Posted on 06/17/2002 3:10:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Of course, you don't see it presented that way in the textbooks... or on TV. It is assumed to be true everywhere you go.
"One should always look for a possible alternative and provide against it." -- Sherlock Holmes _The Adventure of Black Peter_
I have observed that evolutionists always leave out inconvenient facts which make their theories inaccurate or even impossible... there are no facts which make Creation impossible. there are facts, which if taken by themselves, make evolution a theoretical possibility... however only if you leave out certain other facts. And again, it's really pointless to discuss because the truth is already out there and not hard to find, for anyone who really cares to know it.
That's a little trick anyhow. When forced in a corner they will just say, oh that was meant allegorically anyhow, so it is "true in spirit", etc. You can't really pin "literalists" down -- not that any two agree on same interpretation anyhow. Yet each one thinks they have a lock on the one true interpretation. It is pretty comical, really.
But would you, honestly, be a better person if someone were there every day cajoling and reminding you that you should put yourself out for others? What if that cajoling and reminding succeeded and you did go out and help others more? Again, would'nt you be a better person for that?
It's a red herring. First of all, the verse said made. It then describes some of its characteristics.
Behe accepts Darwinism; he has a problem with abiogenesis
Actually, I don't expect or desire "help" from strangers (other than in an emergency or disaster) so I don't feel the need to hand out help randomly either. I don't know that makes anyone a better or worse person. I'd prefer to cultivate family members, friends and neighbors. There is some enjoyment in helping people you like -- and there is the mutual indebtedness benefit as well -- they can help me when I need it to.
Anybody bugging and cajoling me every day is going to get very irritating very quickly. It would make me grummpy and rebelious.
Thank you for the kind words! They'd give me a swelled head, but That Subliminal Kid has already punctured my skull with a needle. ;^)
Is acceleration mathematically equivalent to gravity?
Andrew C has already pointed you in the right direction by mentioning the Equivalence Principle. (Geek alert: the equivalence between non-divergent gravitational fields and accelerations--or between gravitational and inertial mass--is often referred to as the Weak Equivalence Principle. There is also a Strong Equivalence Principle, having to do with the question of whether gravitational energy itself also gravitates.)
If so, are there other equivalences or similarities that have been overlooked by the profession in its attempt to explain gravity?
I'm not sure what that question means.
Why would there be such similarity or equivalence?
Geometry.
There's a deep implication to the eqivalence principle that isn't obvious at first glance, and it is the essential insight of General Relativity. Einstein noticed that uniform gravitational fields behave like constant accelerations, and postulated that they were indistinguishable. Now, according to Newton, an object in motion will stay moving at a constant velocity unless a force acts upon it. From the point of view of an object in freefall, no forces are acting upon it, since it doesn't experience any acceleration. It doesn't feel any "G-forces" like a fighter pilot does when he banks. The trajectory of the object is locally straight and has a locally constant velocity, per Newton. But an outside observer does see the falling object's velocity change: it falls faster and faster, or follows a curved path. The only way to reconcile these observations is if spacetime is curved.
So once we postulate that spacetime is curved by mass and energy, and the equivalence principle follows geometrically from that.
It is not my "error" margin, it is the reporting margin chosen by the reporter, in this case the writer of I Kings. Allegation of error based on an arbitrary preference of rounding point is as fallacious and absurd as me alleging that your value of pi is incorrect because you only report to 5 decimal places. Any diameter from 9.5 cubits to 10.5 cubits would round to 10 cubits.
And the point is that Deutsch (the guy I was talking to) was saying that EVERY word in the Bible was LITERALLY true and completely without error of any kind.
When someone makes a claim like that, ANY counter-example proves him wrong.
Use of the word "literal" in Biblical hermeneutics generally means taking the words in their proper grammatical, historical, contextual sense, sort of like "original intent" in reference to the Constitution. When the words of I Kings are interpreted according to the plain grammatical, historical context, it is ludicrous to assert error. If the passage in question were explicitly stating a calculation or value for pi, then you would have a point. But it doesn't. It's just an accurate, general representation of a circular bathtub.
Cordially,
LOL! I just got done arguing this same thing on this thread.
The numbers in 1 Kings are quite clearly approximations. The point here is that, to a Biblical literalist, the Bible cannot contain approximations. Ten cubits means ten cubits, and thirty means thirty, not "about ten" or "about thirty".
I tried floating the explanation that the guy who measured the circumference had shorter arms than the guy who measured the diameter, but so far no literalist has bitten at it.
It's also fun to point out that the sign hung on Jesus's cross is worded in four different ways in the four Gospels.
This is known as "the bird," and is roughly 18 inches (45 cm).
It depends on what you mean by "literalist". See 950.
Cordially
Second, regarding your argument re: "literalist" interpretation: does that mean that young-earth creationists COULD be engaging in an overly literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis?
I ask this because I have been condemned to eternal Hellfire for being a theistic evolutionist (i.e., God created the Universe over billions of years, using natural laws that He shaped, for His ends, and that that process of creation is ongoing, guided by His hand). In short, because I accept the evidence of my God-given senses and my God-given faculties of reason, I'm going to Hell for not believing that the Universe was created less than 10,000 years ago and in only six 24-hour days.
Yeah. What you said.
Cordially,
You seem like a pretty good guy, at least most of the time. :-) But to make a statement like that is ridiculous as you have lumped what all biblical literalists must believe into a very narrow definition. I know a lot of "literalist Christians" and not one holds to your definition. Many would call me a literalist and I don't hold to that definition, especially after years of studying the ancient cultural details.
Scooby Doo starts in 37 minutes and we promised the kids...
Where do you get that? There are several known mechanisms by which new genes are created
The DNA code determines what anything is. An amoeba's code will not produce a horse. A horse's DNA code will not produce an elephant. The is no instance of this code changing so radically is produces a different species. The code would have to have the ability to add additional code to move to a higher life form.
An amoeba does not contain the code elements necessary to be come a fish or a monkey. It does not have any mechanism to add the code either.
Like the 16th Amendment, evolution has never been proven to be 'law'.
As to the "unanswerable" aspect, I was wondering whether gravitation and acceleration were essentially "one thing". Your answer seems to say that they are, geometrically, or at least that there is something underlying that is uniform. Now I'm going to stop here before I embarrass myself (further!).
Thanks again.
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.