Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Judson McClendon
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 15:01:21 -0600
Akshaya Joshi wrote:
>
> I actually believe the devil is a happening dude and he created our
> world. If he did not then we wouldn't have choas. As there is choas it
> means that the devil had some hand in forming our world.
>
> Yours
>
> A Raster
Satan had a hand in getting a curse placed on the world, you're right
about that.
(Genesis 3:14-19)
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this,
you
are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the
field;
on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your
life.
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
seed
and her Seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His
heel."
16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your
conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall
be
for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your
wife,
and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, `You
shall
not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall
eat of it all the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall
eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the
ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you
shall return."
--
Judson McClendon judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Sun Valley Systems http://www.netcom.com/~judsonmc/sunvalley.html
Subject: Re: HELP Newtons 3 Law
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 17:20:37 -0500
Tom Grek wrote:
>
> Im studying for my A-Levels but what I cant understand is why
> if you have an equal and opposite force, do you get an acceleration?
> Beats Me! :)
> Please help!
Sometimes you don't ... like when you are sitting in a chair. Then
your weight is the force acting upon the chair, and the chairs
reaction holds you up. The combination of your weight and the chair's
weight then apply a force to the floor, and the reaction force
holds up the chair.
But these are "static" cases. When you strike an object with your
hand, the object may move. This is because you have transferred
momentum to the object. Still, the object's reaction force upon
your hand is equal and opposite to your force upon it.
The reason why this differs from the static case is due to the
overall situation (relative mass, how the forces are distributed,
etc.).
Now back to your question: why is there any reaction at all, since
the action and reaction forces are opposite in direction, but equal
in magnitude? You are wondering why they don't just cancel out.
The reason is that the forces are not acting on the same object.
If it was an apple that you struck, then the apple "feels" the
force of your hand; your hand feels the reaction force of the
apple.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Creationism VS Evolution
From: Judson McClendon
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 16:24:03 -0600
Marty Zinck wrote:
[snip]
> In Genesis 1, humans are created on the last day of creation and male
> and female are created at the same time. In Genesis 2, which is the
> older account, man is created early in the week before the animals and
> woman does not appear until the end of the week as an after-thought. You
> can’t have it both ways if you take it literally.
Even a casual reading of Genesis 1,2 shows that Genesis 1:1-2:5 is
clearly a chronological description and Genesis 2, beginning with v5 is
a logically related description (men added the chapter divisions, not
God). To read that text and argue otherwise borders on being
disingenuous.
> Literalists will have to believe that according to Genesis, the earth is
> flat. But astronauts have brought us back pictures not of a flat earth
> in the midst of waters, but of a beautiful blue and white globe swimming
> in space.
Why do you say that? Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle
of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches
out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to
dwell in." There is no specific ancient Hebrew word for 'sphere', but
the Hebrew word translated 'circle' here also means 'sphere'. This
alone might be moot, but consider Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north
over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing." You might truthfully
say that the Bible does not unarguably teach that the earth is a sphere,
but you can't truthfully say the Bible teaches that the earth is flat!
> Genesis says there is a skydome over the earth holding up the waters
> that are above, and that are underneath the earth there are also
> waters. In the flood story in Genesis 7, the skydome opened and the
> waters pour down while the waters under the earth surge upward. The
> covered the mountains to the depth of 18 cubits. To cover Mt. Everest,
> the waters would have to be five miles deep. And where did these waters
> go when the flood finally abated. The amount of water upon the earth is
> a constant value, whether it is as water, ice, or atmosphere.
You haven't studied the Bible carefully. If you study the original
Hebrew for Psalm 104:6-8 you will see that it can be understood to say
that the mountains 'stood up' and the valleys 'sank down' when 'at your
rebuke the waters fled' (referring to God). Many Bible scholars
understand it this way: At the flood the ocean floors may have lifted
somewhat, and possibly the mountains were lower, or lowered as well.
Perhaps this is what is meant by the 'fountains of the great deep' in
Genesis 7:11 and 8:2. When the flood left, the reverse transpired, as
described in Psalm 104 above. Note that if this happened, there would
be truly mind-boggling 'tidal waves', maybe 1000 feet high, which would
come crashing across the continents, sweeping all before them. Untold
billions of tons of animals and plants would be swept into huge piles
and covered up. Rich material for fossil, oil and coal formation, no?
> Joshua is said to have made the sun stand still so he could kill more
> Amorites, which is a _very_ moral reason. But it is the earth that
> moves around the sun and if he was able to get the earth to stop turning
> on its axis, the force of gravity would have hurled everthing on the
> earth, that was not nailed down, flying out into space. The sun does
> not rise and set, no matter what the Bible says.
If God could stop the whole earth in the first place, why do you think
it would be a problem for Him to stop the other stuff too? Geesh! :)
> The Literalists problem does not end with the Old Testament. Read the
> resurrection stories of Jesus at the end of the four Gospel to find out
> who was in the empty tomb --one or two men, one or two angels? And who
> got there first? and who saw the Christ first? and was it in Jerusalem
> or Galilee?
How many people are in your living room? Depends on WHEN YOU LOOK,
right? Same with Jesus Tomb. Geesh again! ;)
> It is said that Jesus ascended into heaven. But if He did ascend through
> the skydome at the speed of Light, 186,000 miles per second, He would
> not yet be at the edge of our galaxy.
You just said above that the 'skydome', as you call it, fell in at the
flood (I agree). Why would it be in Jesus' way thousands of years
later? Who said speed of light? If God created the universe and its
laws in the first place, why should He be subject to them? There
probably is no 'distance', in our terms, to Heaven. It's probably
outside the physical universe altogether.
> If these questions disturb you, don’t take my word for it, just read the
> first two chapters of Genesis and then make two lists of the order of
> creation. Then go on to the Gospels and do the same with the birth
> stories and the resurrection accounts. Put them side by side and see the
> contradictions.
If you check you will find that this has already been done and there are
completely noncontradictory ways to interpret the sequence of events.
[snip]
> I agree. The Bible has influenced my life more than any other book and
> it continues to do so. Its good influence over me increased greatly
> after I stopped taking it literally.
>
> It is not the liberals, but the literalists, who cause the Bible to be
> neglected by so many people in our day. The Fundamentalists _are_ the
> Anti-Christ they fear!
So, you have decided that the Bible really doesn't mean what it says.
You can't really depend on it. YOU have to interpret what actually is,
not the Bible, for it is unreliable. God simply can not be trusted to
say to us what He actually means. We humans are much smarter than
that. We have SCIENCE, and we KNOW. And you're happier with it that
way. And you think I and other people who actually trust God's Word are
anti-christ? The authors of the Bible did not think as you. Look what
Paul says in Galatians 3:16: 'Now to Abraham and his Seed were the
promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of
one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.' He makes an argument based on
the singular form of a noun! That's about as literal as you're going to
get.
--
Judson McClendon judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Sun Valley Systems http://www.netcom.com/~judsonmc/sunvalley.html
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 17:04:00 -0700
In article <32A06063.65B7@space.mit.edu>,
CCD Data Acquisition wrote:
>Jean-Joseph JACQ wrote
>
>> ...
>> And furthermore, it is a well known fact that the phase velocity in a
>> wave guide often exceeds the speed of light in vacuum. But again, the
>> actual modulation (ie information) travels slower than C).
>> So faster than light is possible but not for mass or information
>> transfer.
>> Which is also why the quantum phenomena do not break the laws of
>> relativity. If a particle/antiparticle are created, and one is left to
>> travel 1/2 way across the universe, then someone examines say the spin
>> of the particle which remained on earth, then instantly the spin of the
>> twin particle will suddenly also be fixed (seemingly against the laws of
>> relativity) but since the examination of the spin on earth is a
>> completely random process (it can end up either + or - and we can't
>> foretell which it will be) then there is no way that we can use it for
>> communication hence information can't be transmitted this way.
>>
>> Isaac Asimov's hyperwave transmissions won't work, they'll only generate
>> static noise.
>>
>> John
>
>Consider the following. The quantum state described above is known as
>a spin singlet state, denoted in Dirac notation, as |psi> = C ( |+,-;z>
>+ |-,+;z> )
>where a = 1/sqrt(2). Suppose we have a device which generates particles
>in
>a spin singlet state as illustrated below:
>
> ---
> / \
> ------ SSG -----
> \ /
> ---
>
>To be definite about the state |psi> in relation to the spin singlet
>generator (SSG) we will define |+,-;z> as the state where the particle
>traveling to the left is in the spin state |+;z> and the particle
>traveling to the right is in the spin state |-;z>. The "z" denotes that
>the spin measurements are made along the z-axis. Then, for example
>the eigenstate |+,-;z> is the tensor product of |+;z> and |-;z>, i.e. if
>*
>represents the tensor product then |+,-;z> == |+;z>*|-;z> (== means "is
>defined as").
>
>Now we need a device which will measure the spin, a Stern Gerlag (SG)
>type device. Let the device be illustrated as follows:
>
> --------
> | +|----
> ----- | -|----
> --------
>
>(note: "---|" will denote a blocked path)
>
>The particles enter at "--<" and if the the SG device detects a spin up
>state
>the particle will emerge from the "+" channel. Similarly if the device
>detects a spin up state then the particle will emerge from the "-"
>channel.
>We can be creative here and add a switch. In position "z" the device
>will measure
>the z component, and in position "x" the device will measure the x
>component.
>Now combine these devices as follows:
>
> (z,x)
> |
> ----------
> -------- --- -------- |
>+|---[Joe]
> -------- |--|+ | / \ | +|------ |---|+ | | SG(z)>---- SSG ---- | SG(z)>------|- (1')| \ / | (1) -|--| ----------
>[Moe]----|- (2')| -------- --- --------
> --------
>
>Note: N' always measures after N does
>
>At this point we need the relation |+,-;z> = C ( |+,-;x> - |-,+;x> > )
>(See Sakuri, Modern Quantum Mechanics, Addison Wessely, Reading MA).
>Particles moving to the right will be
>refferd to as R and those moving to the left will be reffered to as L.
>With this relation
>we can describe how this system works. Consider a pair of particles in
>the state |psi>
>created by the SSG. If device 1 detects spin up on R then device 1' must
>detect spin down
>i.e. the system will be in the state |psi(1)> = |+,-;z>. The
>probability of this
>measurement is 1/2. Now comes the tricky part. If the switch (z,x) is
>in the z position
>then detector 2 (Joe) will measure spin up with a probability of 1
>(given that detecxtor 1 measured spin up). This means the state remains
>in the eigen state |+,-;z> and detector
>2' (Moe) will measure spin up. However if the switch is in the position
>x then, given
>detector 1 measures spin up the probability that 2 will measure spin up
>(along x) is no
>will be 1/2. Lets look at this more closely. After detector 1 measures
>spin up the
>system will be in the state |+,-;z> = C ( |+,-;x> - |-,+;x> ). This
>means that if the
>x component is measured the system will be in either the state |+,-;x>
>or the state
>|-,+;x> the probability of each state being measured being 1/2.
>Therefore Joe will get
>either spin up or spin down (along x). Same with Moe. To be more clear
>let us asume
>that these spinglet states are produced in large quantities so there is
>a beam of particles.
>We'll call the beam current I (measured in particles per second) then
>device 2 will recieve
>a current of I/2. and so will 1'. If the switch is in the z position
>then Joe will recieve
>a beam current also of I/2 same as Moe. However if the the switch is in
>hte x position
>then Joe will get a beam of I/4 same as Moe. If Joe has controll of the
>switch then he can
>change what Moe recieves as a beam current. Hence communication quicker
>than that which would have been delivered by light (notice the choice of
>verbs). Also note that relativity
>is not violated in that nothing, no particle, is actually travling
>faster than light.
>
>Regards
>
>Peter M. Brown
There is no communication until they can compare their results to find out
that the correlations have changed. This step cannot exceed the speed of
light. Their is no information flow.
This is essentially a phase velocity vs. group velocity issue.
Subject: Re: How did nuclear testing affect environment?
From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 19:13:22 -0500
In article <329E9028.41C6@llnl.gov>, Gregory Greenman
wrote:
> Doug Craigen wrote:
> >
> > Todd Andrews wrote:
> > >
> > > Tracy W wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How did nuclear testing affect environment deeply?
> > >
> > > It didn't.
I have to agree with this overall assessment. All the effects that have
been cited are relatively minor on the scale of the overall effect of
humans on the natural environment.
> >
> > I was living in Vancouver back in the days of the Chernobyl disaster.
> > Vancouver prides itself on its great water, but either because of
> > Chernobyl or perhaps as a routine, the supply was tested for
> > radiocativity and was found to be contaminated. This made headlines, at
> > least locally. What was less known however was that further testing of
> > the contamination didn't look like reactor products, but rather like bomb
> > products. When pressed the US military acknowledge that yes, they had
> > just exploded a test under the desert.
> >
>
> Doug,
>
> The US military could not acknowledge that they had just exploded a test
> under the desert - the military did not do the testing for the US.
>
> Nuclear tests were conducted by the US Department of Energy by the two
> nuclear weapons labs, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos.
>
> Since bomb designs are not made public, how did the testers know what
> bomb products look like? Sounds like someone was speculating!
It is a well-known fact that bomb debris is relatively high in short-lived
fission products, while emissions from reactors are relatively high in
long-lived fission products. I presume that this is the difference that
was referred to.
However, I would give little credence to the suggestion that the
radioactivity measured at Vancouver came from a U.S. underground nuclear
test. Because of the nature of the Chernobyl accident (a fission spike) I
would expect the debris to be somewhere in between a bomb test and other
reactor releases.
> Nuclear tests were monitored for radiation leakage, and since nothing
> showed up in Nevada - I wonder how it got to Vancouver?
>
> Greg Greenman
> Physicist
--
Mark W. Goodman
mwgoodman@igc.apc.prg
Subject: Re: Pope votes for Evolution (was Re: Creation VS Evolution)
From: bently@hcn.hcnews.com (Bently Durant)
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 00:52:42 GMT
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:55:25 GMT, tmichael@worldnet.fr (Michael T)
wrote:
>Hello, I wonder if you aren't a little off course somewhere along the line.
>
>1) Catholics have been free to believe in evolution ever since the theory was first
>propounded.
>
>2) Catholics DO NOT have to get behind the theory of evolution as from now.
>
>I know that there is always the temptation to yell when everybody else is yelling. But
>what about finding out for YOURSELF ?
>Kindest Regards, Michael Thackray
>
>
Didn't that darwin guy later abandon the theory of evolution. Why did
he do that.
I think that catholics/cristians can't believe in evolution because
tracing the bible back to the beginning it makes the beginning come at
about 2,000 years. That doesn't allow enough time for evolution to
take place.
I also think that god created the animals and then man, but skiped the
whole primordial ooze step.
I could be rong but I don't think that my god would allow that for
long so feel free to point out any mistakes I might have made.
Thank you.
...,,,...,,,~~~~~`````,,,...,,,...,,,~~~~~`````~~~~~~`````
Why don't you join my in dyslexia land.
A lend weair evey thimg is spelled ront.
I think that I know everything because I know every thing
that I learned and what I havent learned I don't know about
:^)
Bently Durant
bently@hcn.hcnews.com
...,,,...,,,~~~~~`````,,,...,,,...,,,~~~~~`````~~~~~~`````
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: seshadri@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 00:22:27 GMT
x-no-archive: yes
-From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
: : : : Why are you so ready with
: : : : such petty remarks ?
: : : Boo-hoo. Because you invite them, and it's hard to resist temptation. A
: : : deplorable part of the human soul, no doubt.
: : I see. I am responsible for your
: : rudeness, because my dissent with your
: : opinions invites them.
: You don't see; I'm rude because you're rude.
I'd appreciate it if you could
show me an example of where I have
been rude. I have not called you
unintelligent or dishonest or
incompetent or anything like that.
You have called me all the above.
Show me where I have called you
anything comparable.
: This is very
: : similar to the classic MCP argument
: : that the girl is responsible for
: : the rape because of the way she
: : dresses.
: Sure thing, Raghu. Keep going, we're ever more impressed with your
: analogical skills.
Do you believe that MCPs have a point ?
Your action suggests that you do.
: [more sanctimonious nya-nya deleted]
"Sanctimonious" ? You don't agree with
me, then, that intellectual arguments
should be settled without resorting
to abuse ?
Now, in math, this is definitely not
Standard Operating Procedure. Recently,
when someone announced a proof of
Fermat's Theorem, someone else found
a flaw in it. Neither the finder of
the flaw, nor the prover of the Theorem,
find it necessary to abuse the
other :-) Indeed, the prover thanked
the critic for finding the mistake !
3 years of Frege's work was set at
nought by an observation of Russell;
they remained friends till Frege's
death.
: : I wasn't critiquing books I haven't
: : read. I was criticizing Brian Artese's argument
: : which he posted on the net, and which I read.
: : You have not demonstrated that my objections
: : to his argument are ignorant ravings, merely
: : asserted them loudly and repeatedly.
: You've claimed to critique "pomo arguments."
Only because the argument I was critiquing
was represented to me here in this thread
as a pomo argument.
: : Also, I don't need to be respected in order to
: : escape being addressed rudely.
: Dead wrong.
What ? It is totally invalid
to call an appeal to civilized behavior
as "dead wrong".
Right or wrong only
apply to objective truths, or agreed-upon
rules; not to
subjective wishes for a cultured
conversation.
You might as well respond
to your roommate's suggestion that
you take regular showers with
a "dead wrong !"
What the hell is that supposed to
mean ?
: : For instance, I do not respect your
: : way of argumentation, but that does not
: : mean you deserve rude treatment.
: Ooh, baby, but I love it.
So you love it when others are polite to
you, but you yourself will behave
nastily to others.
: : I said natural language
: : itself is fuzzy. It is not the fault of these
: : gentlemen.
: But you seem to blame any theory or any practice of reading that
: confronts these difficulties.
Not ANY theory; just the one promoted
by Brian Artese.
: : No, when you call me ignorant
: : just because I find a flaw in
: : Brian's statement, you are not
: : critiquing my writing, you are
: : indulging in an uncivilized
: : personal attack.
: You're a fine sophist (well, actually, a few more years of training....);
: I' not calling you ignorant because you "find a flaw in Brian's
: reasoning," but because you think you've found a flaw when greater
: knowledge of the issues discussed would have saved you. Now, the lack of
: knowledge is called ignorance; therefore, I called you ignorant. If I
: did. Did I?
This is always an easy way out when
cornered in a debate; call the other
guy ignorant and other abusive
words, and cover up the flaws in
one's position. As I said earlier,
this sort of childish behavior is
itself a strong indication that
you are uncomfortably aware of the
weakness of your position.
RS
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 00:57:35 GMT
In <32A096BD.32E@citicorp.com> Robert Fung
writes:
>
>Ray Tomes wrote:
> >
> > Peter Diehr wrote:
> >
> > >I've never seen any claim made that Planck's constant can be
derived
> > >from classical physics ... unless one adds at least one new
ingredient
> > >to the pot: you have to assume quantization in some fashion.
> >
> > >But if you know of a way, I'd love to look at it.
> >
> > I cannot derive the value of Planck's constant from classical
physics
> > but I can show that such quantised behaviour is natural from
classical
> > physics. It is a long story and this account is necessarily over
brief,
> > but starting from only Maxwell's equations and GR (which shows that
> > there is a non-linearity in Maxwell's equations due to energy
bending
> > space-time) it is possible to deveop my harmonics theory.
> >
> > It predicts that, starting from the size of the universe, at scale
> > ratios of around 34560 there will be stronger e/m waves. The
predicted
> > values agree well with the observed distance scales of galaxies,
stars,
> > planets, moons, .. cells, atoms and nucleons. At several of these
> > scales the observed detailed structure also supports the
predictions at
> > a very high significance level.
> >
> > For the electron the observed ratio of energy between the
Rydberg/Bohr
> > levels and the electron is 37558 which is 2/alpha^2. I cannot
exactly
> > explain why this exact value occurs (but it is repeated for the
fine and
> > hyperfine structures) or the ratio of the Bohr radius to the proton
> > wavelength which is 40046 but they are of the correct order.
> >
> > The reason why energy must be absorbed in discrete amounts (I don't
> > believe that "flying photons" exist, only that energy is emitted
and
> > absorbed in discrete amounts by matter) is best understood as
similar to
> > beats in music. A smaller wave must fit an exact number of times
into
> > the next larger wave and so any change must produce the wavelength
of
> > the larger wave as a beat. Or to put it another way the peaks of
the
> > smaller and larger waves must coincide so the number of waves of
the
> > smaller wave that fit into the larger wave must change by an
integer.
>
>
> I imagine such would be a useful means of factorization or
> primality testing is it could be done quickly and accurately
> enough. It would be interesting if there were some elegant
> relations for prime atomic numbers like He being the only
> even prime atomic number will have certain unique qualities.
>
> There are many kinds of quantization though. There is amplitude
> quantization of signals, time quantization of the samples,
> quantization from integration, from normalization to unity,
> and the quantization for a linear oscillator whose potential
> energy is an homogeneous quadratic function, the frequency
> is independant of the amplitude leads to hf in QM.
As I see it, Classical Physics is the
interval between effect ( measurement ) and cause,
and Quantum Mechanics is the
interval between cause and effect
( Radiation, photon, etc. ).
A measurement, defines a "real world"
interval of known properties, such as
charge, energy, velocity, etc.
Now, if you accept this a correct
definition, then Planck's Constant
can be defined in terms of Classical
properties:
h(electron) = Q^2 * C * mu(medium)
--------------------
2 * fine structure(electron)
Now I assert that Planck's Constant as
normally used refers to a property of
electrons, as does the fine structure constant.
In other words, protons have a separate
"Planck's Constant" and a separate
"fine structure constant", as does the
totality of the universe.
In other words, of one measured the
reaction of a proton, or the universe,
or some portion of the universe between
a proton and the whole ball of wax to
the elecvtrn, one would have to use
different constants.
Of course, "C" in the equation above is
"the speed of light" which I assert is
simply the more fundamental interaction
time multiplied by a universal distance per time
constant, and mu is the permeability of the
medium in which the measurement is being made,
which is usually space or air. The permeability
takes the medium into account when making
the measurement.
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Subject: Re: Creationism VS Evolution
From: ljz@asfast.com (Lloyd Zusman)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 01:08:01 GMT
[ Newsgroups trimmed a bit ]
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 16:24:03 -0600, Judson McClendon wrote:
> Marty Zinck wrote:
> [snip]
> > In Genesis 1, humans are created on the last day of creation and male
> > and female are created at the same time. In Genesis 2, which is the
> > older account, man is created early in the week before the animals and
> > woman does not appear until the end of the week as an after-thought. You
> > can’t have it both ways if you take it literally.
>
> Even a casual reading of Genesis 1,2 shows that Genesis 1:1-2:5 is
> clearly a chronological description and Genesis 2, beginning with v5 is
> a logically related description (men added the chapter divisions, not
> God). To read that text and argue otherwise borders on being
> disingenuous.
>
> > Literalists will have to believe that according to Genesis, the earth is
> > flat. But astronauts have brought us back pictures not of a flat earth
> > in the midst of waters, but of a beautiful blue and white globe swimming
> > in space.
>
> Why do you say that? Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle
> of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches
> out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to
> dwell in." There is no specific ancient Hebrew word for 'sphere', but
> the Hebrew word translated 'circle' here also means 'sphere'.
How do you know that this is what the Hebrew word meant? Are there
one or more passages somewhere else in the Bible that explains what
all the words in Isaiah 40:22 really mean? If not, then you are
engaging in *human* *interpretation* of the Bible and not taking
God's literal word for what it means.
> [ ... ] This
> alone might be moot, but consider Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north
> over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing." You might truthfully
> say that the Bible does not unarguably teach that the earth is a sphere,
> but you can't truthfully say the Bible teaches that the earth is flat!
Job 26:7 doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about whether the
earth is flat, round, a sphere, or anything. All it says is that the
earth hangs on nothing. How does this passage in Job relate to the earth's
shape?
> > Genesis says there is a skydome over the earth holding up the waters
> > that are above, and that are underneath the earth there are also
> > waters. In the flood story in Genesis 7, the skydome opened and the
> > waters pour down while the waters under the earth surge upward. The
> > covered the mountains to the depth of 18 cubits. To cover Mt. Everest,
> > the waters would have to be five miles deep. And where did these waters
> > go when the flood finally abated. The amount of water upon the earth is
> > a constant value, whether it is as water, ice, or atmosphere.
>
> You haven't studied the Bible carefully. If you study the original
> Hebrew for Psalm 104:6-8 you will see that it can be understood to say
> that the mountains 'stood up' and the valleys 'sank down' when 'at your
> rebuke the waters fled' (referring to God). Many Bible scholars
> understand it this way: At the flood the ocean floors may have lifted
> somewhat, and possibly the mountains were lower, or lowered as well.
> Perhaps this is what is meant by the 'fountains of the great deep' in
> Genesis 7:11 and 8:2. When the flood left, the reverse transpired, as
> described in Psalm 104 above.
If God's word is literal, why do we need these Bible scholars to
*interpret* what is being said in the flood account? Shouldn't the
words of God stand up on their own merit without human interpretation?
> [ ... ] Note that if this happened, there would
> be truly mind-boggling 'tidal waves', maybe 1000 feet high, which would
> come crashing across the continents, sweeping all before them. Untold
> billions of tons of animals and plants would be swept into huge piles
> and covered up. Rich material for fossil, oil and coal formation, no?
I don't see how the plants and animals would have been swept into
piles if they all ended up under raging torrents of water. And even
if this somehow did happen, piles of debris like this would not
exhibit the stratification and structuring that is found in many
fossil finds.
> > Joshua is said to have made the sun stand still so he could kill more
> > Amorites, which is a _very_ moral reason. But it is the earth that
> > moves around the sun and if he was able to get the earth to stop turning
> > on its axis, the force of gravity would have hurled everthing on the
> > earth, that was not nailed down, flying out into space. The sun does
> > not rise and set, no matter what the Bible says.
>
> If God could stop the whole earth in the first place, why do you think
> it would be a problem for Him to stop the other stuff too? Geesh! :)
If you are willing to believe that God could suspend the laws of
physics to make such a thing happen, then why try to fit all the stuff
in the Bible into the laws of physics in the first place? Why not
just say, "It's all a bunch of miracles that defy explanation," and be
done with it? Be honest and consistent: either give up on the laws of
physics altogether and don't try to call this "science" (or "Creation
Science"), or else truthfully and rigorously apply these laws of
physics and see which parts of the Bible fit and which ones don't.
> > The Literalists problem does not end with the Old Testament. Read the
> > resurrection stories of Jesus at the end of the four Gospel to find out
> > who was in the empty tomb --one or two men, one or two angels? And who
> > got there first? and who saw the Christ first? and was it in Jerusalem
> > or Galilee?
>
> How many people are in your living room? Depends on WHEN YOU LOOK,
> right? Same with Jesus Tomb. Geesh again! ;)
What about the part about Jerusalem versus Galilee? At least everyone
who has been to my home would agree what city my living room exists
in.
> > It is said that Jesus ascended into heaven. But if He did ascend through
> > the skydome at the speed of Light, 186,000 miles per second, He would
> > not yet be at the edge of our galaxy.
>
> You just said above that the 'skydome', as you call it, fell in at the
> flood (I agree). Why would it be in Jesus' way thousands of years
> later? Who said speed of light? If God created the universe and its
> laws in the first place, why should He be subject to them? There
> probably is no 'distance', in our terms, to Heaven. It's probably
> outside the physical universe altogether.
Once again, if God can and did suspend the laws of physics at will,
then why try to use physics to explain these things in the Bible at
all? Just chalk it all up to inexplicable miracles and be done with
it, and don't try to call it "science". I personally respect people
who just say that these things were miracles a lot more than I respect
people who play fast and loose with physics, chemistry, etc. just so
they can try to call all of this "science" to try to get it taught in
the public schools.
> > If these questions disturb you, don’t take my word for it, just read the
> > first two chapters of Genesis and then make two lists of the order of
> > creation. Then go on to the Gospels and do the same with the birth
> > stories and the resurrection accounts. Put them side by side and see the
> > contradictions.
>
> If you check you will find that this has already been done and there are
> completely noncontradictory ways to interpret the sequence of events.
These sequences of events appear non-contradictory if you do what the
Bible scholars have done and use *human* *interpretation* of these
sections in the Bible, if you read between the lines a bit, and if you
don't take the passages exactly 100% literally as they appear in the
Bible. Why is it OK to exercise human interpretation in Genesis in
this way, but not in certain other ways?
> [snip]
> > I agree. The Bible has influenced my life more than any other book and
> > it continues to do so. Its good influence over me increased greatly
> > after I stopped taking it literally.
> >
> > It is not the liberals, but the literalists, who cause the Bible to be
> > neglected by so many people in our day. The Fundamentalists _are_ the
> > Anti-Christ they fear!
>
> So, you have decided that the Bible really doesn't mean what it says.
> You can't really depend on it. YOU have to interpret what actually is,
> not the Bible, for it is unreliable. [ ... ]
This kind of interpretation is exactly what "literalists" do when they
attempt to do things such as reconciling the two varying creation
accounts in Genesis. Do these "literalists" consider the Bible to be
unreliable?
--
Lloyd Zusman 01234567 <-- The world famous Indent-o-Meter.
ljz@asfast.com ^ Indent or be indented.
Subject: Re: Creationism VS Evolution
From: Capella
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 19:30:01 -0600
Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Marty Zinck wrote:
> [snip]
> > In Genesis 1, humans are created on the last day of creation and male
> > and female are created at the same time. In Genesis 2, which is the
> > older account, man is created early in the week before the animals and
> > woman does not appear until the end of the week as an after-thought. You
> > can’t have it both ways if you take it literally.
>
> Even a casual reading of Genesis 1,2 shows that Genesis 1:1-2:5 is
> clearly a chronological description and Genesis 2, beginning with v5 is
> a logically related description (men added the chapter divisions, not
> God). To read that text and argue otherwise borders on being
> disingenuous.
No, most scholars are aware of 20 doublets (places where there are 2 distinct
stories about the same event, where one writer always calls God Yaweh, and the
other calls God Elohim i.e. creation account, flood, convenant with Abraham,
etc...) in the Torah (1rst five books of the OT). These stories are believed
to have been edited together when the tribes of Israel and Judah united after
being separated for some time.
>
> > Literalists will have to believe that according to Genesis, the earth is
> > flat. But astronauts have brought us back pictures not of a flat earth
> > in the midst of waters, but of a beautiful blue and white globe swimming
> > in space.
>
> Why do you say that? Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle
> of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches
> out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to
> dwell in."
> There is no specific ancient Hebrew word for 'sphere', but
> the Hebrew word translated 'circle' here also means 'sphere'.
This is not true the hebrew word here for circle used in that verse is:
chuwg, khoog; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.
All these definitions are of a 2 dimensional surface (flat earth).
The hebrew word for ball which would have been much more scientifcally
accurate is:
tsenephah, tsen-ay-faw'; from H6801; a ball:-- X toss.
> This
> alone might be moot, but consider Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north
> over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing." You might truthfully
> say that the Bible does not unarguably teach that the earth is a sphere,
> but you can't truthfully say the Bible teaches that the earth is flat!
There are dozens of verses which I have previously posted that talk about
a flat earth (i.e. a tree that grows from the "center" of the earth
that can be seen from the ends of a earth, grabbing the edges of the earth
and shaking the wicked off, dozen of verses talking about the ends of the
earth, the foundations and pillars the earth is sitting on. There are many
verses which talk about the water above a solid sky dome which I have
previously posted.
I would be happy to post them all again...
> --
> Judson McClendon judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
> Sun Valley Systems http://www.netcom.com/~judsonmc/sunvalley.html
--
Capella
Dallas, Texas
