Re: Virginia: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life.

On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 9, 7:58 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

No, the Bible does not *say* that the sun orbits the Earth. But the
Bible does say (Psalm 104:5) that God has fixed Earth on its
foundation forever, never to be moved (implicitly, the apparent motion
of the sun cannot be caused by the rotation of the Earth, if the Earth
cannot move, and the seasons cannot be caused by the orbit of the
Earth, if the Earth does not move). It speaks (Psalm 19:5) of the
sun, like a bridegroom, leaving its chamber and running its course.
Ecclesiastes 1:5, again, speaks of the sun rising and going down, and
hastening back to its starting point. There are other verses of
similar import. Perhaps even more striking is the order of events in
Genesis 1 itself: the Earth is created *before* the sun. If the Earth
orbits the sun, that's like building a house before you lay the
foundation for it, yet the rest of the creation story implies some
attempt at a logical order. The Bible does not insist that the sun
orbits the Earth, but if our only data was the Bible, it would
overwhelmingly support a geocentric rather than a heliocentric model
of the solar system.

-- [snip]

The Joshua account is only one of many biblical texts suggesting a
geocentric cosmology, and, yet again, nothing in the story suggests
that Joshua was wrong to think the sun went around the Earth.

-- [snip]

Well, if you want to get picky, no verse actually says that humans
don't share ancestors with monkeys. You have merely insisted on
reading certain verses that way, making them deny evolution when that
was not their original intent or import, the way I have taken the
verses indicated above and read them to indicate heliocentrism.

Imagine that; an Atheist arguing that the source for Creationism
actually supports Evolution instead?

No, I am arguing that the source of creationism is as compatible with
evolution as it is with heliocentrism or modern meteorology. An
interpretation that sees the order of creation in Genesis 1 as
compatible with modern astronomy, or can interpolate billions of years
between Genesis1:1 and Genesis 1:2, is no harder to reconcile with the
plain sense of the text than is one compatible with common descent.


You are demonstrably confused (that is the best we can do you). It's
either that or I remind everyone of your worldview (Atheism) and all
is explained instantly.


Is Steven J. confused, stupid or deliberately misrepresenting the
prose of Genesis?

The "prose of Genesis" implies that the sky is a solid dome with
hatches in it, and that the sun moves *inside* the dome. It also
implies that if one breeds cattle in front of striped or spotted rods,
one ought to get striped or spotted offspring. I assume you are not
insisting on either of those points.


Bible "interpretation" by Atheist, now it "makes sense."


I remember a fellow student in an English class who insisted that W.B.
Yeats' "we too had many pretty toys when we were young; a law
indifferent to praise or blame," was talking about the contents of his
childhood toy chest. Sometimes, you just have to get beyond the prose
to the poetry of the text.

Where is Christian Ron Okimoto and why has he not put Atheist Steven
J. in his place? Are we to believe that Steven J. is not involved in a
scam to corrupt the Bible? If Genesis actually supports Evolution
"after all" then how is the age old Creation-Evolution debate
explained?

If the Bible actually supports heliocentric astronomy, then how do we
explain why all the early Protestant scholars (and their Roman
Catholic counterparts, if you care) fought against the idea that the
Earth orbits the sun? Why do some Christians *still* fight against
that idea? If the Bible actually teaches an old Earth, why have there
been Christians fighting against old-earth geology for the last two
and a half centuries? For that matter, why does any dispute over
biblical teaching or Christian doctrine exist? People differ on their
interpretation of scripture. It seems to me better to adopt an
interpretation consistent with the actual data. To you, apparently,
it seems more reasonable to accept only the evidence consistent with
your particular interpretation of the Bible. At the very least, I
cannot see why the latter course of action is less perverse or more
reasonable than the former.


This is what happens when Atheists "honestly" try to "interpret" the
Bible.


How is it that the same person can allegedly follow arguments written
in complicated scientific jargon published in journals, but Genesis
creation chapters are not advocating special creation?

Well, at least I can't turn that argument back on you; you've shown no
signs of being able to follow arguments written in complicated
scientific jargon. But anyway, I've answered that question as best I
can.

Steven, in my opinion, is just a typical Atheist doing what all
Atheist-evolutionists do: misrepresent the source of supernaturalism
and Theism.

Supernaturalism and theism existed before the Bible. How could it be
otherwise: the Bible was written and compiled by people who believed
in God when they had no Bible? Therefore, the Bible cannot be the
source of supernaturalism and theism.

You really should be less certain that your opinions and those of God
Almighty necessarily coincide.

Ray

SNIP....

Well, if you can't address my arguments, I suppose ignoring them will
have to do.

-- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.

Ray


.

Relevant Pages