Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-13-2015, 12:30 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Example 2?

Proverbs 8:27
When he established the heavens i was there. When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.

It was the 2nd verse i posted earlier.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 12:09 AM)Benton Wrote:

Which works if you think all Christians believe God is a guy sitting on a chair on the moon.

I don't believe that.  But if the only point of reference is "above" then how am supposed to interpret that as anything other than "above"?

Quote:Or, if you hold that it was the word transcribed by not very educated people thousands of years ago, they may have done the best they could to try and put advanced concepts into terms people would understand. Like 'hey, guys, the Earth is a circle hanging in the sky.' You can take that as a loose explanation for the time, or giggle and say they meant it was literally a disc  on a string.

I'm not giggling, but there are many who believe in a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible.  Also, the Bible is the inspired word of God, not the word of man.  Those writing the Bible were possessed with the Holy Spirit so they wrote God's description and not their own.   I'm confident God could describe a sphere.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2015, 01:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm confident God could describe a sphere.

Maybe he just overestimated some of his creations and assumed they understood what he meant when he said a circle.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again tell it to Beaker not to me.

We both agree the world is round and the Bible called it as such. Imagine just how much easier it would have been for you if the scripture had called the world square, flat, 2D, or anything else similar; then you would not be forced into trying to explain the difference between a circle and round.   

There is scripture about a birds-eye view and how light and day both exist at the same time on the earth, but this would be lost on those trying to be blind. 

A CD is round like a circle. It's also flat.

You are starting to act a little too much like TommyC.    

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-13-2015, 01:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't believe that.  But if the only point of reference is "above" then how am supposed to interpret that as anything other than "above"?

I'm not giggling, but there are many who believe in a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible.  Also, the Bible is the inspired word of God, not the word of man.  Those writing the Bible were possessed with the Holy Spirit so they wrote God's description and not their own.   I'm confident God could describe a sphere.

I'm no linguist but there's no guarantee that the word "sphere" is used in different languages. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2015, 01:15 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A CD is round like a circle. It's also flat.

You are starting to act a little too much like TommyC.    

Please continue with your explanations about the differences between a circle, round, and a sphere. They truly shows your are open minded and have no bias.   

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 12:56 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Proverbs 8:27
When he established the heavens i was there. When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.

It was the 2nd verse i posted earlier.

So how can you surmise the flat side is the vertical plane and not the horizontal?

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-13-2015, 01:21 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So how can you surmise the flat side is the vertical plane and not the horizontal?

The mental image i get when i read it. Drawing a circle on the face of the deep/depth, whatever. The image i get is like a painter, using an easel. 

Cause God hadn't invented desks yet.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2015, 01:19 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm no linguist but there's no guarantee that the word "sphere" is used in different languages. 

It is the typical debate of the "open minded." Calling it a circle doesn't count as suggesting the world is round because he didn't explain the geometry behind his definition of a circle. It is quite comical and I hope he continues. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 01:19 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm no linguist but there's no guarantee that the word "sphere" is used in different languages. 

Good point. An olive or orange could used as an example of a sphere.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2015, 01:26 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Good point. An olive or orange could used as an example of a sphere.

But calling it a circle isn't?

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-13-2015, 01:26 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Good point. An olive or orange could used as an example of a sphere.

Language of appearance, holmes. Language of appearance.

If you want it to be as simple as possible and translatable as possible, do you say orange/olive or circle. 

Are you sure Inuits would know what an orange or olive looked like?

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2015, 01:29 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Language of appearance, holmes. Language of appearance.

If you want it to be as simple as possible and translatable as possible, do you say orange/olive or circle. 

Are you sure Inuits would know what an orange or olive looked like?

,,and I am sure the "smart" folks in the world would have nothing negative to say if scripture had stated the world was like an orange.

"Stupid God, said the world was made of fruit. He didn't even know what the world he created is made of."

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 01:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Please continue with your explanations about the differences between a circle, round, and a sphere. They truly shows your are open minded and have no bias.   

Where did I ever claim to lack bias? I'm biased. You're biased. Every oscillating Richard in here is biased. Just because I'm biased doesn't mean I don't have an open mind. But, IOT change my mind you have to convince me. You haven't came close. Shit, you won't even acknowledge the difference between a sphere and circle. I can respect rfaulk's opinion because it is intelligent and well articulated. We can disagree without insulting each other. I've tried to have an intelligent conversation with you, but you're beginning to act like a child with this circle sphere nonsense and I'm starting to get irritated and beginning to wonder why I'm even bothering to be civil wit you.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-13-2015, 01:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is the typical debate of the "open minded." Calling it a circle doesn't count as suggesting the world is round because he didn't explain the geometry behind his definition of a circle. It is quite comical and I hope he continues. 

Usually, i start to get annoyed after a certain point of repetition, but that's mostly with Steelers and Ravens fans. And Brad. But don't tell him i said that!!!

So far, in this case, the repetition doesn't seem stale yet. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 01:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But calling it a circle isn't?

I can explain it for you.

I can't understand it for you. You'll have to do that on your own.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-13-2015, 01:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ,,and I am sure the "smart" folks in the world would have nothing negative to say if scripture had stated the world was like an orange.

"Stupid God, said the world was made of fruit. He didn't even know what the world he created is made of."

Well, oranges are orange...

and the Earth is blue and green.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2015, 01:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I can explain it for you.

I can't understand it for you. You'll have to do that on your own.

I understand it perfectly and my hope is one day you will as well. But until then occupy yourself with explaining the differences between round things.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 01:29 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Language of appearance, holmes. Language of appearance.

If you want it to be as simple as possible and translatable as possible, do you say orange/olive or circle. 

Are you sure Inuits would know what an orange or olive looked like?

I have difficulty with language of appearances vs biblical inerrancy because Christians themselves can't agree on one or the other. Same with allegory vs literal. It is the least simple simple can be. Clear as mud.

[Beaker]

The point wasn't about whether science or religion declared the world round. The point was that science will adapt as new discoveries are made. Religious people like to claim the fact that science is tentative means its wrong. It is simply the best explanation we have at the time based on the available evidence. As new evidence becomes available, science will test its validity, then adjust its paradigm based upon the new evidence. Religious types love to try to hold that up as science is wrong. Guess what, when science is wrong, it corrects itself. When religion is wrong, it simply claims science is wrong more often and sticks with the old paradigm.