The Greatest Scientist Wrote The Bible

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288054567' post='2182545']
I would like to remind you that the only type of interpretation known to the human race is the "[i]fallible interpretation of a human person".[/i]
[i]Please don't try to tell me of the infallibility of the Magisterium, because in case you don't know, for all her talk about being the "custodian of the Bible", she has left 98% of the Bible, uninterpreted---[/i]which means that you must rely on the "fallible interpretation of human beings" for the rest of your life.
[/quote]
That's really a specific number. Where did you get it?

[ardillacid]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1288054492' post='2182543']
Are they that absurd? I havent seen any yet.

I guess the link is a sham.
[/quote]
They are amusing, to say the least.

[kafka]

[quote name='notardillacid' timestamp='1288056033' post='2182556']
They are amusing, to say the least.
[/quote]
good times.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288054567' post='2182545']
I would like to remind you that the only type of interpretation known to the human race is the "[i]fallible interpretation of a human person".[/i]
[i]Please don't try to tell me of the infallibility of the Magisterium, because in case you don't know, for all her talk about being the "custodian of the Bible", she has left 98% of the Bible, uninterpreted---[/i]which means that you must rely on the "fallible interpretation of human beings" for the rest of your life.
[/quote]
Could you please cite evidence for this number?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288054145' post='2182540']
On top of that, we are told it is [i]round, as in, [/i]"it is He who sitteth on the [u]circle[/u] of the earth" (Isa 40:22). Both facts, Job could not have possibly known in his time, and all the more reason to take God's word literally, unless the context suggests otherwise, which is mostly how we interact in all of our daily conversations.
[/quote]
Anybody with half a brain that has seen a ship come over the horizon could tell you that the world is NOT flat, it has always been described as curved.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288069404' post='2182618']Anybody with half a brain that has seen a ship come over the horizon could tell you that the world is NOT flat, it has always been described as curved.[/quote]I imagine sailors, merchants, scholars, and leaders even thousands of years ago realized the Earth wasn't flat... I imagine they also realized that the Earth was some kind of sphere.

Religious people can be a hit or miss in these categories. In fact one of the strongest resistance for Columbus's journey around the world was an Archbishop who argued that he was wrong; namely that his ideas were unsubstantiated and his calculations bluntly wrong. The Archbishop argued the world was LARGER than Columbus proposed, that there may be another landmass between Europe and Asia, that his idea that chains of islands would resupply them ALL the way to Asia was a joke, and that it would take months to reach their destination... that the effect on the crew and ship were unheard of and then sailing into unknown waters.

In this case... it hit rather right on, I'm glad the good little archbishop didn't skip his science classes. Though Columbus's journey definitely was a significant step in the right direction, so in hindsight the archbishop's argument against the exploration seems a bit small to me. But still a lot of people imagined the world as flat even when the reasoning, evidence, and experts smacked them in the face. [i]Sort of like evolution...[/i]

Edited October 26, 2010 by Mr Cat

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288070798' post='2182627']
I imagine sailors, merchants, scholars, and leaders even thousands of years ago realized the Earth wasn't flat... I imagine they also realized that the Earth was some kind of sphere.

Religious people can be a hit or miss in these categories. In fact one of the strongest resistance for Columbus's journey around the world was an Archbishop who argued that he was wrong; namely that his ideas were unsubstantiated and his calculations bluntly wrong. The Archbishop argued the world was LARGER than Columbus proposed, that there may be another landmass between Europe and Asia, that his idea that chains of islands would resupply them ALL the way to Asia was a joke, and that it would take months to reach their destination... that the effect on the crew and ship were unheard of and then sailing into unknown waters.

In this case... it hit rather right on, I'm glad the good little archbishop didn't skip his science classes. Though Columbus's journey definitely was a significant step in the right direction, so in hindsight the archbishop's argument against the exploration seems a bit small to me. But still a lot of people imagined the world as flat even when the reasoning, evidence, and experts smacked them in the face. [i]Sort of like evolution...[/i]
[/quote]
The ancients considered that the world was a dome or a sphere, the egyptians proved it was circular over 3000 years ago, nobody thought the earth was flat.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288072735' post='2182631']The ancients considered that the world was a dome or a sphere, the egyptians proved it was circular over 3000 years ago, nobody thought the earth was flat.[/quote]Just because something is common knowledge, proven, and well established doesn't make it known or accepted by [b]ALL[/b].

It's like the scientific theory of evolution... If 500 years from now someone looked back on the 20th century and asked "[i]why didn't anyone accept evolution?[/i]" One would answer, that's not true... It was accepted by scientists, educators, politicians, doctors, and so on. It was proven and demonstrated. On the other hand if someone asked, "[i]why did people reject evolution in the 20th century?[/i]" Well... yeah.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Mr Cat

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288021992' post='2182330']
In a recent post, "Archeology Cat" says the Bible is not concerned with the "hows" of science.



Response:



[color="#2A2A2A"][font="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][url="http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43"]http://75.125.60.6/~...task=view&id=43[/url][/size][/font][/color]
[font="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"][size="3"][color="#2A2A2A"] [/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]
After going through about half a dozen of these, I have yet to find one that makes any sense. A. Cat also had similar results. Perhaps you should go through each one and explain how they relate, or concede that the original post was croutons and you haven't even checked them out for yourself.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288074699' post='2182637']
Just because something is common knowledge, proven, and well established doesn't make it known or accepted by [b]ALL[/b].

It's like the scientific theory of evolution... If 500 years from now someone looked back on the 20th century and asked "[i]why didn't anyone accept evolution?[/i]" One would answer, that's not true... It was accepted by scientists, educators, politicians, doctors, and so on. It was proven and demonstrated. On the other hand if someone asked, "[i]why did people reject evolution in the 20th century?[/i]" Well... yeah.
[/quote]

We are not discussing evolution which is a theory, but the fact that the earth is round.

I'm sure if you talked to all 6 billion people on earth you will find some poor soul that mistakenly thinks the earth is flat.
but in general people have known for several thousand years the earth is curved.

[sixpence]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288052654' post='2182531']
90% of what I've written have been my own words, so you ought to be careful with your over-exaggerations.
[/quote]

Huh?? Saying I am a fan of some activity does not imply that it is the main thing I do with my life. I see not over-exaggerations

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288137608' post='2182833']We are not discussing evolution which is a theory, but the fact that the earth is round.

I'm sure if you talked to all 6 billion people on earth you will find some poor soul that mistakenly thinks the earth is flat.
but in general people have known for several thousand years the earth is curved.[/quote]I'm sure you call the scientific theory of gravity just a theory then... I should of knew better.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288147802' post='2182887']
I'm sure you call the scientific theory of gravity just a theory then... I should of knew better.
[/quote]
Well yes, since gravity is both a law and a theory I just might
Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena used to make testable predictions: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Evolution is a theory supported by a number of facts, but like most theories all the details are not yet in.

That the earth is round is not a theory, but a fact.

[ardillacid]

Where Shady at?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288201019' post='2182997']Well yes, since gravity is both a law and a theory I just might
Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena used to make testable predictions: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Evolution is a theory supported by a number of facts, but like most theories all the details are not yet in.

That the earth is round is not a theory, but a fact.[/quote]I am going to have to strongly disagree.

The scientific theory of evolution is both a fact and a theory. In the same way that the scientific theory of gravitation is both a fact and a theory. Both are observable and explainable phenomena. In fact many scientists who taught me biology at the college I am at, argue that technically we understand more and have more proof for the theory of evolution than any other scientific theory. Which technically we do.

Modern scientists tend to avoid the word "[i]law[/i]" as it is merely describing an observable universal phenomena, it lends to sounding too certain and is highly argumentative, even for gravitation. They tend to use the word "[i][b]fact[/b][/i]"for an observable phenomena, which the scientific theory of evolution is a fact.

If it wasn't much of our modern science and biology wouldn't make sense or frankly wouldn't work.

Scientifically evolution is as certain as certain gets.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Mr Cat