Vander:

quote:

---

Bracy, the problem is not that it wouldn't accomplish anything, it's that you simply can't do it because that evidence doesn't exist. Oh sure you could say that the light from quasars (10+ billion light years away) is someone coming from a closer source but it wouldn't even remotely be logical or rational.

---

The scriptures say that God created light on the first day, and He created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. When He created the sun, moon and stars, He said: "let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years," which means they had to be already visible when they were created.

quote:

---

Oh and Bracy, most of the scientist that are proposing a very young universe are considered complete outcast by the scientific community because most of what they do is nothing more than junk science.

---

I've already provided a long list of quotes from some of the leading scientists of our day stating that Evolution is untenable. I don't doubt that many scientists are alienated and discredited once they dare to speak out against the established religion of the scientific community.

quote:

---

They are trying to fit evidence to a theory and that is not science. All science is fitting a theory to evidence, not the other way around and this reason is why these people are outcasts.

---

It's the other way around. Evolutionists have created unsubstantiated theories, and then bent the "evidence" to fit their preconceived theories.

One problem Bracy, scientist have measured the distance of those quasars and have measured them to be billions of light years away. So basically you're admitting that either God is trying to trick us or that it was created billions of years ago.

On top of that, quasars are active galaxies and are not stars (they cannot be see by the naked eye and in fact can ONLY be seen by Hubble, which means that there is no way there light was visible to human eyes at any point in time until now).

Oh and for those of you posting information about fossils, who cares, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about space and astronomy and measurements that can be measured with lots of accuracy.

Vander:

There's not a problem with it at all, you're assuming that the earth had to wait for the light rays to reach earth. The Creator Who created the stars is the same Creator Who created the rays of light.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/4/2004 3:39p).]

AWK:

quote:

---

BTW, you're the one who is interpreting literally when it suits you and then not interpreting literally when it suits you. Is the creation account literal or not?

---

I'm doing nothing of the sort. The scriptures should be interpreted metaphorically only when they *must* be interpreted that way. In the case of Adam, it must be interpreted metaphorically because Adam didn't die in one literal day.

quote:

---

Evolution = the change in gene frequencies over time.

Where do you see micro or macro in that definition?

Macro and micro evolution are concepts that were invented by creationists. The terms have nothing to do with evolution or the Theory of Evolution. You will NEVER find them in biology.

BTW, what is YOUR definition of micro vs. macro? Speciation?

---

We've been over this already, I recommend you find your answer in the previous thread.

quote:

---

Provide some evidence to back up your belief. If I showed you a red car, you can't just state "I don't believe that car is red" without providing something to give a reason WHY you don't believe that.

---

Again, check previous thread.

quote:

---

Leading scientists? Unless taken 100% out of context, I seriously doubt this

---

I provided the list in the previous thread. I've no desire to rehash the same old tired argument all over again. Refer to the previous thread, it lasted for enough pages that it should give you plenty to read and keep you occupied to your heart's content.

quote:

---

Proverbs 26:4: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

---

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/4/2004 3:51p).]

Bracy,

You can't see the light without the use of Hubble, period. Scientists have accurately measured their distance from earth and have put it at over 10 billion light years away. So if the universe was created 6,000 years ago, why would God make it seem like the universe was much older than it actually is? Can you answer this question? Or are you just going to ignore it again?

How about we stay in our own galaxy, what about the stars that are on the other side of our galaxy (nearly 80,000 light years from us)?

What about the many parts of the universe that are so far away that we cannot see but we know are there because of gravity? What about dark matter? What about black holes? What about all of the other stuff we can't see? I guess all of this stuff means nothing because the Bible says nothing about it.

Seriously Bracy, are you trying to say that the universe was created solely for us? Because that's definitely what a 6000 year old universe would mean. Why would a God create something so large for one planet than takes up a neglible portion of that space? Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is?

Vander:

quote:

---

You can't see the light without the use of Hubble, period. Scientists have accurately measured their distance from earth and have put it at over 10 billion light years away. So if the universe was created 6,000 years ago, why would God make it seem like the universe was much older than it actually is? Can you answer this question? Or are you just going to ignore it again?

---

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm trying to explain to you that you are limiting God within the bounds of His Own creation. He is not limited to the boundaries and limitations of the universe that He, Himself, created.

quote:

---

Seriously Bracy, are you trying to say that the universe was created solely for us? Because that's definitely what a 6000 year old universe would mean. Why would a God create something so large for one planet than takes up a neglible portion of that space? Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is?

---

Yes, the universe was created solely for us. Why is the universe so incredibly large? To reveal to us the vastness and awesomeness of God. Without it, we would have no way of comprehending such infinite power and glory.

Think about it: what if God created the universe only as large as our solar system? How would that affect your comprehension of the awesomeness of God? It would be considerably lessened.

I'm not limiting his power at all, I'm just saying that he is either trying to trick us or that the universe is actually billions of years old. If it is only 6000 years old, why would he make it seem much much much older? It simply doesn't make any sense at all.

Oh and I don't think it would be limiting him if the universe was billions of years old because it would show that he had a plan from the very beginning and that everything that has happened has been part of his plan. IMO, this would show God's power even moreso than the 6000 year old universe.

Bracy, again, what about all of the stuff that we cannot see or observe? Why is this stuff there when it is not needed?

As for the fact that the universe was created solely for us, how can you possibly say that when there are quadrillions of stars out there with many of them having solar systems? Is it not possible that there is life on other worlds?

If we do discover life on other worlds, would it change everything you believe in?

The problem I see with your stance is that the Bible says absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial life. It doesn't say it isn't there, but it doesn't say it is either, so basically it's only your opinion that the universe is only for us because it's not actually in the Bible.

Also Bracy, how about you show me evidence that the universe is only 6000 years old. Also please do not provide evidence about the earth, I want evidence about the stars and galaxies and I want this evidence to actually come from a respectable source (i.e. a peer reviewed journal or some other trustworthy source).

A theory of time or in this case distance often varies based on the scales of measurement that people use. They are often not agreed upon by all scientists, nor do they all stand the test of time… Remember this and you will perhaps save yourself from being found too strongly attached to things you might find are not true at a later date…

There are of course those who simply want something to be true, or not true based on some of their own reasons.

Below here is some stuff that might help with the seemingly irrefutable billion year old light rays…

==================================

Is the red shift of galactic light actually the result of an expanding universe, and is the universe as large as astronomers believe? It has been suggested that some physical effect acting over large distances depletes the energy of photons and thus produces the observed red shift. One theory proposes that collisions between photons may be responsible for some of the red shift. Some observations can be interpreted to support this theory, but the argument is not too convincing.46
One serious question concerning the red shift-distance scale arises from the discovery of quasars. Quasars are faith objects with quite large red shifts, which is interpreted to mean that their distances from the earth are very great. Several observations relative to quasars lead, however, to difficulties with this interpretation of quasar red shifts.

1. Changes in brightness have been observed in quasars over periods of only days or weeks.47 Since physical effects, according to relativity theory, cannot exceed the speed of light, this means that the size of the quasars cannot exceed a few light days or light weeks. But, if their red shift distances are correct, they are then only about 1/300,000th the size of an average galaxy. Yet they seem to be radiating up to 100 times the energy of a galaxy. This massive energy generation in such a small volume appears to be impossible.

2. Quasars studied by radio telescopes appear to be ejecting streamers or extensions at speeds up to ten times the speed of light, if their red shift distances are correct.48

3. Triplets of quasars are observed lined up close together in the sky, precisely in a straight line, thus appearing to be closely associated, but having widely different red shifts.49

4. Quasars are sometimes associated in space with or connected by luminous streamers with galaxies having much smaller red shifts.50


Such contradictions and anomalies as these have led some astronomers to conclude that red shifts may not be reliable indicators of distance. If this is actually the correct conclusion, then the principal evidence adduced for an expanding universe is invalid.


=================================

46. Mitton, Simon, Editor, op. cit. (ref. 29), p. 376.

47. Burbidge, G.R., Nature Physical Science, Vol. 246, 12 Nov. 1973, pp. 17-24; Steidl, Paul, op. cit. (ref. 5), p. 211.

48. Porcas, Richard, Nature, Vol. 302, 28 April 1983, pp. 397-399.

49. Arp, Halton, Nature, Vol. 302, 31 March 1983, pp. 397-399.





[This message has been edited by YYZ (edited 5/5/2004 12:30a).]

Vander:

quote:

---

I'm not limiting his power at all, I'm just saying that he is either trying to trick us or that the universe is actually billions of years old.

---

It isn't God that is "trying to trick you," it is the scientists who are trying to trick you.

quote:

---

Bracy, again, what about all of the stuff that we cannot see or observe? Why is this stuff there when it is not needed?

---

I don't see how that is important. We can't see God, but that doesn't mean He does not exist. We can't see "Heaven" but that doesn't mean it does not exist. In fact, Jewish Kabbalah teaches there are not just one, but seven "worlds," or "universes." Paul even makes mention of the "third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2).

quote:

---

As for the fact that the universe was created solely for us, how can you possibly say that when there are quadrillions of stars out there with many of them having solar systems? Is it not possible that there is life on other worlds?

---

It would mean we're pretty special in His eyes, huh? It would mean that He created the entire universe, just to reveal His awesomeness to poor little us. It would seem to indicate that the Infinite and Almighty God might even love us enough to die on our behalf and redeem us unto Himself even though we could never merit such an act.

quote:

---

If we do discover life on other worlds, would it change everything you believe in?

---

No, it wouldn't change anything. But, since the scriptures don't mention it, I can safely say it will never happen. Such an event would be important enough that it would have been prophesied.

quote:

---

Also Bracy, how about you show me evidence that the universe is only 6000 years old. Also please do not provide evidence about the earth, I want evidence about the stars and galaxies and I want this evidence to actually come from a respectable source (i.e. a peer reviewed journal or some other trustworthy source).

---

That's already been discussed at length, I've no desire, and no intention, of rehashing that discussion all over again. The last thread on this subject lasted for 14 pages, and 459 posts, which should be more than adequate to satisfy your curiosity. I have no delusions of convincing someone of the nature of God as revealed through scripture, who does not accept the scriptures to begin with, so I'll simply point you to the other thread:

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=15&topic_id=294332

AKW:

quote:

---

This is pure greatness...

It HAS to be literal...except when it's not...

---

Scripture cannot contradict scripture.

In the case of Adam, God had said he would die "in the day" that he ate of the fruit. Yet, he lived for 930 years. Therefore, "in the day" cannot mean a literal day, otherwise scripture would contradict scripture and God would be a liar.

In the case of the 6-Day creation, there is nothing in scripture that contradicts an interpretation of 6 literal days. The only thing that contradicts this is "science." When it comes down to a choice of deciding between scripture and non-scriptural "evidence," I'll take scripture -- every time. I don't hold the words of "scientists" as being more credible than the Word of God.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/5/2004 12:27p).]

77,

It might help if I knew the source material of that information. Is the information peer reviewed? How am I to know that this information is accurate?

Bracy,

Yes the scientists are all trying to trick us into thinking something, it's all just a big freaking conspiracy, the scientists are all out to get Christians and are trying to prove them wrong every chance they get. What a load of crap, the vast majority of scientists couldn't care less about Christianity, they just want to work.

quote:

---

I don't see how that is important. We can't see God, but that doesn't mean He does not exist. We can't see "Heaven" but that doesn't mean it does not exist. In fact, Jewish Kabbalah teaches there are not just one, but seven "worlds," or "universes." Paul even makes mention of the "third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2).

---

How is it not important? If God created the universe to show us his awesome power (the keyword being show here), then why would he create dark matter and other things that we simply cannot observe even with our current technology. We know they are there but there is no way to observe them. How does this show his awesome power? Hey, you yourself even said that the universe was created to show the vastness and awesomeness of God. So what purpose does something we can't observe serve? I already know you can't answer this question because the Bible says nothing about dark matter and that any answer you give me is merely your opinion.

quote:

---

It would mean we're pretty special in His eyes, huh? It would mean that He created the entire universe, just to reveal His awesomeness to poor little us. It would seem to indicate that the Infinite and Almighty God might even love us enough to die on our behalf and redeem us unto Himself even though we could never merit such an act.

---

No, it would be an incredible waste of space if there is absolutely nothing else out there. God could have created nothing more than the Local Group of Galaxies and accomplished the same thing. Why would he create a universe so vast that we probably cannot even see half of it? It make no sense if his purpose was to show us the vastness of his power.

quote:

---

No, it wouldn't change anything. But, since the scriptures don't mention it, I can safely say it will never happen. Such an event would be important enough that it would have been prophesied

---

Sciptures don't mention a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Sciptures don't mention other solar systems but we have discovered many of them. Scriptures don't mention computers but we have made them (I would say the invention of computers has been by far the most impactful thing humans have invented and I would venture to say that it is even more important than the discovery of life on other worlds). The list goes on and on Bracy. Scripture is not infinite in its length, so it cannot cover every important topic and to believe that because something is not in scripture that we will never discover or invent it, is completely ludicrous.

quote:

---

That's already been discussed at length, I've no desire, and no intention, of rehashing that discussion all over again. The last thread on this subject lasted for 14 pages, and 459 posts, which should be more than adequate to satisfy your curiosity. I have no delusions of convincing someone of the nature of God as revealed through scripture, who does not accept the scriptures to begin with, so I'll simply point you to the other thread:

---

I'll read over this thread and see what you guys have posted, however I seriously doubt I will find anything of use with regards to space since that thread is about creationism vs. evolution which have nothing to do with astronomy.

Vander:

quote:

---

Yes the scientists are all trying to trick us into thinking something, it's all just a big freaking conspiracy, the scientists are all out to get Christians and are trying to prove them wrong every chance they get. What a load of crap, the vast majority of scientists couldn't care less about Christianity, they just want to work.

---

Heck, for that matter, "Christianity" is a "conspiracy." Christians are a people of one mind, whose goal is to lead other people to God. Atheistic scientists don't believe there is a God, so naturally their goal is to lead people away from God.

quote:

---

How is it not important? If God created the universe to show us his awesome power (the keyword being show here), then why would he create dark matter and other things that we simply cannot observe even with our current technology. We know they are there but there is no way to observe them. How does this show his awesome power? Hey, you yourself even said that the universe was created to show the vastness and awesomeness of God. So what purpose does something we can't observe serve? I already know you can't answer this question because the Bible says nothing about dark matter and that any answer you give me is merely your opinion.

---

God created the universe to reveal to us His power and awesomeness. He created "dark matter" to reveal to us the depth of His knowledge and wisdom. Why is this such a difficult concept to comprehend?

quote:

---

No, it would be an incredible waste of space if there is absolutely nothing else out there. God could have created nothing more than the Local Group of Galaxies and accomplished the same thing. Why would he create a universe so vast that we probably cannot even see half of it? It make no sense if his purpose was to show us the vastness of his power.

---

No, it's an example of a finite man trying to comprehend the Infinite.

quote:

---

Sciptures don't mention a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Sciptures don't mention other solar systems but we have discovered many of them. Scriptures don't mention computers but we have made them (I would say the invention of computers has been by far the most impactful thing humans have invented and I would venture to say that it is even more important than the discovery of life on other worlds). The list goes on and on Bracy. Scripture is not infinite in its length, so it cannot cover every important topic and to believe that because something is not in scripture that we will never discover or invent it, is completely ludicrous.

---

The existence of computers isn't something that would jeopardize one's faith in God. A visitation by extra-terrestrials would.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/5/2004 3:40p).]

AKW:

quote:

---

I bet you'd be surprised at how many NON-Atheistic scientists there are...

Most of the people I work with are good God-fearing church-going people...

---

I'm sure there are, but...

quote:

---

Matthew 7:21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

---

I think it's horribly naive to view the universe in terms of a 2000 year old perspective.

HaSatan would like nothing better than to get people to believe in Evolution.

If you can believe in macroevolution of animals, then there's nothing to stop you from believing that man "evolved" from a lesser species.

If man "evolved" from a lesser species, then there was no Adam and Eve, and thus no "Fall of Man," and no need for a Savior.

I think it's horribly naive to view the universe as an incredible 4.6 billion years old.

texags77@yahoo.com
Please feel free to respond by email.

quote:

---

Heck, for that matter, "Christianity" is a "conspiracy." Christians are a people of one mind, whose goal is to lead other people to God. Atheistic scientists don't believe there is a God, so naturally their goal is to lead people away from God.

---

Yes because all non-Christian scientist only work to try and lead people away from God. Seriously, where do you come up with this BS? How can you possibly say that their sole goal is to lead people away from God when you don't know any of them at all? Do you know these people personally? Do you know their motivations? Do you even know anything about them other than the fact that they are atheist? I really don't know whether to laugh at you right now or pity you because of your ignorance.

quote:

---

God created the universe to reveal to us His power and awesomeness. He created "dark matter" to reveal to us the depth of His knowledge and wisdom. Why is this such a difficult concept to comprehend?

---

So where is this in the Bible? Where does the Bible mention dark matter? Oh wait that’s right, it’s just your opinion.

quote:

---

No, it's an example of a finite man trying to comprehend the Infinite.

---

Except that we don’t know if the universe is closed or open, and until this information is known, your opinion holds no basis in reality.

quote:

---

The existence of computers isn't something that would jeopardize one's faith in God. A visitation by extra-terrestrials would.

---

So the existence of computers doesn’t jeopardize one’s faith in God? The myriad of false information at our fingertips will not jeopardize someone’s faith in God? How can you possibly come to this conclusion when it’s extremely obvious that the internet is very detrimental to people’s faith in God? The Bible doesn’t mention computers or the internet and both of them have been detrimental to Christianity, so what is the difference between contact with ETs and the invention of computers with relation to faith in God?

quote:

---

Yes because all non-Christian scientist only work to try and lead people away from God. Seriously, where do you come up with this BS?

---

I didn't say that leading people away from God is their primary goal. They simply do not believe in God, and therefore they look for atheistic ways to explain the universe, and then they promote their atheistic ideas.

quote:

---

So where is this in the Bible?

---

quote:

---

Psalms 8:3: When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

---

quote:

---

Psalms 19:1: [[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

---

quote:

---

Psalms 97:6: The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.

---

quote:

---

Except that we don’t know if the universe is closed or open, and until this information is known, your opinion holds no basis in reality

---

You misunderstand. I'm saying that it is your attempt -- a finite man -- to comprehend the Infinite God, not the universe.

quote:

---

So the existence of computers doesn’t jeopardize one’s faith in God? The myriad of false information at our fingertips will not jeopardize someone’s faith in God?

---

The false information you are speaking of comes from men, not from computers. Computers are only the medium of communication, the computer itself does nothing to jeopardize one's faith.

quote:

---

I didn't say that leading people away from God is their primary goal. They simply do not believe in God, and therefore they look for atheistic ways to explain the universe, and then they promote their atheistic ideas.

---

Except that you said, "Scientists don't believe there is a God, so naturally their goal is to lead people away from God." which is different from what you have said here. Their goal is not to lead people away from God, their goal is to explain things scientifically. What they do has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, none whatsoever and I don't understand how you can make a correlation between the two. Regardless of whether or not the universe was created by God, these people are trying to explain how the universe works. It matters not to them, why everything happened because that is impossible to determine (since there is no evidence of this period of time), the only thing that matters is how everything fits together. If one of their theories happens to be something that theists disagree with so be it, if it is one that theists agree with, great. Basically they simply don't care about how their work relates to religious issues. All they want to do is explain how the universe works.

Bracy, there is still nothing about dark matter in any of those verses or for that matter there is nothing about galaxies. Why? Because they didn't even know that dark matter existed nor did they know that galaxies were different from stars and so neither are in the Bible. Basically the only way you can clearly distinguish a galaxy from a star is through a telescope and it's obvious they didn't have them back then. I still have yet to see anything about either in the Bible and I seriously doubt they are mentioned anywhere.

quote:

---

The false information you are speaking of comes from men, not from computers. Computers are only the medium of communication, the computer itself does nothing to jeopardize one's faith.

---

So are you saying that a computer is nothing more than a tool? So are you saying that computers will never advance to the point of true AI even though this is a very very real possibility (and it could happen within the next 100 years)? If this does happen, what will you do? Will you accept that their could be life on other worlds as well?

quote:

---

I still have yet to see anything about either in the Bible and I seriously doubt they are mentioned anywhere.

---

So, you think scripture has to mention every little detail that exists in the universe before it can declare that the universe was created to declare His handiwork?

quote:

---

So are you saying that a computer is nothing more than a tool? So are you saying that computers will never advance to the point of true AI even though this is a very very real possibility (and it could happen within the next 100 years)? If this does happen, what will you do? Will you accept that their could be life on other worlds as well?

---

Hardly. If anything, it reveals the impossibility of AI "evolving" purely by chance.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/6/2004 9:02a).]

Well you and others have said it yourselves that if it is not in scripture then it is not correct or that scripture mentions everything we need to know. The problem is that the Bible doesn't mention everything and in fact only covers a very small range of topics. There are some VERY important things that affect our everyday life that are not mentioned in the Bible (like for instance the laws of physics) and also there are some important things not mentioned in the Bible that might very well be the very thing that helps us understand the universe better (like dark matter).

quote:

---

Hardly. If anything, it reveals the impossibility of AI "evolving" purely by chance.

---

Well what if this AI grew in its intelligence and became way smarter than us. Do you think that this scenario is possible? Also how would the discovery of anthor intelligent thing other than us, not be important enough to be worth mentioning in the Bible (especially when this intelligence has the capability to be millions or even billions of times more intelligent than us)?

As for the AI coming about by chance, there are many scientists who talk about this very thing. There are theories of "runaway" AI, where a computer with the right programming and hardware begins to learn exponentially and eventually becomes self-aware. Sure this involves some original design aspects, but the AI becoming self-aware is purely by chance with the right building blocks.

97

quote:

---

Matthew 7:21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

---

Does the Bible say that explaining HOW things work scientifically is against the will of the Lord?

I know that's what they told Galileo, but, after time, they realized they were wrong...


Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

quote:

---

Does the Bible say that explaining HOW things work scientifically is against the will of the Lord?

---

If the explanation contradicts His scriptures, then the answer is "yes."

If it were not for Christian thinkers there would be no form of advanced science in the world today. It certainly was not atheists, or the sophistry of the humanists that formed the basis of the modern scientific movement. A fact that far too many are ignorant of today!


[This message has been edited by YYZ (edited 5/9/2004 8:01a).]

quote:

---

If the explanation contradicts His scriptures, then the answer is "yes."

---

That's what they told Galileo...Because holding to the heliocentric theory appeared to contradict Scripture...

quote:

---

The sun's movement is mentioned in other places in the Bible too: In the first chapter of Ecclesiastes -

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth again." (Ecclesiastes I,5)

In chapter XXXVIII of Isaiah:

"Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down." (Isaiah XXXVIII 8) .

---

Above, it refers to the SUN moving - NOT the EARTH...

http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/interpretation.html

Perhaps, you're misreading scripture the way the Catholic Church apparently did...Or, do you still hold to the geocentric theory?

quote:

---

All of these verses refer to the movement of the sun. Seemingly, these verses provide sufficient basis for determining that the sun revolves around the earth . However, the literal meaning of Scripture is not enough to understand them. In order to understand and explain Scripture, one requires interpretation. The contradiction between these verses and the heliocentric theory may be easily explained. The main explanation is based on the assumption that "The Bible speaks in human speech" i.e., often, the text must be understood according to its appeal to simple people, who find it difficult to assimilate the truth. This explanation is used to justify the use of physical descriptions of the Lord and the attribution of human qualities to a supernatural God who does not suffer from jealousy and anger as do humans, and who lacks any shape or form. It can be said that the Bible speaks of the sun's movement because it directs its words to people who think the sun moves, and its aim is not to explain the structure of the heavens. When the miracle God produced for Joshua is described, the point is to explain the greatness of the miracle rather than depict the movement of the sun. The sun seems to be moving, so that we still say that it rises and sets, even though we know that it does not move but rather the earth moves.

---

Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

quote:

---

That's what they told Galileo...Because holding to the heliocentric theory appeared to contradict Scripture...

---

Show me what scriptures the heliocentric theory contradicts. The verses you quoted don't do it, even today we still say things like "the sun rose above the horizon."

By the way, I'm not convinced that a geocentric model is incorrect. Astronomers are giving serious consideration to the possibility, and the model works just as well as the heliocentric model. In fact, in some ways, it explains certain phenomena (such as retrograde motion) better than the heliocentric model.

Below is a link from the University of Toronto which shows an animation of the geocentric model:

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/both.html

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/9/2004 12:16p).]

YYZ, except that the modern scientific movement was not started by Christians. If it were not for the advancements of Muslims in the middle ages, enlightenment thinkers of the Renaissance (most of which were not Christian or even religious at all), then we would be no where near where we are today. Basicall you owe much of your own technology to many non-Christians.

Bracy, the earth moves throughout space, that's absolute fact. It is not stationary at all. Even if the solar system rotated around the earth, the earth would still be moving with the Milky Way Galaxy, the Local Group, the Virgo Supercluster and so on. If the earth was truely stationary then the Earth would not be in any galaxy at all.

Vander,

I believe I can show you that you are wrong in the things that you said, but I really don’t think you are interested in learning the truth, but only those things that advance what you want to be true…