On Nov 11, 7:28*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/11/11 4:10 AM, oriel36 wrote:

Before people make a casual conclusion about Genesis or any other work
of the Bible,they would do well to remember that we bring to these
things our own prejudices and strengths and far from criticizing those
who simply see nothing in Christ or Christianity or something childish
or worse,they are simply expressing the standard by which they judge
all things including scientific affairs.It is therefore not defending
Genesis for its doesn't need defending as the religious can actually
appreciate Genesis more with the availability of information today and
those facets which would have appeared less radiant a few centuries
ago now stand out clearly as mathematical masterpieces woven around a
surface narrative.

* *AS Galileo pointed out some 400 years ago, the Christan bible is
* *not about how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.

I see you didn't get the new insight which uses Jupiter's satellite Io
just as Galileo once used the satellites to affirm that the Earth
moves.The new insight relies on the position of Io in relation to the
shadow it casts on the surface of Jupiter and the observer on a moving
Earth will see Io to either one side or the other as the Earth
approaches Jupiter and passes it.

Within a few paragraphs, Genesis states something you can't and won't
-

" Evening came, and morning followed - the second day..." Gen 1

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P3.HTM

You cannot imagine the depth of dismay in seeing readers adopt an
imbalance between days and the daily effects insofar as 1461 rotation
keeps in step with the daily effects where morning follows evening
across the 4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth so however you
may regard the creationists presently,at least they have reached an
intellectual level which surpasses yours.



If you want
* *fundamentals about celestial astronomy, than Isaac Newton and those
* *that followed.

You are talking 'celestial mechanics' or the clockwork solar system
inherited through Ra/Dec and not only does it not work,it is
preventing necessary modification to be enacted and the biggest one is
the explanation of the orbital daylight/darkness cycle where the cycle
is coincident wit the orbital period of the Earth and it is observed.

Lacking any sense of responsibility to the point where even the
surface narrative of Genesis, which is created to serve a purpose,is
more valuable in describing how a day contains an evening and morning
cycle than all the present empirical doctrines combined must make
people feel as low as I do right now.The Genesis text is a work of art
in doing what it needs to do ,at least from a mathematical
standpoint,and it requires no explaining by me or anyone else as with
the later Christian works,its existence is almost self-explanatory to
those who approach it with good faith.

It was not a reaction to that participant who takes satisfaction from
a 6 year old child's opinion of Genesis and how it was influenced by
the Babylonian flood narratives which preceded it.The ancients had
good reason to believe in a global flood as they saw seashells high on
mountains in rock strata and wove their narratives around this
geological observation which was initially resolved by the priest
Nicolas Steno in creating the first geological principles of
superposition with the oldest layers at the bottom as a geological
timeline.It is amazing what you can learn from the ancients even in
the surface narrative of Genesis as it shows how observant these
people were to their surroundings.You and your colleagues can't even
mesh one 24 hour/360 degree rotation of the Earth with daily effects
so no wonder you have so much trouble with our Christian heritage.