Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and which biblical verse was the church citing for the claim that the earth was the
centre of the cosmos, for if there was none, then the statement that the Bible would
come into conflict as new scientific discoveries were made is a nonsense, for it is in
fact, church dogma which is opposed to scientific discoveries, not the Bible itself as has
been erroneously asserted.

so basically, you are saying that the bible doesn't come into conflict with science, and when it seems it does, people didn't understood the bible. a remedy to that is to view the parts of the bible that come into conflict with the bible as metaphorical. as in not really 7 days of creation and not really a whale eating the jonah.


am i correct?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so basically, you are saying that the bible doesn't come into conflict with science, and when it seems it does, people didn't understood the bible. a remedy to that is to view the parts of the bible that come into conflict with the bible as metaphorical. as in not really 7 days of creation and not really a whale eating the jonah.


am i correct?

I think the point i made was fairly clear and amounts to this, which biblical verses or
accounts were used to state that the earth was the centre of the cosmos, if there are
none, then its not the Bible that is at odds with science , but church dogma.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think the point i made was fairly clear and amounts to this, which biblical verses or
accounts were used to state that the earth was the centre of the cosmos, if there are
none, then its not the Bible that is at odds with science , but church dogma.

so you avoid saying that the bible can only stand if you consider it metaphorical. that people shouldn't insist jonah was actually swallowed whole by a fish (assuming whale) and lived in it's stomach for an extended period but to take the message of the story: fear is bad, god is with you always, the right road is hardest but one should be strong enough to take it and so on. the message isn't made stronger if an actual fish ( there currently is no such fish as far as we know) ate jonah

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so you avoid saying that the bible can only stand if you consider it metaphorical. that people shouldn't insist jonah was actually swallowed whole by a fish (assuming whale) and lived in it's stomach for an extended period but to take the message of the story: fear is bad, god is with you always, the right road is hardest but one should be strong enough to ade stronger if an actual fish ( there currently is no such fish as far as we know) ate jonah

my point was clear, surely i need not make it a third time without reply, do I?

As for the account of Jonah, even Christ himself corroborated it, but then again, Christ
never denied the divine element, did he.

(Matthew 12:40-41) For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and
three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three
nights.  Men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgement with this generation and will
condemn it; because they repented at what Jonah preached, but, look! something
more than Jonah is here. . .

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Once these species died off God created new ones? I'm a little unsure of your timeline.

New ones evolved over time, the basic design remains, you just get a variation
of it in something else.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
That is correct. The blinders were worked out by the Roman Catholic church (RCC), the most powerful European church at the time, around the 17th century. It generally worked well for both religion and science. But there were already some passages in the Bible that would eventually come into apparent conflict with science as new discoveries were made. Galileo w ...[text shortened]... ernatural claim, science is silent on it, and the blinders work for science and most Christians.

Yea that went full circle didn't it?
Kelly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my point was clear, surely i need not make it a third time without reply, do I?

As for the account of Jonah, even Christ himself corroborated it, but then again, Christ
never denied the divine element, did he.

(Matthew 12:40-41) For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and
three nights, so the Son of man will be in the ...[text shortened]... ecause they repented at what Jonah preached, but, look! something
more than Jonah is here. . .

jesus was trying to make another point. it would be like me saying "just as rocky balboa believed in himself and defeated ivan drago, so to must we believe in ourselves." am i really saying i think rocky balboa is a real person? no. people do that all the time "a failure worthy of willie e coyote". do we believe the adorable coyote is real? of course not. why should jesus believe differently when we know there is no fish that could swallow a man whole and keep him alive for however long jonah was . why can't jesus use metaphors?


another issue you should consider. jesus kept telling stories to the crowd. the story about the vineyard workers, about the prodigal son, and so on. where they real stories? did the prodigal son actually exist? or was jesus, gasp!, telling lies?

Originally posted by KellyJay
New ones evolved over time, the basic design remains, you just get a variation
of it in something else.
Kelly

what is the basic design? basic design of what? and how much of a variation from the basic design is it allowed?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
jesus was trying to make another point. it would be like me saying "just as rocky balboa believed in himself and defeated ivan drago, so to must we believe in ourselves." am i really saying i think rocky balboa is a real person? no. people do that all the time "a failure worthy of willie e coyote". do we believe the adorable coyote is real? of course not. they real stories? did the prodigal son actually exist? or was jesus, gasp!, telling lies?

these are issues for people that are content to water down the word of God with
rational explanations for supernatural events , for those of us who accept the divine
element, they are totally irrelevant.

That Christ makes mention not only of Jonah as a prophet, and of his being swallowed
by a large fish, and on the Ninevites repentance it must be a hard pill for you to
swallow, given the details and clarity of the text, which no amount of rationalisation
under the guise of', it leads us to understanding', can negate. Citing the prodigal son
is also a bogus attempt, considering there is no precedent mentioned in scripture, but
then again, when was recorded scripture really important for you people, you have your own
ideas to propagate.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evidence can be argued several different ways, simply because you think it means
one thing does not mean your right, another may view the same exact piece of
evidence and come up with something completely different than you and one or
both of you could be wrong.
Kelly

“....Evidence can be argued several different ways, ...”

not usually. And certainly not in the cases of the evidence for abiogenesis and evolution.
Look at the evidence presented in the links I have given and then workout how that evidence can be interpreted as being against abiogenesis or evolution and then came back to me.

All the evidence indicates that the Earth is round -can you give me ONE example of how you can interpret ALL ( i.e. not ignoring any of it) that evidence so as to mean that the Earth is flat? -if not, then “....Evidence can be argued several different ways, ...” is sometimes false.

“...simply because you think it means
one thing does not mean your right, ...”

even if it can only mean ONE thing?

“...another may view the same exact piece of
evidence and come up with something completely different than you and one or
both of you could be wrong. ...”

even if the evidence can only mean one thing?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think the point i made was fairly clear and amounts to this, which biblical verses or
accounts were used to state that the earth was the centre of the cosmos, if there are
none, then its not the Bible that is at odds with science , but church dogma.

Joshua 10:13 doesn't make any sense unless the astronomical theory was that the Sun was ordinarily moving around Earth and then stood still. And the moon.

http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm

Originally posted by JS357
Joshua 10:13 doesn't make any sense unless the astronomical theory was that the Sun was ordinarily moving around Earth and then stood still. And the moon.

http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm

clearly the reference is to the sun at its zenith, that is at its highest point in the middle
of the sky (or heavens, which a plethora of other Biblical verses will testify). There is
no Biblical reference which states that the earth is the centre of the cosmos, this link is
laughable! the assertion that the Bible propounds such an idea, erroneous.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
clearly the reference is to the sun at its zenith, that is at its highest point in the middle
of the sky (or heavens, which a plethora of other Biblical verses will testify). There is
no Biblical reference which states that the earth is the centre of the cosmos, this link is
laughable! the assertion that the Bible propounds such an idea, erroneous.

It was no laughing matter for several centuries.

Originally posted by JS357
It was no laughing matter for several centuries.

church dogma yes, not Biblical truth which was obscured and supplanted by the former.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
church dogma yes, not Biblical truth which was obscured and supplanted by the former.

Of course. A Biblical justification of an article of Christian dogma will be claimed by those who promulgate or defend the dogma, and will be denied by those who reject the dogma. The primary basis for the adoption by the Church of the Aristotelian model was the special relationship of God and man.

"In 1992, 350 years later, Pope John Paul II officially declared Galileo innocent. "
From: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/galileo.html

But the primary basis had support from the Bible:

"The specific response one of the most important contemporaries of Copernicus, Martin Luther, is telling. The quote below is actually in response to the publication of the brief Commentariolus, which appeared a decade before De Revolutionibus. It comes from Luther's Tablebook (Tischreden), or record of dinner-table conversations:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

From: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.html