Search results

I thank you for the offer, Sherman. But the overarching rules here at TOL impose limitation on my side which have no counterparts on the YEC side. As several recent posts show, blatant denigration of important aspects of science raises nary a whisper of reprimand, but blatant denigration of...

Clete, Based on the warning from Sherman that I stick to the defined subject matter for this thread, my authoring further posts that do not specifically deal with allegories or symbols in Genesis 1 may precipitate my having to vacate the thread. Some of the posts I had hoped to respond to have...

Ontology? Really? Are you real? Am I real? Is the book on my desk labelled “Holy Bible” real? Is the microwave radiation that we receive from space real? If you think “real’ is not applicable to the CMB, then please explain why.

Well, that is a bit of a relief that you indeed seem inclined to say the CMB is real. To dismiss it completely is a level of science denial that would pretty well be a barrier to any hope of productive discourse. But I am still unclear of what I said regarding the CMB that you term as fiction...

Clete, I have a backlog of posts in this thread that I hope to find time for soon. Several times by chance I have seen recent posts to me that I responded quickly to, posts after this one from you. So I have you in the queue, but I don’t have a good feel for how long it might take me to get...

RD may declare continuing discussion of the CMB out of bounds in this thread unless it is in the context of allegorical or symbolic meaning. I don’t know of any symbolic or allegorical meanings that the CMB might carry, but if you do, please offer them. But I will ask directly, are you saying...

Of honest productive exchange of our differing ideas while avoiding implied or overt rancor or putdowns.

This is a first-class response. I absolutely should have taken the time to really think about the way RD dismissed what I said. I blew it. You have my honest and sincere thanks for showing me a far more productive response than the poor one I offered. For what it's worth, my opinion of you just...

“Fart2text” – haven’t heard that before. Is that a term they taught you in Sunday School”

“Fiction” about what? The reality of the CMB, the temperature, what?

Arrggh, a typo, you got me on that one. Kinda busy right now dodging arrows from all your buddies, doesn’t leave much time for proof reading. And I wasn’t going to respond to you anymore – that makes 2 flubs on my part. But maybe your middle sentence is a chance for me to stay on subject. Are...

Yeah, follow the conversation back a few steps, and you will see that was in reference to the extremely high temperatures at the time the CMB radiation was emitted.

Ok, so you mean the Bible was in error saying the earth at this time was without form? It was already an opaque spherical object?

If you feel they are self-explanatory, then please enlighten me. I’ve seen you seriously misapply the CMB as part of the explanation, and shadows from void and not-yet formed earths. But I am willing to see if you can avoid a third strike.

Do you mean the earth that at the time light was separated from darkness? You know, the earth that at that time was “without form, and void”? .A shadow from that earth?

No, and perhaps I am in violation of the title of this thread since I am not particularly adept at discerning symbolic or allegorical meanings. I simply had a sincere hope (now seriously faded) that someone in this thread could provide a scientifically sensible explanation for the first few...

Dunno. But I am open to suggestions, as long as they have a modicum of scientific credibility. Can you supply such?

Some strange logic I see in your post. Your first sentence portrays me as saying God didn’t author the Bible, and then your closing sentence reopens the door and asks if I believe God was involved in the authorship of the Bible. Ya really ought to avoid declaring what my beliefs are, and then...

Let me see if I do this right. In emulation of the way you so kindly demonstrated recently, my response to everything you just said is: “irrelevant”. Wow, now I have avoided any pretense of honestly considering what you said. But no, using your patented “irrelevant” stamp is indeed is an...

Maybe it does. If by shadow you mean the hottest part of the flame of an acetylene torch. Just define shadow to fit your fancy, and ignore the apparently silly prior mentions of a solid object that blocks light coming from a certain direction.