Posted on 02/19/2015 7:06:20 AM PST by fishtank
I know the earth revolves around the sun. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Whatever. The old testament seems pretty clear to me that it writers thought the sun revolved around the earth.
“Whatever. The old testament seems pretty clear to me that it writers thought the sun revolved around the earth.”
Then post one of those clear passages for the rest of us to see.
I know your type all too well.
yet more humor from the jokesters at CMI
“I know your type all too well.”
I’ll bet you do. My “type” asks for evidence when someone makes a claim that I think that they can’t back up.
I notice that you haven’t yet provided a passage as evidence to back your claim. Go figure.
Really? I’ve never heard of this “exiting new theory” and I tend to keep up on such things. Care to provide a link?
However, I do have an open mind and am willing to explore all alternative theories. No closed mind here, unlike others (like the ones who believed the Earth was flat or that the Sun revolved around the Earth).
I also believe in having an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
A lot of what we've been taught in schools turned out to be false. For instance, all those mock-ups of dinosaurs are imaginings, based on bones. Scientists only speculate on what kind of skin coverings hung on those bones, whether they be alligator-like, hairy, or feathery.
A lot of what we had been taught in school many years ago regarding science has changed, not the core laws of physics and chemistry for instance but with regard to some scientific theories. That is because science is evidence based and unlike religious dogma, it can be modified, expanded, challenged, refuted or even changed based on further evidence and research. One should not however confuse scientific laws with theories or hypotheses.
http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html
With respect to dinosaurs, while science can’t be sure with absolute certainty exactly what dinosaurs looked like in terms of their skin and skin colors as the fossil records do not always give good clues as skin and feathers are not always preserved as fossils, we have learned a lot about what they probably looked like. Scientists used to think that dinosaurs were cold blooded creatures similar to modern day lizards and so compared them to modern lizards and thought their skin and skin colors would be similar. But we now know or at least think that to be different given new evidence. That doesn’t make all past science on the subject “wrong”, it just means that given new evidence, new theories are proposed.
Regarding that news story I mentioned, our early exploration of space is turning our ideas about our own planet upside down. The expanding Earth theory sounds like nonsense. We'll never really know during our lifetime what happened over millions of years, because there is a whole lot of guessing going on, and many who sell theories as facts without much evidence.
Again you confuse mere “guessing” with sound scientific theories. I also blame the media for this.
A scientist, a researcher or even a grad student or amateur scientist can publish a paper proposing a new theory or hypothesis. And FWIW, there are some orgs that will publish pretty much anything for a price, sort of like a vanity press.
But way too often the media jumps on this, especially if it is controversial, as being the latest and greatest “new science” on the subject. But more often than not, they are quoting from a published paper that has not yet been scientifically peer reviewed or even published in a reputable journal and they rarely disclose this fact and when a crack paper fails peer review, it is not reported as such, as the original paper being rejected because the results were not replicated by others or the research was sloppy or even false, what get’s reported way too often in the mainstream media is “scientists change their minds yet again”.
“...They looked up from the rocks, and they cried...”
Joshua 10:13-13
On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Einstein had something to say about relative motion and the point of view of the observer.
To this day everyone speaks of the sun rising in the morning as if it were moving and not the Earth.
So the language involved in Joshua reveals that they used language in the same way that we do. It says nothing more revealing about nature than our own daily use of language does.
So if you do not accept that part of the Bible as the literal truth then what other parts do you think are wrong as well?
“So if you do not accept that part of the Bible as the literal truth then what other parts do you think are wrong as well?”
Nice try. I always enjoy a tasty snack of muddled logic, and that’s a fine specimen of begging the question you have served up.
Bible writers used language in the same fashion that we do today. Earth was the frame of reference then just as it is now. The sun appears to rise and we still speak that way.
If I hear a weather reporter speak of sunrise being at 5am I don’t try to extrapolate that into a claim that he is proposing a geocentric solar system. Some fools might, but then that’s what fools do.
But let’s not get sidetracked. The Joshua 10 passage is about a battle and not celestial mechanics. Joshua speaks to his troops using some lines from the Book of Jasher about the Sun and Moon standing still and his army goes out and routes the Amorites.
Jasher is a poetic book that David also quoted from. In my experience poetry tends to be a little more on the loose side rather than the literal side. It probably confuses literalists, who have difficulty with metaphor.
So I've noticed.
Tu quoque.
But then you were trying to defend a losing proposition.
Noah’s Ark could fit all animals because those animals still had not evolved yet. That ought to satisfy both believers and scientists.
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.