Lord of your reasoning." ~Sye Ten Bruggencate
Delete"The supernatural is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural.” is the claim. In other words, without God you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical in science, logic, reason, etc.
This is exposed by asking you a very simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?