Bob vrs. Scientific American Editor Michael Shermer
10 meg version
Thursday August 28th, 2003. This is show #171.
10 meg version
Thursday August 28th, 2003. This is show #171.
Originally posted by Poly
Did I ask for everything that has happened in these fields over the past hundred years? No. Typical response from one who likes to make one asking such a simple question out to be unreasonable. I asked for actual hard evidence. You knew I wasn't asking for such an absurd request of everything that has happened in these fields, otherwise you would not have posted the following.
You hit the nail on the head when you called it "routine" alright. A long drawn out over used routine because we simply do not get the evidence that suggests what you guys are trying to feed us as truth. It takes too much faith to believe something simply because somebody else does without reasonable evidence.
Yeah, right! It's such a complicated thing to ask that I had to go cut and paste from somewhere else. There are tons of people in the same boat as I have been for years. I'm sick to death of asking where's the reasonable evidence. We get NADA!! I know all about the routine which is very simple.
1. Evidence for evolution is asked for.
2. Evolutionists give some garbage like "Please spare us the 'evidence, I don't see any evidence'"statement to avoid answering for not having any.
3. Evidence is still asked for.
4. Evolutionists try to use unnecessary intimidating words, time and energy to an extreme degree to answer or explain something other than the simple question that has been asked in hopes that this will pull the wool over our eyes.
5. The question is thrown back at them and asked again now for the millionth time.
6. The evolutionist now tries another route to avoid answering such a simple yet very deserved question by making the one who is asking this question out to be the foolish one in saying something such as "Please note that simply cut-and-pasting the list of "contributors" from the 'Reasons to Believe' site has already been attempted, and shown to be in serious error".
7. The question is asked again usually by ones who refuse to give up (bless 'em each and everyone) rather than those of us who lose patience.
8. The evolutionist knows he's been running long enough and his evasion is showing so he attempts to get you to swallow some baloney but because he's using those famous unecessary means again he unfairly makes it out to be primerib.
9. His phoney baloney is exposed and so it now has to be reiterated to him that he was asked to give reasonable evidence.
10. (see #1)
Listen very carefully again to the exchange, and then think about what we know from science. Is the sun a light? According to Bob’s understanding of the bible, that is the reason it was placed in the sky, along with the “lesser light” (which Bob infers is the moon). He takes this to be a validation of early Hebrew cosmology.It was funny that Shermer would not concede on even the most minor issues, like whether the Bible is correct in saying that the sun is a light, and not a god.
1.) The fact that the weight of the earth is balanced was discovered in 1959. But modern science did not have to wait until 1959 to learn the earth is balanced. All scientists had to do was to simply read Isaiah 40:12 - "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, or with the breadth of His hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?"ThePhy said:Whether or not the sun should be worshipped is a matter of theology. But to go beyond that and claim exceptional scientific insight into the Cosmology of the universe is not something I see very clearly laid out in the Bible. [/B]
I am not familiar with what is meant by the weight of the earth being balanced. And can you be more specific on what was done in 1959 to show that it was balanced?1.) The fact that the weight of the earth is balanced was discovered in 1959. But modern science did not have to wait until 1959 to learn the earth is balanced.
This scriptural quotation and the others that you offer are open to a multitude of interpretations. If indeed the meanings are as obvious as you say, then I would expect these understandings to have been the norm within the Christian community over the past two millennia. In your quotation I see a great deal of metaphorical symbolism, but if the intention was to elucidate some fundamental facts of cosmology, then the authors did a miserable job. Is there something wrong with stating facts in plainly understood terms?All scientists had to do was to simply read Isaiah 40:12 - "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, or with the breadth of His hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?"
This is another thing that I have not heard before. I would appreciate some documentation on these numbers – this sounds very much like the type of urban myth that fades under real scrutiny.2.) Before the invention of the telescope in the 17th century, people thought the number of stars could be calculated. Tycho Brahe said there were 777 stars. Then Kepler said, "No, you're wrong. There's 1005." Then Ptolemy came along and said, "You're both wrong. There's 1056 stars."
What is meant by not being able to number the stars? Science knows that stars are continually being born, living out their lives and dying. Is a gas cloud in the early stages of contraction a star? Or must it heat enough to emit visible light first? Or must it be hot enough to start the process of burning nuclear fuel first? How about those that have lived out their lives, and now exist as dark cinders hidden in space?All 3 of them must have laughed at Jeremiah 33:22 for stating the stars "cannot be numbered." Scientists did not have to wait until the invention of the telescope to learn this. All they had to do was to humble themselves and believe the Bible and they would have saved themselves thousands of years of fruitless guessing.
The early days of astronomy indeed provided some surprises in the diversity of the members of the stellar family. Even now we sometimes find a rogue cousin that is unique in some way. But to say that the Bible speaking of “glory” of stars is a reference to the diversity of stars is more extrapolation than I am comfortable with. If you were to tell King David or Mustard Seed (the two primary advocates of Mormonism at TOL) that that passage was speaking of cosmology, they would heartily disagree with you (for them, that is an allusion to glories that people may receive in the resurrection).3.) Scientists used to believe that all the stars were basically the same. But today, scientists are busy cataloging all the sizes and varieties of stars. Once again, modern science is supporting the Bible - this time in First Corinthians 15:41 - "one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."
Complete the explanation. Tell me in a scientifically literate way what it means to “stretch out the north over the empty place” (how about the south?) Why speak of hanging the earth at all (I am familiar with more legends that said the earth was held up than one that said it was “hung” from anything, so I would expect a correction to ancient cosmology to address that.)4.) Job 26:7 says the earth is suspended on space: "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.