Isn't that the case anyway, Jack? The flood and the ark story I mean, even among Christians.
Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Isn't that the case anyway, Jack? The flood and the ark story I mean, even among Christians.
Heino
New member
Lutherin is how we spell Lutheran in German. It is yet another idiosyncratic language problem. I hope you will forgive me for not having perfect German/English use. I try, but there are sometimes errors.
If you wish to see "proof" of how Germans spell "Lutheran" (Lutherin), here is a website about Martin Luther in many languages, including German (Deutsch -- use the red-yellow-orange flag icon). Anyway, thank you for helping me better my already good English skills.
http://www.luther.de/
You may also like these pages, as they give good information in many languages on Wittenberg (Where Luther posted his 95 Theses, and is thus considered the birthplace of Protestantism)
http://www.wittenberg.de/
You need to tone down on your role as the "doubting Thomas". Though it is good to be skeptical, I think you might be going over a bit.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Yes, it is -- but at least the evidence is still there.
One Eyed Jack
New member
You've claimed that the Lutheran version of creation differs from that of other Christian denominations. Perhaps you could tell us how. That might lend some credibility to your claims.
attention
New member
I can't remember you told specifically this to me.
Probably you told others on this forum here, but not me.
I do not know all the in's and out's of flood story mythology, and I think it is a bit silly to try to discredit a mythological story.
This whole story does not have meaning to me, not more as any other mythological story.
But like I stated, I don't declare the story as totally nonsense. I in fact assume that some real events were the basis for the story.
Great for him. The insects managed for themselves somehow?
Heino
New member
I do not believe that I was clear when I wrote that "different denominations have different versions of creation." What I was meaning to say was that each denomination interprets the creation story and evolutionary theory in their own way.
To illustrate this, let me use the Catholic Church. They have officially stated that they fully accept evolution as a fact. However, some Catholics disagree with that. There are Vatican I and Vatican II Catholics, and they disagree on many points very strongly. Then there is the Christian Fundamentalists. They promote a literal view of the Bible, and the idea that evolution is incompatible with the Bible. Then there is my own Lutheran (see, I spelled it the English way!) Church, which is divided on the issue. The official view put forth by the council is that Genesis is truth. They do not mention evolution, but simply mention that Genesis is how God created the world and man.
Within my own church, we have members who have many different opinions on the issues. Within my church alone, some believe in literalism. Some believe that Genesis is allegory. My pastor, who is also a good friend of mine, believes that genesis is history, but he respects what I believe, because he admits that he is not a science expert. I, of course, hold the opinion that evolution is fact, and that God created the world to work that way. I believe that Genesis is a very short version of the whole picture. I do not imagine God making the earth appear instantly. I imagine that God used the forces that he created to set the gears in moving. God does not do things like a Cecil B. Demille movie, as my pastor would say!
Much as the issue in interesting, we do not spend much time on it. I believe, as I have been taught, that your relationship with God is between you and him, alone. I also believe that how you treat other people is far more important than how many animals could fit on the ark. Part of being Christian, to me, is being patient with people, and showing kindness and compassion. The things like 6 days creation, the ark of Noah, and the like-things, are not important! What is important is obeying God's commands to us, especially what Jesus said -- about compassion, sharing, treating people as yourself.
"O Freunde, nicht diese Tone! sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen und freuden vollere!" (Oh friends, not these tones! Let each of our voices be more pleasant and joyful!" -- Beethoven's 9th)
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
Heino, we were discussing creation models at the time. Here is what you said.
Now, you said you were aware of many creation models, and that each religion had its own, down to a different version for each denomination of Christianity (I find the term 'sect' to have negative connotations). You seem to be trying to change the subject into interpretations of Genesis now, which is not exactly honest, given that we were specifically discussing models. Obviously you can see why I'm having a hard time believing that you're really a Christian, as I don't believe a God-fearing Christian would stoop to this level of dishonesty in debate.
Also, I'm curious as to some of the predictions that the various creation models make that have been proven wrong. Now obviously, this particular post was very important to you, as you posted it several times (I went and deleted the extras for you), and I'd like to see you back up what you said.
Now, you said you were aware of many creation models, and that each religion had its own, down to a different version for each denomination of Christianity (I find the term 'sect' to have negative connotations). You seem to be trying to change the subject into interpretations of Genesis now, which is not exactly honest, given that we were specifically discussing models. Obviously you can see why I'm having a hard time believing that you're really a Christian, as I don't believe a God-fearing Christian would stoop to this level of dishonesty in debate.
Also, I'm curious as to some of the predictions that the various creation models make that have been proven wrong. Now obviously, this particular post was very important to you, as you posted it several times (I went and deleted the extras for you), and I'd like to see you back up what you said.
Last edited:
Not where you apparently think it is. In short, it is NOT located at the center of the Earth, if you imagine the Earth to be a uniform sphere. The Earth shows very significant fluctuations in its gravitational field intensity, even as measured at a constant altitude, as its mass distribution is non-uniform. Here's a link to a paper which addresses the subject fairly well, in the context of a recent NASA mission to measure these variations:
http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/GRACE.pdf
Further, and additionally problematic for your assertion of gravity (more precisely, the magnitude of the ambient gravitational field) being primarily dependent on altitude, you are neglecting the fact that the Earth is not an isolated body in space. There is one very significant mass in close proximity, namely our Moon, and the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system (the barycenter, about which BOTH bodies orbit) is not at the center of the Earth but a good 4700 km away from it. To deny that the Moon's pull is significant relative to the Earth's, especially when compared with the change due to the relatively slight altitude changes you've been talking about, is to deny the existence of such things as tides. I.e., there will be far more variation in gravitational field strength, due to these sources, when circling the Earth at a constant altitude than can be expected from the variations due to distance-from-Earth's-center over the altitude changes you have been considering.
In short, the assertion that gravitational field strength is primarily dependent on altitude, while it would be correct (although somewhat mis-stated) in the high-school-physics sort of idealized, single-body situation, is simply incorrect when it comes to the real world.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
"Dr." Humphrey does not have a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. A theory is required to be based on observation, and to make falsifiable predictions that can be tested. What Humprhey has is a hand-waving attempt to prop up a nonsensical belief. There is absolutely zero evidence for the sort of variation in time that are required for the above to be true, other than some unsupported notion that there universe "has" to be just 6,000 years old because an extremely literal reading of one chapter of one book would imply this. In short, Humphrey has made up an "explanation" to fit a story, rather than to fit observation. Sorry, but I'll stick with observation, thank you.
I'm sure you will now entertain us with your ideas as to just how "observation tends to bear this out."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
"Dr." Humphrey does not have a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. A theory is required to be based on observation, and to make falsifiable predictions that can be tested. What Humprhey has is a hand-waving attempt to prop up a nonsensical belief. There is absolutely zero evidence for the sort of variation in time that are required for the above to be true, other than some unsupported notion that there universe "has" to be just 6,000 years old because an extremely literal reading of one chapter of one book would imply this. In short, Humphrey has made up an "explanation" to fit a story, rather than to fit observation. Sorry, but I'll stick with observation, thank you.
I'm sure you will now entertain us with your ideas as to just how "observation tends to bear this out."
One Eyed Jack
New member
One Eyed Jack
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
What's with the quotes? Dr. Humphreys has a Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University. You can learn more about his credentials and achievements here.
In what way is his theory unscientific? Back up your assertion with evidence.
This is merely a strawman. Dr. Humphreys' theory doesn't say the universe has to be just 6,000 years old.
You're not familiar with the Bible either. But in order to demonstrate this, let me ask you -- which chapter of which book implies that the universe is only 6,000 years old?
You might want to read this article, although you'll no doubt dismiss everything it has to say.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
What's with the quotes? Dr. Humphreys has a Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University. You can learn more about his credentials and achievements here.
In what way is his theory unscientific? Back up your assertion with evidence.
This is merely a strawman. Dr. Humphreys' theory doesn't say the universe has to be just 6,000 years old.
You're not familiar with the Bible either. But in order to demonstrate this, let me ask you -- which chapter of which book implies that the universe is only 6,000 years old?
You might want to read this article, although you'll no doubt dismiss everything it has to say.
Last edited:
There's nothing at all on that page which says anything at all about that question, and I fail to see how even you could infer the above from the information given there.
And it's quite clear that you also have either failed to read, or failed to understand, the information cited earlier, re the paper on the NASA GRACE mission.
So much for your intellectual honesty in debating.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Mt. Everest about 28 degrees north latitude Height above sea level - 8463 meters
Distance of peak from Earth's center of mass - 6382.279 kilometers
What about this information?
I read it, and I had no problem understanding it.
I'm not the one lacking in intellectual honesty here.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
Go back and read post #2460.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
Go back and read post #2460.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
The quotes come in because Humphreys is one of those unfortunate people who has attempted to present a doctorate in an utterly unrelated field (his dissertation had absolutely nothing to do with cosmology or any related field) as somehow indicating "authority" for his opinions. Humphreys has never worked in any field remotely related to the topic at hand, and he is incredibly unqualified to be presenting himself as any sort of authority in the field. His book, "Starlight and Time," has been discredited by many who DO perform serious work in the area, and is utterly ignored by this community. He is, in short, considered a crackpot who happens to hold a doctorate (which is hardly unprecedented in the history of crackpotdom).
A short but simple technical rebuttal to Humphreys' is given in:
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/hump.htm
More troubling for the presentation of Humphreys' "theories" here is a more detailed rebuttal from the theistic site, "Reasons to Believe", in this case by two who ARE qualified, in the following
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main
This completely discredits Humpreys' notions, concluding with:
"Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. "
This page also has an extensive list of references to other sources, if you'd care to follow up on those. It would seem that not even the mainstream Christian community is especially proud of Humphreys' supposed accomplishments.
You can review the above sources - and there certain are a lot of them, should you follow the references in the RTB article (I have looked up several, but they all come to the same conclusion - and I simply don't have time to further research the rest) - for more than enough evidence, but the most damning item from the standpoint of being "unscientific" (as opposed to simply being wrong) is that it fails to meet any of the basic requirements for being an acceptable scientific theory, as noted earlier. As one source very nicely put it, in a summary of Humphrey's concepts:
"According to Humphreys, on Day One of Creation Week, God created a huge 3-D space with a 2 light-year-diameter ball of water at its center ('the deep'). This ball of water began to collapse, creating thermonuclear fusion at its center. This thermonuclear fusion gave off light 'Let There Be Light', and also produced the heavy elements needed for planetary formation, etc. Pretty ingenious, and without any obvious errors that I could see, at least. Eventually, the collapse generates enough gravitational force that the light from within is trapped and thus darkness falls upon the universe again (hence how God divides 'light' from 'darkness'.
Day Two, however, is the most problematic. Here we have to get fom what is essentially a black hole scenario to a white hole. So how do we get to a white hole? Apparently, direct intervention by God. 'By direct intervention... God begins stretching out space, causing the ball of matter to expand rapidly , thus changing a black hole to a white hole' (pp 34-35). In the technical appendix, Humphreys explains: "I propose that God did this on day two by increasing the cosmological 'constant' to a large positive value, beginning a rapid, inflationary expansion of space. He marked of a large volume within the ball wherein material would be allowed to pull into fragments and clusters as it expanded, but He required the 'waters below' and the 'waters above' to stay coherently together' (p. 124).
Days Three through Six proceed in a similar fashion, with God finally stopping the expansion (intervening and reducing the cosmological constant) before the evening of the sixth day.
This direct intervention by God at two critical places is essential for the theory to work, but I have no idea how anyone could verify that this indeed happened. "
Humphreys' theory is unscientific simply because it utterly fails to be based in any way on observed evidence. Humphreys is frantically trying to reconcile the Genesis account with reality, and is clearly trying to fit the facts into the story rather than the other way around. To do this, he requires at least two miraculous interventions directly by God (or else he runs into contradictions with the same laws of physics which he would LIKE to use in his support), and as soon as he does so, he completely abandons any chance of his notions being considered in any way "scientific".
Six thousand, ten thousand, or whatever - the specific number is not relevant, and you know it. Humphreys is clearly trying to make a case for a VERY young universe, and failing utterly.
Again, the specific number is irrelevant - are you now acknowledging, though, that the Bible allows for a universe which is billions of years old? If not, then please tell us what the maximum allowable age IS, per the Bible (and where the bulk of this time is spent, if not in Genesis).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time
The quotes come in because Humphreys is one of those unfortunate people who has attempted to present a doctorate in an utterly unrelated field (his dissertation had absolutely nothing to do with cosmology or any related field) as somehow indicating "authority" for his opinions. Humphreys has never worked in any field remotely related to the topic at hand, and he is incredibly unqualified to be presenting himself as any sort of authority in the field. His book, "Starlight and Time," has been discredited by many who DO perform serious work in the area, and is utterly ignored by this community. He is, in short, considered a crackpot who happens to hold a doctorate (which is hardly unprecedented in the history of crackpotdom).
A short but simple technical rebuttal to Humphreys' is given in:
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/hump.htm
More troubling for the presentation of Humphreys' "theories" here is a more detailed rebuttal from the theistic site, "Reasons to Believe", in this case by two who ARE qualified, in the following
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main
This completely discredits Humpreys' notions, concluding with:
"Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. "
This page also has an extensive list of references to other sources, if you'd care to follow up on those. It would seem that not even the mainstream Christian community is especially proud of Humphreys' supposed accomplishments.
You can review the above sources - and there certain are a lot of them, should you follow the references in the RTB article (I have looked up several, but they all come to the same conclusion - and I simply don't have time to further research the rest) - for more than enough evidence, but the most damning item from the standpoint of being "unscientific" (as opposed to simply being wrong) is that it fails to meet any of the basic requirements for being an acceptable scientific theory, as noted earlier. As one source very nicely put it, in a summary of Humphrey's concepts:
"According to Humphreys, on Day One of Creation Week, God created a huge 3-D space with a 2 light-year-diameter ball of water at its center ('the deep'). This ball of water began to collapse, creating thermonuclear fusion at its center. This thermonuclear fusion gave off light 'Let There Be Light', and also produced the heavy elements needed for planetary formation, etc. Pretty ingenious, and without any obvious errors that I could see, at least. Eventually, the collapse generates enough gravitational force that the light from within is trapped and thus darkness falls upon the universe again (hence how God divides 'light' from 'darkness'.
Day Two, however, is the most problematic. Here we have to get fom what is essentially a black hole scenario to a white hole. So how do we get to a white hole? Apparently, direct intervention by God. 'By direct intervention... God begins stretching out space, causing the ball of matter to expand rapidly , thus changing a black hole to a white hole' (pp 34-35). In the technical appendix, Humphreys explains: "I propose that God did this on day two by increasing the cosmological 'constant' to a large positive value, beginning a rapid, inflationary expansion of space. He marked of a large volume within the ball wherein material would be allowed to pull into fragments and clusters as it expanded, but He required the 'waters below' and the 'waters above' to stay coherently together' (p. 124).
Days Three through Six proceed in a similar fashion, with God finally stopping the expansion (intervening and reducing the cosmological constant) before the evening of the sixth day.
This direct intervention by God at two critical places is essential for the theory to work, but I have no idea how anyone could verify that this indeed happened. "
Humphreys' theory is unscientific simply because it utterly fails to be based in any way on observed evidence. Humphreys is frantically trying to reconcile the Genesis account with reality, and is clearly trying to fit the facts into the story rather than the other way around. To do this, he requires at least two miraculous interventions directly by God (or else he runs into contradictions with the same laws of physics which he would LIKE to use in his support), and as soon as he does so, he completely abandons any chance of his notions being considered in any way "scientific".
Six thousand, ten thousand, or whatever - the specific number is not relevant, and you know it. Humphreys is clearly trying to make a case for a VERY young universe, and failing utterly.
Again, the specific number is irrelevant - are you now acknowledging, though, that the Bible allows for a universe which is billions of years old? If not, then please tell us what the maximum allowable age IS, per the Bible (and where the bulk of this time is spent, if not in Genesis).
One Eyed Jack
New member
Your inability to answer the questions has been noted. Thank you for playing.
taoist
New member
Wow. Nearly 3,000 posts later, this thread has really gone through some strange evolutions, if you'll pardon the quip. But I see we've passed by a subject I've actually studied, flood mythology, in particular that related to Mesopotamia, from which derive the stories ascribed to Noah.
Three versions of the original flood story exist today, all owing their origins to the occasional devastations encompassing the flood plain between the Tigris and Euphrates from which area spring the peoples who came to be known as Israel. The Sumerian Flood story, the Epic of Atrahasis and the ninth tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh all predate the account given in the judeo-christian old testament.
Each incorporates the basic elements of a protege of god placing animals in an ark which later settled on a mountainside after releasing birds to see if the water had receded. Of the three, the Epic of Atrahasis, also known as Utnapishtim, which some scholars believe is shortened to form the name Noah, shows best the relation between the Genesis stories and their origin.
Later rescensions such as that given in the judeo-christian spiritual texts incorporate local touches such as the olive branch, a plant native not to Mesopotamia but to Palestine, whoops, to secure the legend.
Three versions of the original flood story exist today, all owing their origins to the occasional devastations encompassing the flood plain between the Tigris and Euphrates from which area spring the peoples who came to be known as Israel. The Sumerian Flood story, the Epic of Atrahasis and the ninth tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh all predate the account given in the judeo-christian old testament.
Each incorporates the basic elements of a protege of god placing animals in an ark which later settled on a mountainside after releasing birds to see if the water had receded. Of the three, the Epic of Atrahasis, also known as Utnapishtim, which some scholars believe is shortened to form the name Noah, shows best the relation between the Genesis stories and their origin.
Later rescensions such as that given in the judeo-christian spiritual texts incorporate local touches such as the olive branch, a plant native not to Mesopotamia but to Palestine, whoops, to secure the legend.
D the Atheist
New member
Yes Corky, I am very familiar with the song and with the religion swapping, religious intensity differing antics of its author. Not sure where Bob is at regarding his spiritual????? side now though.
The last words of the song (Rainy Day Women) are more pertinent to the sentiments you expressed.
They'll stone you when you are set down in your grave.
And then, after that, an all-loving god being will make sure you are stoned for eternity for not accepting that it exists even though it leaves no evidence that it does.
I can only conclude that another of its attributes in the ALL this that and the other category is that it is also a not all-fair god being.
- Status