[StratComm]

Oh I give up.  You're just not listening to me.  Since even a simple english lesson is beyond your comprehension there's really no point in even delving into philosophical matters.

And for the record, none of the original "trapping" comment was even directed at you.  Go back, read the definition I posted of "trapping", then read the initial post that you misinterpreted again slowly and just try to think about what I'm saying.  Context and a good vocabulary FTW.

EDIT: And for those of you wanting to see a return to the ID debate itself, I do apologize.  My attempts to caress the discussion back on-topic has inexplicibly backfired.

[Bobboau]

back to the last thing we were arguing that actualy had something to do with the topic.

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

this quite clearly states in as direct a manner as posable that the land was placed upon a suporting structure of some form, (it does not (here at least) mention any decription of this suporting structure, but for the moment I'll accept 'the core' as an acceptable interpetation ignoreing all the flat earth stuff in the bible and the implication of a flat earth presented here) and that either the land cannot be moved, or the foundation can never be moved (what ever the it was refering to). both of these are knowen to not be true. what it does not say it "the foundation can never move relitive to the earth".

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by StratComm
Oh I give up.  You're just not listening to me.  Since even a simple english lesson is beyond your comprehension there's really no point in even delving into philosophical matters.

And for the record, none of the original "trapping" comment was even directed at you.  Go back, read the definition I posted of "trapping", then read the initial post that you misinterpreted again slowly and just try to think about what I'm saying.  Context and a good vocabulary FTW.
 

Ok, I get it now, but then again you should have just told me the first post. Woo hoo you just proved WO has bad vocabuary, now go get yourself an award.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by WeatherOp


Ok, I get it now, but then again you should have just told me the first post. Woo hoo you just proved WO has bad vocabuary, now go get yourself an award.

I did.  I posted the correct definition, an example of how it is generally used, and how it related to the context in which I used it.  I didn't expect to have to spell it out in crayon for someone who has put this much thought into the debate.

I don't want to be bitter about this kind of debate, but when you're wrong just say you're wrong.  It saves us all a lot of annoyances.

Originally posted by Bobboau
back to the last thing we were arguing that actualy had something to do with the topic.

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

this quite clearly states in as direct a manner as posable that the land was placed upon a suporting structure of some form, (it does not (here at least) mention any decription of this suporting structure, but for the moment I'll accept 'the core' as an acceptable interpetation ignoreing all the flat earth stuff in the bible and the implication of a flat earth presented here) and that either the land cannot be moved, or the foundation can never be moved (what ever the it was refering to). both of these are knowen to not be true. what it does not say it "the foundation can never move relitive to the earth".

Actually the way I'd approach this is that if the foundation reference was ever intended to be literal, there would have to have been something to build the foundation on.  Normally the foundation of a building is anchored to the Earth's surface in such a way that the building cannot move relative to that surface.  If the earth is so anchored to its foundation, the core, then what is the core fastened to?  Not only is this horribly inspecific, it doesn't address the fact that there cannot, by definition of gravitational force, be anything under the lowest layer of a solid mass.  No substrate, no foundation.  To call it such implies that there's something underneath, from which the earth must be held above lest it fall in.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by StratComm


I did.  I posted the correct definition, an example of how it is generally used, and how it related to the context in which I used it.  I didn't expect to have to spell it out in crayon for someone who has put this much thought into the debate.

I don't want to be bitter about this kind of debate, but when you're wrong just say you're wrong.  It saves us all a lot of annoyances.
 

Dude, everytime I have posted when I was wrong, I posted it about thinking the church killed Luther, and then I posted it a second ago about the vocabuary, what more are you wanting?

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Stealth
it's like... how about as opposed to popular beliefs of the time that included the earth resting on the back of four elephants, on a large turtle, that was standing on a large snake that swam in an infinite sea.   (no seriously)

either he didn't know that was one of the beliefs, or uhh i dunno.

You said it, not me... science never said such thing.

[Ace]

Originally posted by WeatherOp


Dude, everytime I have posted when I was wrong, I posted it about thinking the church killed Luther, and then I posted it a second ago about the vocabuary, what more are you wanting?

Repenting for your sins against the Orii. Hallowed be the Orii. :devil:

[Grey Wolf]

WeatherOp: I'm still waiting for you to rebuke my Biblical argument that says you are blaspheming by claiming you know God's will. Or do you lack the ability to?

[Mefustae]

And we're all still waiting for the Hypothesis or Theory behind ID, something that - as Kara has pointed out numerous times - has not happened in almost 12 full pages of posts...

...And just for the whole 'unmoving foundation' arguement going on; Let's just review the main structure of the Earth (highly generalised of course), which is slightly more complicated than your diagrams (all information gathered from my Earth & Environmental Sciences / Geology Textbooks);

- Lithosphere; ‘The Rocky Sphere’. Rigid, outermost of the concentric layers that make up the Earth. ~100km Thick.
- Asthenosphere; A layer of Upper Mantle that ‘flows’ [notice that 'flows' indicates movement] when forces act upon it. <250km Thick, thicker when Lithosphere is thinner and vice versa.
- Mesosphere; Deep Mantle. Can transmit seismic shockwaves, and can flow/move by convection. [Again, note that this layer 'flows', indicating movement, even if it is slight]
- Outer Core; Liquid metal layer, composed of Iron, some Nickel, Oxygen & Potassium. [This layer is liquid, meaning that it moves]
- Inner Core; Solid core of Iron & Nickel. [This inner core, as mentioned before, rotates and thus creates the Earth's magnetic field (i'm being unbearably general here, but stick with me). Rotation indicates movement, not to mention the possible oscillations that might take place due to the spinning...it is spinning in liquid after all]

Indeed, no part of the Earth is truly unmoving, and that's discounting the orbital track of the Earth through Space. A foundation - which is in itself describing the Earth as a house - should really be stable and unmoving, and no part of this planet fulfills that role. So let's hear no more about this wacky bible exerpt.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Ghostavo


You said it, not me... science never said such thing.

you're missing the point.  whether science said anything is completely irrelevant.

the POINT is at a time when the earth was, among other beliefs OF PEOPLE OF THE TIME, believed to be on the back of elephants, etc.  

therefore, the Bible saying the earth is "hung in space" was not even considered at the time.  in fact, it was laughed at, since THE WORLD believed something completely different.

[StratComm]

I strongly doubt that THE WORLD as you're implying actually believed the world sat on the backs of elephants.  As has been pointed out already, many contemporary cultures were already discovering that the world was round, were doing rather precise astronomical calculations, and were forming heliocentric theories of the universe.

[Descenterace]

How about we just accept that Biblical 'predictions' only make sense in hindsight?

Now, the thing with hindsight is that we already know the answer, and it's very easy to interpret the evidence accordingly without even realising we're doing it.

Therefore, as much as the God Squad here at HLP believe that they're interpreting this stuff with a truly open mind, they're really just deceiving themselves.

Of course, that's a fundamental requirement for favouring ID/Creationism over Science, so it's not really surprising.

What it does do is completely invalidate any argument based on 'predictions made by the Bible'.

[WMCoolmon]

I have a question...

There are lots of things the bible says to do, but would be either considered rude or downright criminal to do today. Or maybe just uncomfortable. Or maybe inconvenient.

How do you just pick-and-choose the parts of it that you like, and then argue that those are factual, when you reject other parts of it because you don't like them?

[Ace]

...and my final contribution to this thread:


That's what I think about the shrubs. Except that Orks are cool, shrubs aren't.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Stealth


you're missing the point.  whether science said anything is completely irrelevant.

the POINT is at a time when the earth was, among other beliefs OF PEOPLE OF THE TIME, believed to be on the back of elephants, etc.  

therefore, the Bible saying the earth is "hung in space" was not even considered at the time.  in fact, it was laughed at, since THE WORLD believed something completely different.

You are the one missing the point, you are discussing the validity of a sentence in a book of one religion against the saying of other religions/beliefs! What do you really accomplish there?

What I do agree is that the people who wrote the bible took the knowledge and some common beliefs/mythos at the time and wrote them onto the bible. So it's not a case of the bible having new info or something, it's the fact that it preserved some of the knowledge from those times.

[aldo_14]

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.

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.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a120/weatherop/fondation1.jpg

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

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a120/weatherop/fondation2.jpg

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

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a120/weatherop/fondation3.jpg

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.
 

Think of how much accumulated, scientific knowledge you're having to bend into context to come up with that explanation.  Whereas the flat-earthists use (more or less) the exact same basis for their theory.  As for the immobile earth.... as was pointed out elsewhere, even by your explanation it still doesn't explain earthquakes, tectonic shifts, etc - particularly the geological processes that form mountains, etc, and were unknown and unobservabe (due to their slow rate) to the writers of the bible.  

In any case, where does your definition of foundations go between
" he suspends the earth over nothing."
and
"  and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. "?  Because if the earth is the planet, the top one is ok.  Over nothing, fine.  But if you define the earth, as you have, as being the (say) mantle, then clearly it's not over nothing.  Unless you use dual meanings, which invalidates the whole thing as a reliable source.  

EDIT; unless you ascribe the latter as marking out the foundations within the planet (earth), which of course contradicts science re: 'the earth is immobile'.

EDIT2;  hell; just define what 'earth' means in the bible.  Is it the planet, or is it the surface?

And I'm bringing up the Catholic church as an example of misinterpretation of the bible leading to a completely invalid (proven so) conclusion, which continued to be supported by the church (who of all people should be able to correctly interpret the bible), until it had been completely and irrefutably disproved by scientific exploration.  In fact, IMO it's a good example of the Church actively seeking to hold back science lest for fear of it 'disproving' it (the church, or even the churches own interpretation of the bible), very similiar to IDs attempts to hold back evolutionary studies and brand it as aetheistic.

Originally posted by Stealth


you're missing the point.  whether science said anything is completely irrelevant.

the POINT is at a time when the earth was, among other beliefs OF PEOPLE OF THE TIME, believed to be on the back of elephants, etc.  

therefore, the Bible saying the earth is "hung in space" was not even considered at the time.  in fact, it was laughed at, since THE WORLD believed something completely different.

There's absolutely no (literal) basis for concluding that is what it even means within the bible, beyond your foresight-aided interpretation.  History that the idea of a flat, geocentric earth existed within Christian society for a very long time (centuries), which to me is pretty solid evidence that what you say is not the only literal interpretation, nor is it even the most likely or supported one.

So even when the world (or western, at least; I'm not familiar with Arab/Asian/etc historical views) was Christian, the idea of a spherical planet orbiting the sun, etc, was laughed at.  i.e. that would be 'the people of the time' as you so succinctly put in capitals.

What is the only difference between your interpretation and, say, that of the Pope 600 years ago?  Scientific discovery.  And with a translated (multiple times), 2 thousand(+) year old allegorical story, it's easy to rewrite to suit yourself.

Of course, Pythagoras in Ancient Greece worked out the concept of a spherical earth; albeit not orbiting the sun but a 'hearth' of the gods (the model depicted the sun, etc, and other planets orbiting this hearth, with the earth closest.  A 'counter earth' was placed inside earths orbit, acting to eclipse this hearth from view)

Ancient Indian astronomy worked out not just that the Earth orbited the Sun, but also that the stars were the same as the sun.  Vedic literature (3000-1000BC) implies the earth is a sphere, by referring to the Sun as the 'centre of spheres'.

[Bobboau]

so now do you all see why Biblical evedence cannot be used in science (other than perhapse anthopology)?

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14

There's absolutely no (literal) basis for concluding that is what it even means within the bible, beyond your foresight-aided interpretation.  History that the idea of a flat, geocentric earth existed within Christian society for a very long time (centuries), which to me is pretty solid evidence that what you say is not the only literal interpretation, nor is it even the most likely or supported one.

So even when the world (or western, at least; I'm not familiar with Arab/Asian/etc historical views) was Christian, the idea of a spherical planet orbiting the sun, etc, was laughed at.  i.e. that would be 'the people of the time' as you so succinctly put in capitals.

What is the only difference between your interpretation and, say, that of the Pope 600 years ago?  Scientific discovery.  And with a translated (multiple times), 2 thousand(+) year old allegorical story, it's easy to rewrite to suit yourself.

Of course, Pythagoras in Ancient Greece worked out the concept of a spherical earth; albeit not orbiting the sun but a 'hearth' of the gods (the model depicted the sun, etc, and other planets orbiting this hearth, with the earth closest.  A 'counter earth' was placed inside earths orbit, acting to eclipse this hearth from view)

Ancient Indian astronomy worked out not just that the Earth orbited the Sun, but also that the stars were the same as the sun.  Vedic literature (3000-1000BC) implies the earth is a sphere, by referring to the Sun as the 'centre of spheres'.

again you miss the point.  

it matters not WHAT people didn't believe in the Bible, or believed instead that the earth was flat.  it doesn't matter if everyone on earth believed the earth was flat, christian or not.  the Bible still stated that the earth was not.

we're discussing the validity of the Bible here... not whether Christians ever listened to it

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Stealth
it matters not WHAT people didn't believe in the Bible, or believed instead that the earth was flat.  it doesn't matter if everyone on earth believed the earth was flat, christian or not.  the Bible still stated that the earth was not.

No, it didn't.  There's no point where the Bible is anything more than ambiguous on the whole matter.  You've interpreted it, in a modern context, to not outright conflict with scientific common knowledge.  That interpretation is not equivalent to unambiguous knowledge about our world, period.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Ghostavo


You are the one missing the point, you are discussing the validity of a sentence in a book of one religion against the saying of other religions/beliefs! What do you really accomplish there?

What I do agree is that the people who wrote the bible took the knowledge and some common beliefs/mythos at the time and wrote them onto the bible. So it's not a case of the bible having new info or something, it's the fact that it preserved some of the knowledge from those times.

maybe it's because we don't speak the same language, therefore you're having trouble understanding this:

The whole point here, was AT THE TIME NO ONE even CONSIDERED the earth being round or hanging in space.  it was flat.  it rested on elephants.  end of story. so why does the Bible not talk about the earth being round and hanging in space......

THEREFORE the people who wrote the book did NOT take the "knowledge and some common beliefs/mythos at the time and write them onto the Bible"... because they all believed the opposite of what's written in the Bible.  you understand!?

If you don't read anything else, do your best to understand this sentence:

The Bible talking about the earth hanging in space (or being round) was UNHEARD of at the time.  so what crazy philosopher sat down and wrote information that everyone laughed at, that eventually turned out to be 100% accurate.  

see where i'm coming from here?