The stars in the heavens - God promise to Abraham

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:53:43 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:


Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:12:29 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:

Chris L Peterson wrote:

The idea that the bible and evolution are the opposite of each other is
simply bizarre.
Quite right.

Quite wrong.


The Bible and Evolution are like Hockey and Calzone. They really don't
have anything to do with one another.

The lie you tell yourself, because you're a coward.

There you go with the personal attacks again.

It is cowardice to accept the word of man and not
stand up for God, period.

The Bible and evolution are at odds. This does not
include operational microevolution, which is a fact
of science. But anyone who claims what you do
and shies away from a challenge to prove the claim,
obviously does not know what they're talking about.

It is clear to me that you do not know the Bible.

It is clear to me that you do not know the involved sciences.

It is clear to me that you haven't the first clue
how to back up your claim.

But here... I'll make it easy for you...

Show us one verse in the Bible that speaks of evolution,
simply and clearly. That's all you need do.

--

"If girls with large breasts work at Hooters,
where do girls with one leg work? scroll down


IHop! scroll down


Of course, tipping your waitress takes on
a whole new meaning!

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:57:33 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:


Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:59:30 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:

Pastor Dave wrote:

I am well acquainted with the various sciences involved
and you son, are just another moron trying to play the
game you were taught to play, thinking that your time
spent seeing how to fool most people, equates to real
and actual research!
I, "father", am the guy who just won this argument. The evidence? You
responded with irrationality and personal insults. Apparently that's
the best you can do.

No real surprise there.

I'm sorry that I had to expose you as a liar.
But that's what happens when you lie.

If you are expecting me to respond in kind to your insults, forget it.
But if you wish, you can go right on ignoring my words and insulting me
instead. It really helps my case quite a bit. Thanks!

You can't respond, period and you have no case to help.
You know that and that is why you didn't prove evolution.

--

"The first time is happenstance. The second time
is coincidence. The third time is the enemy
attacking." - Ian Flemming

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:05:16 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
spake thusly:


On Aug 4, 3:19*pm, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:54:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:

Which would be true of most science till modern times.

There was no science until modern times.

That's not true, but most major branches of what
you call science were invented by Bible believing
Creationists.


That is simply not accurate

It is accurate. Would you like to see a number of examples?

As for your reference, did you think one guy disproves what
I said? Do you?

--

Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin
Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking
what sort of government the delegates had created.
His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:53:43 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:


Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:12:29 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:

Chris L Peterson wrote:

The idea that the bible and evolution are the opposite of each other is
simply bizarre.
Quite right.
Quite wrong.


The Bible and Evolution are like Hockey and Calzone. They really don't
have anything to do with one another.
The lie you tell yourself, because you're a coward.
There you go with the personal attacks again.

It is cowardice to accept the word of man and not
stand up for God, period.

The Bible and evolution are at odds. This does not
include operational microevolution, which is a fact
of science. But anyone who claims what you do
and shies away from a challenge to prove the claim,
obviously does not know what they're talking about.

It is clear to me that you do not know the Bible.

It is clear to me that you do not know the involved sciences.

It is clear to me that you haven't the first clue
how to back up your claim.

But here... I'll make it easy for you...

Show us one verse in the Bible that speaks of evolution,
simply and clearly. That's all you need do.

More insults. Oh well. I didn't really expect you to sy anything
intelligent or worthwhile.

** PLONK **

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

Archimedes First Law: Slaves can always be relied on to clean up the
mess after a bath.

On Aug 7, 4:36*am, Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:53:43 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:12:29 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:

Chris L Peterson wrote:

The idea that the bible and evolution are the opposite of each other is
simply bizarre.
Quite right.
Quite wrong.

The Bible and Evolution are like Hockey and Calzone. *They really don't
have anything to do with one another.
The lie you tell yourself, because you're a coward.
There you go with the personal attacks again.

It is cowardice to accept the word of man and not
stand up for God, period.

The Bible and evolution are at odds. *This does not
include operational microevolution, which is a fact
of science. *But anyone who claims what you do
and shies away from a challenge to prove the claim,
obviously does not know what they're talking about.

It is clear to me that you do not know the Bible.

It is clear to me that you do not know the involved sciences.

It is clear to me that you haven't the first clue
how to back up your claim.

But here... *I'll make it easy for you...

Show us one verse in the Bible that speaks of evolution,
simply and clearly. *That's all you need do.

More insults. *Oh well. *I didn't really expect you to sy anything
intelligent or worthwhile.

** PLONK **

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: *http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: * *http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here you go Greg -

You are at 106 degrees Longitude West of the Greenwich meridian in
London (0 degrees).

Every degree you move West you are also moving 4 minutes of clock time
and a going through a full circle of the planet you move through 24
hours (1440 minutes) and 360 degrees .As you are at 106 degrees
Longitude you time difference is 424 minutes or 7 hours and 4 minutes.
based on 24 hours/360 degrees.

Brilliant men came up with this linkage between time and geographical
seperation by recognising a means to create the 24 hour day from the
return of noon to a meridian by applying an equalising correction
known as the Equation of Time.As one 24 hour day elapses into the next
24 hour day through this method ( we still retain this method of
creating the 24 hour day through the term AM and PM),it was easily
adapted to planetary geometry where 4 minutes equals 1 degree of
geographical seperation through longitude -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

"Then afterwards being at Sea, and desiring to know the Longitude of
the place where you are, that is, how many degrees the Meridian of
that place is more Easterly or Westerly, than the Meridian of that
place where you did set the Watches; you must observe by the Sun or
Stars, what time of the day it is, as precisely as is possible, and
note at the same time, to what hour, minutes and sec. the Watches doe
point (which time, if the Watches be not set to the right measure, is
by the known daily difference to be adjusted,) adding thereunto the
Aequation of the present day, which gives you the time of the day,
shew'd by the Sun, at the place where the Watches were set:
And if this time of the day be the same with that observ'd where you
are, then you are under the same Meridian with the place, where the
Watches were set by the Sun; but if the time of the day, observ'd
where you are, be greater than that shew'd by the Watches, you may be
assur'd, that you are come under a more Easterly Meridian; and if
less, you are come under a more Westerly. And counting for every hour
of difference of time, 15 degrees of Longitude, and for every minute,
15. minutes or 1/4 of a degree, you shall then know, how many degrees,
minutes, &c. the said Meridians doe differ from one another."Huygens

Dava Sobel did this era a big favor by introducing people to the
Longitude story -

http://www.sailtexas.com/long.html

There is no great difficulty adding the technical details of the
Equation of Time which allows me to tell you that you are 7 hours and
4 minutes West of London and located on a specific spot on the planet
but I wish others would learn about this amazing human achievement and
forego the 'sidereal time' junk reasoning.

On Aug 7, 3:41*am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:05:16 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
spake thusly:

On Aug 4, 3:19*pm, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:54:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:

Which would be true of most science till modern times.

There was no science until modern times.

That's not true, but most major branches of what
you call science were invented by Bible believing
Creationists.

That is simply not accurate

It is accurate. *Would you like to see a number of examples?

As for your reference, did you think one guy disproves what
I said? *Do you?


I have come to understand that kindness is far more valuable than
intelligence for while 'facts' can change and be pliable,there is
something genuinely enjoyable when human kindness and human
intelligence combine to deliver an insight,discovery about our own
existence or that of the planet of the rest of the celestial arena.In
an era where both are absent,things like science vs religion thrive
generating lots of heat but no real light.

There are no lines between science and religion,as a Christian
astronomer,investigation of the celestial arena is a facet of my
faith,that is not some convenient ideology to say what is pleasing but
simply a consequence of the same intutive intelligence applied to
Christ and the Christian Way as is applied to extracting unseen
avenues and approaches in astronomical matters.

I have no regard for puppet shows made out of historical characters to
do the bidding for present concerns (whether they are scientific or
religious),I only deal with technical matters and the context into
which the renowned people,for right or for wrong,put their discoveries
or their insights.I do not expect people from the alt.bible forum to
know why the Equatorial Coordinate System of Flamsteed, as telescopes
and clocks appeared on the scene, was a botched job leading to all
sorts of unstable ideas beginning with Newton but most of the present
contentions disappear once issues can sorted out.For this
reason,showing me the names of scientists who were creationists would
have no real substance however well meaning the reason may be.

It often happens that individuals provide a conduit for
discoveries,Steno is one and Copernicus another,but I put just as much
weight in the context and background to which these discoveries belong
than who actually made them.For Instance Steno could work out rock
stratification whlie taking a sensible approach to Genesis and by
taking into account that seashell fossils are often found buried in
rock on mountain tops leading to the equally sensible notion of a very
old Earth.It would be nice to see both the religious and the
scientific side today take a wider view of the situation but again -
kindness and intelligence is required -

http://www.desertusa.com/mag06/may/shells.html

The maneuvering of Flamsteed and Newton and what they proposed are in
context of their era but way out of context with the astronomical
methods and insights that preceded them,one relates to timekeeping
astronomy and specifically the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency
(Flamsteed) while the latter relates to the core Western astronomical
insight based on apparent retrogrades and their resolution via an
orbitally moving Earth (Newton).Those who promote the 'scientific
method' unvariably adhere to the false premises and conclusions of
these individuals and unfortunately their approach now is dominant.

The latest news showed that one person spotted a software DNS flaw
which could lead to exploitation by the wrong people,the major
institutions sought to correct this matter by working immediately and
in tandem to patch the system and consider a new approach in order to
keep the internet relatively safe .In astronomy or in speculative
endeavors this does not happen,when the flaw was spotted in
timekeeping astronomy they do not work to correct the matter and
receive credit for avoiding a catastrophe,they simply ignore it and
become hostile to the person who is pointing it out.The point is that
one person can make a difference and even if all the work goes on
behind the scenes,that is the way it should be,where even you and the
empiricists can enjoy the insights into terrestrial/celestial
phenomena without loading the great Hebrew authors with ephemeral
junk.







--

Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin
Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking
what sort of government the delegates had created.
His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

On Aug 4, 7:19 am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:54:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:

There was no science until modern times.

That's not true, but most major branches of what
you call science were invented by Bible believing
Creationists.

The modern concept of science was invented by Francis Bacon, who
indeed would likely fit the category "Bible-believing Creationist" as
far as anyone knows.

But depending on how one defines a major branch of science, one might
have to consider pagan Greeks in the counting.

John Savard

On Aug 4, 12:05 pm, oriel36 wrote:

Nobody has to run outside and peer at rocks or stars and planets but
if they do, give a thought to those who once worked out discoveries
that belong to humanity's heritage and not just a group of people who
now call themselves scientists.

Actually, peering at rocks or stars and planets is *highly* advisable.
Galileo showed as much with respect to Aristotle.

John Savard

On Aug 10, 12:27*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Aug 4, 7:19 am, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:54:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:
There was no science until modern times.
That's not true, but most major branches of what
you call science were invented by Bible believing
Creationists.

The modern concept of science was invented by Francis Bacon, who
indeed would likely fit the category "Bible-believing Creationist" as
far as anyone knows.

But depending on how one defines a major branch of science, one might
have to consider pagan Greeks in the counting.

John Savard

Those who promote the 'scientific method' basically filter everything
through the Greeks in order to create an image of proto-scientists
which shade off into the emergence of empirical scientists in the late
17th century but even the Greeks themselves acknowledged methods and
insights that stretch way back into antiquity.I have no reason to
doubt Stecchini (one of your own) in this specific matter given his
respect for older traditions which found their way into the Greek view
of things -


"Eratosthenes was not the first to measure the circumference of the
Earth, but the first to argue, contrary to the opinion of Aristotle,
that the calculations about the circumference of the Earth could be
accepted as proven in terms of the new scientific style.

A series of ancient authors credits Eratosthenes as having introduced
the calculation of the degree as equal to 700 stadia, but there is not
a single writer who indicates that he based himself on an empirical
survey of the ground. Contemporary scholars exalt Eratosthenes as a
great scientist and as a pioneer in mathematical geography, but none
of the ancient writers who were acquainted with his works indicate
this. If Eratosthenes had been such an innovator, Ptolemy who
discusses at length the problem of the dimensions of the Earth in the
Prolegomena to his Geography would have said at least some words to
this effect. Theon of Smyrna and Proklos, who lived in Alexandria do
not make any reference to the alleged discovery of Eratosthenes in
their extensive commentaries on ancient mathematical science. Strabo,
who had before his eyes the writings of Eratosthenes and discusses
them at length, does not ascribe to Eratosthenes any specific
achievement in the field of empirical geodesy or of theoretical
geography. Strabo mentions repeatedly the figure of 700 stadia to the
degree, but justifies it only in these words: “We suppose as
Hipparchos, that the size of the Earth is 252,000 stadia, a figure
given also by Eratosthenes.” He would not have spoken in these terms
if Eratosthenes had provided a complete mathematical demonstration."

http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm

Stecchini was,of course,ostracised for his views that took into
account a wider and more complex historical and technical picture
than present day empiricists would have it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those in alt.bible,it is not arguing against the Greek
contribution to investigation of natural phenomena but rather the
limitations of restricting discoveries to individual Greeks as the
empiricist are in the habit of doing,it fits neatly in with their
trajectory of discoveries where they graft people like Newton into
astronomy as an intellectual addition to Copernicus and Kepler.As I
have a talent for spotting enormous differences in methodology
between Copernicus/Kepler on one side and Newton on the other and
subsequently the conclusions drawn,the reasons for promoting a limited
view of the history of discovery becomes more apparent in the worst
possible way.