An evolutionist, TE, OEC and YEC all walk up to a bar...

[Calminian]

Robert you're obviously blowing a fuse here. So IOW anything published by someone you disagree with you dismiss (footnotes and all). I can now see how you're able keep your current beliefs.

See below

Ah, I should have known, an AiG tract complete with straw men, half truths and severe distortions.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

So, if you consider having to reverse ones position to avoid penalty to be a victory, well I guess it went his way. <rolls eyes>

From my previous post: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

I find it amusing that at the end of the following Cardinal Bellarmine echoes my own arguments concerning astrophysicists. The following quote comes immediately after his statement that given evidence he would reaccess his interpretation of scripture rather than deny facts.

Yes indeed, the fact of naturalism which scripture must always bow to.

And please note that at that time there was no proof. It was only after the use of elipses that heliocentrism made better predictions, Keplar's laws suggested that something real was going on, butTycho Brahe's theory fit the facts just fine. It wasn't until Newton that there was real theoretical backing, and not until 1838 was parallax measured.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterbellarmine.html

While there is an Aristotlian "taint" on geocentrism, the position was also based on common sense/literal reading of the Bible and on the evidence, lack of parallax.

Something you've done a brilliant job of proving so far. I'm still inviting you to make that case so we can all have a good out loud laugh. You could I suppose do a Bible word search for "sunrise" is you really wanna get roudy.

The fact is that I pointed you at the main verse of contention,

<hysterically laughing out loud...nose starting to bleed>

Yes nice proof. Right up there with sunsets.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Robert you're obviously blowing a fuse here. So IOW anything published by someone you disagree with you dismiss (footnotes and all).

Your source stated that the first trial was decided in Galileo's favor.
The first trial resulted in Galileo admitting the falsity of heliocentrism and promising not to teach it.

Why exactly am I supposed to take you or your sources seriously?

I can now see how you're able keep your current beliefs.

Yes indeed, the fact of naturalism which scripture must always bow to.

<hysterically laughing out loud...nose starting to bleed>

Yes nice proof. Right up there with sunsets.

You will be in my prayers tonight.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The neoplatonist connection between the platonic concept of a perfect ideal world reflected imperfectly in the physical world is really best seen in the Manicheans and via Plotinus to us in Augustine. the key idea is that the pre-fall world in Hebrew thinking was good yet in Christian theology the platonic idea of perfect is usually substituted. I don't know of a full length treatment but several books on Augustine bring up the issue.
<six links to Plato et al's influence on Augustine and thus the rest of Christianity deleted for space>

You can't just explain why you believe christians got the idea of the fixity of the species from other sources than the Bible?

He just did.

I also provided a YEC source that said essentially the same thing, though they cite the intermediate source as Aquinas, who, as I am sure you know, owed much to Augustine. (And yes, Linnaeus was a "committed Christian", to quote AiG.)

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

You can't just explain why you believe christians got the idea of the fixity of the species from other sources than the Bible?

Ah, I think maybe I misunderstood what you wanted. You were asking for us to explain why they made that decision.

For a solid answer I would suggest finding an expert on the early church and taking him or her out to lunch.

But I can guess at a couple of reasons. One is the Bible does not provide a formal philosophical framework for working out problems, so they used the best available one, that of Aristotle and adapted it to their needs, which brought along the fixity of the species. Another is that the use of the Hebrew word "min" is not very consistant. Is a "kind" a species or genus or breed?

As far as that goes, evolutionarily* all offspring are the same species as their parents.
*there are rare exceptions to this in teh plant kingdom, but by and large it is
true.

But as I said if you really want to know why they made that decision you'll have to do some research, or find somebody who can mind-read through time, but it is clear that they did.

What a cop out.

Can you get through even one post without being belittling?

IOW even though their own scriptures clearly state it, they ignored them and went to an outside source?

Perhaps it is only obvious to you because you were taught it was obvious.