[aldo_14]

Originally posted by WeatherOp


Ok, here is the verse.

 

Now I hope I don't have to you what a foundation is? It is what something is built on, now what is the Earth's foundation, it's core correct. Now has that core ever moved, now if you pull something off it's foundation, it's collapses. So, that tells me the foundation of the Earth has not moved, for if it did, it would cause all kinds of magnetic problems. I think some of you guys just need to think.

Yes, the core has moved; through space.  Also, it is believed the core is in constant motion, the action of which causes the magnetic field round the earth.

Also, if you interpret earth as 'land' - and that's not my own interpretation - it means the sea is not, in fact, upon the core (which sort of contradicts the whole parting of the waves thing, too).

Furthermore, if you seperate the 'earth' from 'foundation' (i.e. surface from core), that other verse I quoted implies that the earth (the surface of the planet) hangs in space.... without any core.  Unsupported, I believe the word was.

So it's contradictory.

Not to mention, the Catholic Church was morbidly oppossed to the concept of a non geo-centric universe (I mentioned this on page 2 I think; Galileo was subjected to an Inquisition that 'determined' the Earth was the centre of the universe).  Same text; possible more accurate, due to the inherent chinese whispers effect of multiple translations over the centuries.  But they interpret it opposite.

So not scientifically accurate, unless interpreted with foreknowledge of what science determined.

, indeed.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Omniscaper
Understand the Bible perfectly!? Amazing!!!

Even the freakin POPE doesn't understand the Bible perfectly. Not that his title means anything really. There are people who have been reading the Bible their entire lives and yet they still dont understand all of its messages and concepts. I'm willing to bet you haven't even read it cover to cover. And I could careless whethher or not you did.

Ok, fine, I have misconceptions about evolutions. I don't feel I have to keep digging for all details and findings relevant to a scientific theory the infallible Karajorma has an absolute faith in, when it is the conclusions being made with it that are being argued over.

You can spout all the information and latest findings all you want. (and please do, I love good science article) And others will also likely spout Biblical passages to show thatit has been used and contain real science. Its obvious we have different conclusions and interpretations on TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF THOUGHT.

  Hell, you point out yourself the Pope doesn't understand the bible; and the history of the Catholic Church (being the dominant church in western european history, and thus the most convenient example) is riddled with misconceptions based on the bible and corrected by empirical evidence.

You even show you're not willing to try to understand.  The reason kara can have 'absolute faith' (which is in itself a veiled insult, I see), is because he knows the evidence and empirical fact.  You're so eager to avoid reaching the same conclusion, you willfully ignore the details.

All the bible can ever to is be correlated by science.  Some things in it are known to be incorrect (pi!), so it can't be considered a 100% reliable source.  Furthermore, the difference between factual statement - even assuming that statement is not something based on common knowledge of people at the time, rather than any divine insight - and parable is very much in the eye of the beholder.  Hence the constant reinterpretation as science has shown new facts like the spherical, orbiting and rotating planet.

And this methodology would be proposed for teaching empirical fact?

[Ace]

You know what I have a new label for the fundies//shrubs:

Chauvinistic Capital-driven Calvinist Person

CCCP

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Omniscaper
Understand the Bible perfectly!? Amazing!!!

Even the freakin POPE doesn't understand the Bible perfectly. Not that his title means anything really. There are people who have been reading the Bible their entire lives and yet they still dont understand all of its messages and concepts. I'm willing to bet you haven't even read it cover to cover. And I could careless whethher or not you did.

There is a difference between stating you know something perfectly and perfectly well you know.

Perfectly well = well enough.

Turn of phrase nothing more. I understand it well enough to suffice for this discussion. I ask you again to find a place where I've stated a misconception about the bible on this thread let alone anything anywhere near as huge as yours about evolution.

Originally posted by Omniscaper
Ok, fine, I have misconceptions about evolutions. I don't feel I have to keep digging for all details and findings relevant to a scientific theory the infallible Karajorma has an absolute faith in, when it is the conclusions being made with it that are being argued over.

It's a detail. Your misconception was f**king huge. It would be like me saying that I understood the bible and then going on about what Rama and Vishnu say in it.

Saltationism is not Darwinian evolution it's not even close. In fact creationism is probably closer than saltationism because at least some branches of ID accept the existance of darwinian evolution on a small scale even if they don't believe it did everything.

Ff you are so wrong as to confuse the two it's no bloody wonder that you reject evolution. That's your choice. No one is forcing you to learn how evolution works even at a basic level but if you are unwilling to even grasp the basic concepts of the theory how can you possibly tell me it's wrong?

If I say that the bible is wrong and then quote places where I can prove Buddah is wrong wouldn't you have the right to claim that I knew absolutely nothing about the subect and as such should go learn before commenting on it?

Originally posted by Omniscaper
You can spout all the information and latest findings all you want. (and please do, I love good science article) And others will also likely spout Biblical passages to show thatit has been used and contain real science. Its obvious we have different conclusions and interpretations on TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF THOUGHT.

The thing is that this thread is about ID not creationism. ID encroaches on science. It claims that it actually IS science (when it quite plainly is not).

If I were to open up the bible, cross out genesis and write an evolutionary explaination in there and then force people to use that version in church alongside the original and then said it was because I wanted to give people the chance to make up their own minds I would hope that you would say some very rude words to me about it.

You have every right to teach the bible as it is in church. You have every right to teach it in RE class. What you do not have the right to do is dress it up as science and attempt to teach it AS science. That is every bit as wrong as rewriting the bible like I said above.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
which is in itself a veiled insult, I see

Of course it is. Oldest creationist trick in the book. Instead of answering the question at hand you take a minor detail and blow it entirely out of proportion in the hope of distancing yourself from something you can't answer.

That's why even after 250 posts we've only gotten half hearted attempts to answer the question I posed right near the start and instead have had page after page of attacks on evolution.


Maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe Stealth and the rest were honestly trying to answer my question properly and simply didn't grasp what I was saying but I don't think so. I stated it too many times and never got back more than a couple of lines followed by a load of off-topic misconceptions about evolution.  

I flat out asked if ID meant that evolution was completely wrong or not and never got any answer back. That's not something that is subject to misinterpretation.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Yes, the core has moved; through space.  Also, it is believed the core is in constant motion, the action of which causes the magnetic field round the earth.

Also, if you interpret earth as 'land' - and that's not my own interpretation - it means the sea is not, in fact, upon the core (which sort of contradicts the whole parting of the waves thing, too).

Furthermore, if you seperate the 'earth' from 'foundation' (i.e. surface from core), that other verse I quoted implies that the earth (the surface of the planet) hangs in space.... without any core.  Unsupported, I believe the word was.

So it's contradictory.

Not to mention, the Catholic Church was morbidly oppossed to the concept of a non geo-centric universe (I mentioned this on page 2 I think; Galileo was subjected to an Inquisition that 'determined' the Earth was the centre of the universe).  Same text; possible more accurate, due to the inherent chinese whispers effect of multiple translations over the centuries.  But they interpret it opposite.

So not scientifically accurate, unless interpreted with foreknowledge of what science determined.

, indeed.

First thing, the core has moved thru space with the earth, but once again, has the core moved out of the center of the Earth? No, of course not, the core is still as firmly planted in the earth as it was when it was created.

Now secondly, when I said the Core is the Earth's foundation, I ment it, not the dirt, land, or rock, the core is the Earth's foundation.

Here is why. lets unroll the earth like a map, flat. Like this.



Now lets roll it up into a ball, were did the foundation go? Did it disappear? No, look where it's at now.



But, once again if we cut a piece out, it's set out like above.



And please stop bringing up what the Catholic church did, if you remember they also killed Marting Luther for telling them how corupt they were.
 

[StratComm]

Originally posted by WeatherOp


First thing, the core has moved thru space with the earth, but once again, has the core moved out of the center of the Earth? No, of course not, the core is still as firmly planted in the earth as it was when it was created.  

If this doesn't prove how much interpretation can change "what the Bible says" I don't know what can.  It pretty clearly can have either meaning, if you want to be revisionist.  Unfortunately not only does the core move through space with the earth, it also moves within the earth, as there's pretty strong evidence that the core rotates faster than the planet itself.  And in your gross generalization, you've left out the Mantle which really does move relative to both the crust and the core.  But ultimately this is a really stupid argument since a literal reading of the Bible indicates that earth or the Earth (either/or, both are wrong anyway) are built like you would build a house, which is patently false.

Originally posted by WeatherOp
And please stop bringing up what the Catholic church did, if you remember they also killed Marting Luther for telling them how corupt they were.

Dude, go read a book.  Any book.  Or watch the History channel.  When you start misrepresenting well documented history you've got problems.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by StratComm


If this doesn't prove how much interpretation can change "what the Bible says" I don't know what can.  It pretty clearly can have either meaning, if you want to be revisionist.  Unfortunately not only does the core move through space with the earth, it also moves within the earth, as there's pretty strong evidence that the core rotates faster than the planet itself.  And in your gross generalization, you've left out the Mantle which really does move relative to both the crust and the core.  But ultimately this is a really stupid argument since a literal reading of the Bible indicates that earth or the Earth (either/or, both are wrong anyway) are built like you would build a house, which is patently false.

Hmm, does anywhere in the Bible say the Earth is built like a house, no, and the Mantle sits on top of the Core too. And once again, the Core doesn't bobble, it doesn't bounce, it sits there, sure it rotates but it don't move., if it bounced around the Earth would have probley headed into the sun.

Originally posted by StratComm


Dude, go read a book. Any book. Or watch the History channel. When you start misrepresenting well documented history you've got problems.

Please explain.

[Ace]

Nothin' like paint brush pictures of biblical pseudo-science to brighten my day.

The Dwarves got it better:


What are planets?
The planets are the gods and the planes of the gods, which is the same thing. That they appear as spherical heavenly bodies is a visual phenomena caused by mortal mental stress. Since each plane(t) is an infinite mass of infinite size, as yet surrounded by the Void of Oblivion, the mortal eye registers them as bubbles within a space. Planets are magical and impossible. The eight planets correspond to the Eight Divines. They are all present on the Dwarven Orrery, along with the mortal planet, Nirn.

What is Nirn?
Nirn (Ehnofex for 'Arena') is a finite ball of matter and magic made from all of the god planets at the beginning of time, when Lorkhan tricked/convinced/forced the gods to create the mortal plane. Nirn is the mortal plane and the mortal planet, which is the same thing. Its creation upset the cosmic balance; now all souls (especially the Aedra-Daedra/Gods-Demons) have a vested interest in Nirn (especially its starry heart, Tamriel).

What are moons?
Small planets, insofar as one infinite mass of infinite size can be smaller than another. Planets do have orbits, or at least lunar orbits are perceived to happen by mortals. Moons are regarded by various cultures as attendant spirits of their god planet, or minor gods, or foreign gods. The moons of Nirn are Masser and Secunda. Moons are not represented in the Dwarven Orrery.

What is space?
Space is the interpretation of Oblivion, which is black and empty and surrounds the mortal plane. Space is infinite, but it acts just like a planet, in that Oblivion is 'surrounded' by Aetherius. You can see Aetherius by the stars.

What are stars?
The stars are the bridges to Aetherius, the magic plane. They are perceived as holes on the inside surface of space. Because they are on the inside of a sphere, all stars are equidistant from Nirn. Larger stars, therefore, are not closer to the mortal plane, they are just larger tears in Oblivion. The largest tear in Oblivion is Magnus, the sun.

Hail the Brass God, Numidium. The Prime Gestalt.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Please explain.

Unless the catholic church sent Raquel Welsh in a tiny submarine to stop his heart I think it unlikely that they were responsible for his death.

On January 23 Luther left Wittenberg accompanied by his three sons. The negotiations were successfully concluded on February 17. After 8:00 p.m. on that day Luther suffered chest pains. When he went to his bed he prayed, "Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God" (Ps. 31:5), the common prayer of the dying. At 1:00 a.m. he awoke with more chest pain and was warmed with hot towels. Knowing that his death was imminent he thanked God for revealing His Son to him in Whom he had believed. His companions Justus Jonas and Michael Coelius shouted loudly, "Reverend father, are you ready to die trusting in your Lord Jesus Christ and to confess the doctrine which you have taught in His name?" A distinct "Yes" was Luther's reply. He died 2:45 a.m. February 18, 1546 in Eisleben, the city of his birth.

[StratComm]

Ah, but motion is an all-inclusive definition.  Rotation is motion.  But you're not going to listen to anything based on, you know, the laws of nature (or apparently common sense for that matter) so it's pointless to try to explain further why this doesn't prove the Bible is right.

And Martin Luther wasn't killed by anybody.  He died of natural causes.  You said he was killed by the Catholic church.

EDIT: Beat me to it Kara  For the record, I believe that's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by karajorma


Unless the catholic church sent Raquel Welsh in a tiny submarine to stop his heart I think it unlikely that they were responsible for his death.

 

Maybe they tried to kill him, I really can't remember, it's really been a long time since I really explored the part of History. Thanks for pointing that out.

But, I do know the Catholics did kill of people for preaching against them.

[Kamikaze]

We're getting off topic here. Using the bible holistically as evidence for anything is simply dogmatic. If you wish to support Intelligent Design with specific evidence from the bible, do so. Otherwise stop talking about the bible and get back to the ID/Evolution issue.

[Ace]

Originally posted by karajorma


Unless the catholic church sent Raquel Welsh in a tiny submarine to stop his heart I think it unlikely that they were responsible for his death.

 

****ing catholic miniaturization machines...

...

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
We're getting off topic here. Using the bible holistically as evidence for anything is simply dogmatic. If you wish to support Intelligent Design with specific evidence from the bible, do so. Otherwise stop talking about the bible and get back to the ID/Evolution issue.

Nah, I've got of stuff to do, I've allready explained my views, and thats all I can explain really. Weather you want to listen to e'm, is completly up to you, I'll not be taking a hammer nd beating it in your barins. I'll let you people get this back on topic and keep debating on it. Have fun, but thanks for keeping it flameless, if it stays like this, I may be in some more debates like this.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by StratComm
EDIT: Beat me to it Kara  For the record, I believe that's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article.

Yep. I should have named the source but I'm getting sleepy here

[StratComm]

Ordinarily I wouldn't have mentioned it, but I wanted to make sure that the anti-ID camp doesn't fall into the ID trapping of untracable sources.  Even if it is 100% tangential

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by StratComm
Ordinarily I wouldn't have mentioned it, but I wanted to make sure that the anti-ID camp doesn't fall into the ID trapping of untracable sources.  Even if it is 100% tangential

Trapping. Ohh boy here we go again, once again I won't "trap" anyone. Or I wouldn't admit I was wrong.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by WeatherOp


Trapping. Ohh boy here we go again, once again I won't "trap" anyone. Or I wouldn't admit I was wrong.

Pulling things out of context is bad, k?

From Dictionary.com

Characteristic or symbolic signs: all the trappings of power.

ID arguments are always characterized by a failure to cite sources, usually because either those sources don't exist, are misquoted, or looking them up would result in realizing how discredited they actually are.  Thus, failing to cite sources is one of the trappings of Intelligent Design.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by StratComm

Pulling things out of context is bad, k?



ID arguments are always characterized by a failure to cite sources, usually because either those sources don't exist, are misquoted, or looking them up would result in realizing how discredited they actually are.  Thus, failing to cite sources is one of the trappings of Intelligent Design.

Once again , here is the thing if you want to belive I was trying to trap you, thats ok with me, you can just go ahead and think what you want.