Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
#####Next time, try researching an issue before you post your presumptions about it as if they were fact.#####
Well, I'll stand partially corrected, Ichneumon, but I would still say that nowhere in the Bible does it say the sun orbits the earth. That idea seems to have had a long scientific heritage (Ptolemy), even if the Church fathers of the day found it convenient to interpret Biblical passages about the sun rising and setting as meaning the sun was orbiting us.
The Lemon test is a problem all on its own. The Supremes have commented on it several times. The Dover decision may have been a good opportunity to clean it up, but it appears it'll be another case.
To be completely fair about the outcome of this re-vote, only those who voted the first time were allowed to vote.
What this tells me is that errors in elections that aren't caused by fraud probably wash out in statistics.
When viewed from a certain perspective, yes it is. As I said, from where I am sitting, the sun moves across the sky. In so saying I am not lying. Just stating the simple truth as things appear. When I wake up in the morning and see a beautiful sunrise, I am not inclined to engage the scientifically correct version of my observation, and most people would understand what I was talking about. In case the notion has escaped you, the biblical texts were written for an audience that resides on planet Earth, for whom the sun will, unless one is stationed in outer space, always rise and set.
NEW post 493 by hosepipe on 04 Jan 2006. Dialectic materialism and scientific materialism are sister whores in the same brothel.
Tell me if you want more.
Do we observe the same portion of lunar surface today that was available for observation by people in the 1st Century?
"In case the notion has escaped you, the biblical texts were written for an audience that resides on planet Earth, for whom the sun will, unless one is stationed in outer space, always rise and set."
Oh, not so, Mr./Ms. Chugabrew. The heliocentric solar system was discovered long, long before humans were in space. It's a pretty easy thing to infer.
The O.T. biblical texts were written for a bunch of nomadic bronze-age shepherds or goatherds. You are correct that the explanations are unscientific. Science was far in the future. That is why the Bible is useless as a guide to the scientific explanations of natural phenomena.
Any attempt to subvert science by introducing 3000 year old texts transcribed from stories told around the campfire is simply dumb-headed. The Bible is not science. The Bible is a religious text...a mixture of historical fact and fable. It's useful as a religious text, obviously, since the followers of it are the largest group on the planet. It is still not a science text. The Genesis chapters on cosmology are useless, scientifically.
You're welcome to believe them. You're not welcome to try to foist those fables off on children.
Thank you for your attention.
Damn! Who knew that the surgeons in GW's day were doing reconstructive surgery.
I just KNEW that Dolly Madison had a boob job. No way those things were real.
Sorry for my sarcasm. Occupational hazard.
And before her, the lovely (and brilliant) Connie ...
Do you think the Grand Master has taken note that our PH is somewhat of a slut-puppy?
The establishment clause protects religion from government, not government from religion.. unless you read it wrong, or omitted some text..
Amendment I = Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Note: does no law really mean some law.. or its none of government business WHAT religion does.?. I say that not having a religious bone in my body... I am a christian.. with christ is not about what you believe, its who you ARE, that counts..
But you cannot find any *organizations*, can you?
I have demonstrated to you that the major proponent of ID has the explicit purpose of inserting Christianity into science classes. That isn't in question. You can find no scientific groups that promote atheism. Surely you admit that there's a difference?
It would be a gross understatement to say the Supreme Court has taken a liberal reading of the First Amendment. Thank you for your reply!
It does both - the Founders saw the mischief that resulted from mixing the two. Both are harmed by the collusion.
Dawkins A MOONBAT.?.. Put on yer flame suit.. the Evos gonna git you.. Oh! wait progressive scientists can sacrifice much in pursuit of their goal(s).. one lone believer means nothing.. Dawkins can be road kill if he gets in the way.. of the progressive train..
You ADD to what it says, as Pat.Henry deleted from what it says.. jeese can't you guys READ or WHAT?.. It says what it says..
There is currently an opinion from the 7th Court of Appeals which has found that atheism is a religion when it is promoted. The decision was based on a litany of prior USSC decisions.
Many would argue that no less than the ACLU is bent on establishing atheism in the public square. Certainly the Newdow cases can be seen in this light. And then there are the myriad institutions of science which "officially" support methodological naturalism - but in "unofficial" debates, lectures, essays and the ilk within the community in fact support metaphysical naturalism.
This is a problem caused by the Lemon test which must be cured - since the court has gone beyond denominations and considered both theism and atheism as "religions".
"Most people would sooner die than think; and frequently, they do so."
-- Bertrand Russell
Sure. But it has never been self-evident, and it never will be until the human population is transported to that point of view from which the earth can be seen to orbit the sun. Furthermore, the heliocentric understanding of the solar system did not precede authorship of the biblical texts.
The O.T. biblical texts were written for a bunch of nomadic bronze-age shepherds or goatherds.
Gee. I guess we all better stop reading them. I repeat, they were written for an audience that experienced at the time, and an audience that still experiences on a daily basis, a sun that rises and sets. Or are you one of those people who, when the sun rises, says, "Look! An illusion created by the rotation of the earth!" Cut me a break.
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.