In the biginning is not baseball...

[lightwait]

I love science. I studied academic Physics for 15 years. The only place the world paradigm of physics leads us is into an historical darkness. I realized I was not there when God created the heavens and the earth. I was as Job: 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? I know that we are leading each other astray. We fight against the world. We are not to go into the world to condemn the world but to bring light to the world and that light is the condemnation—the world loves darkness rather than come to the light. I lived in that paradigmatical darkness of the Big Bang—only Christ Jesus could change my way toward the light of life.

Are most of these threads darkening counsel by words without knowledge—where were you when God created the heavens and the earth, etc....

In any way shape or form the Christian and or the Secular communities cannot prove scientifically or in any way through an historical bent, the coming into being of the heavens and the earth. Every concept brought forth thus far is vanity on the part of those theorizing—all is vanity.

You will have to get off of what you cannot prove in order to disprove this:

Please stay in the context of the Bible...

The first word in all of the English translations is "In"—The word "In" means, and has a spacial connotation, inside or within.

The first Biblical word in Hebrew is "bere'shiyth"—the "be" in bere'shiyth means "In" and re'shiyth means beginning.

The first word in the Septuagint (Greek translation) is "en"—the word "en" means "inside" or "within" with a spacial connotation as in the NT, "en" means within Christ. Christ Jesus is "en" us and we are "en" him.

The Revelation reveals to us that Christ Jesus is the "beginning" and the "ending".

Re 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in (en) my Father, and ye in (en) me, and I in (en) you.

Has that day come?—that we should believe that we are "in" Him as revealed?

If so, see what happens to your theories when you believe that the Heavens and the Earth are created "In" Christ Jesus who is the "beginning and the ending".

We are not talking history, we are talking eternity—the heavens and the earth were created in (within, inside) that which is eternal, the Light of the world, Christ Jesus who ascended above the heavens.

Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

In context we were created "In the beginning..."

Blessings

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I love science. I studied academic Physics for 15 years. The only place the world paradigm of physics leads us is into an historical darkness

so you threw away your PhD and turned your back on scientific knowledge. Why should i follow your example?

The first Biblical word in Hebrew is "bere'shiyth"—the "be" in bere'shiyth means "In" and re'shiyth means beginning.


not necessarily or not uniformally, or not that everyone knowledgable in Hebrew agrees.

http://groups.google.co.jp/group/sci.lang/msg/2accd9658b0be9e8?dmode=print&hl=ja

the point is what does this show?
creatio ex nihilo?
that God was there at the beginning or God created the beginning?

in the beginning of what, exactly? the book of Breshith or the story of the universe, or the start of the physical universe? they are all different things. "in the beginning" does not discriminate between these and several other proposed interpretations of Gen 1:1.

Is Gen 1:1 an introduction to the chapter or a summary?
is it in chronological order with Gen 1:2 or is there a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen1:2?

can your analysis show the way to answer these and other similiarily divisive ways people have looked at just Gen1:1 in the past 3 millennium?

 

[lightwait]

The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text.

The historical Biblical paradigm today is eisegetically imposed.

Though the Bible was written in history, the Bible tells us explicitly to look toward and to seek the kingdom first.

I know the arguments concerning history—no need to expound. I understand and believe we should use the Biblical times for the meanings and usages of the words. We have done this and it is time to move on.

As we, en masse, seek the kingdom, we will become enlightened to the reality of the words. The coming closer to the kingdom for all and considering all, each one of us, as a piece to the puzzle, we overcome our difficulties and move into a place where there is no death for anyone on the planet.

The Bible is about mankind and the grace of God giving us life forever. We are in a fallen state. We look into places where there is no light and we cannot figure out how to get out of the darkness. The Big Bang leads us to a place of ruling with a bomb, it is in fact the essence of the mechanics of the bomb.

Jesus tells us to look the other way—toward the light. The only way to the light though is to give instead of take. Now, we make profit from those who are not as bright as us and by so doing, we think we are great. Jesus tells us to use our intelligence which is the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience, for the benefit of others. That concept can only happen by looking toward the kingdom for all.

So, where are we to spend our time?—in the dark?—or, in the Light?

Blessings

 

[KerrMetric]

I love science. I studied academic Physics for 15 years. The only place the world paradigm of physics leads us is into an historical darkness. I realized I was not there when God created the heavens and the earth. I was as Job: 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? I know that we are leading each other astray. We fight against the world. We are not to go into the world to condemn the world but to bring light to the world and that light is the condemnation—the world loves darkness rather than come to the light. I lived in that paradigmatical darkness of the Big Bang—only Christ Jesus could change my way toward the light of life.

What a load of unsubstantiated rubbish.





Why does this..

In any way shape or form the Christian and or the Secular communities cannot prove scientifically or in any way through an historical bent, the coming into being of the heavens and the earth. Every concept brought forth thus far is vanity on the part of those theorizing—all is vanity.

not mesh with this

I love science. I studied academic Physics for 15 years

When someone starts saying "prove scientifically" alarm bells go off in my head since no scientist or someon well versed in scientific study should utter such a phrase.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text.

The historical Biblical paradigm today is eisegetically imposed.

Though the Bible was written in history, the Bible tells us explicitly to look toward and to seek the kingdom first.

I know the arguments concerning history—no need to expound. I understand and believe we should use the Biblical times for the meanings and usages of the words. We have done this and it is time to move on.

As we, en masse, seek the kingdom, we will become enlightened to the reality of the words. The coming closer to the kingdom for all and considering all, each one of us, as a piece to the puzzle, we overcome our difficulties and move into a place where there is no death for anyone on the planet.

The Bible is about mankind and the grace of God giving us life forever. We are in a fallen state. We look into places where there is no light and we cannot figure out how to get out of the darkness. The Big Bang leads us to a place of ruling with a bomb, it is in fact the essence of the mechanics of the bomb.

Jesus tells us to look the other way—toward the light. The only way to the light though is to give instead of take. Now, we make profit from those who are not as bright as us and by so doing, we think we are great. Jesus tells us to use our intelligence which is the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience, for the benefit of others. That concept can only happen by looking toward the kingdom for all.

So, where are we to spend our time?—in the dark?—or, in the Light?

Blessings

for someone with postgrad work in physics (where 15 years of study ought to get you) your posting is rather incomprehensible.

for instance:
The historical Biblical paradigm today is eisegetically imposed.

what does this mean?

or this?
The Big Bang leads us to a place of ruling with a bomb, it is in fact the essence of the mechanics of the bomb.


perhaps it is just me. maybe your language is just over my head. that is what some post docs have told me in the past (of course i was a freshman then)

 

[busterdog]

What a load of unsubstantiated rubbish.

Always on the offense, as in being offensive.

Can't you find a better way to engage people?

 

[busterdog]

I love science. I studied academic Physics for 15 years. The only place the world paradigm of physics leads us is into an historical darkness. I realized I was not there when God created the heavens and the earth. I was as Job: 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? I know that we are leading each other astray. We fight against the world. We are not to go into the world to condemn the world but to bring light to the world and that light is the condemnation—the world loves darkness rather than come to the light. I lived in that paradigmatical darkness of the Big Bang—only Christ Jesus could change my way toward the light of life.

I appreciate the posts. If one is to walk with the Lord as a man, and of course He came to be that kind of God, that is, a man you can walk with, how is it that we are to regard what he says?

When he says that he as power over life and death and the ability to restore sight, what kind of a friend and a man is he if all he is giving us is some pie in the sky? If he says that he created the world in six days and then tells us that maybe we might figure out some of that with several thousand years of science, what kind of a man is that? Big Bang theory begins with quantities and laws that are defined by science as unknowable. Is that what our friend wants to be stuck with? Unknowable mystery in a discipline where he has presumed to speak with clear language?

There are those here who will deny that there is a surface text in Gen. 1, that it clearly points to such inherent mystery that the very number "six" has no content. You put your finger on an important problem and the essential division among believers in origins theology.

Quite frankly, I still have some question about what you believe about YEC and things like gap theory. Perhaps that is intentional, but the OP still has a lot to say. Yes, indeed, lots of this theorizing is vanity, on both sides.

You are apparently finding that your philosophical approach that puts Genesis on par (or more than par) with science as real evidence and witnesss of origins, is unwelcome to some. I can't for the life of me understand why we can't even agree that such an idea is interesting and can be explored on its own terms. Funny that the first thing you hear from the "gotcha" crowd is a caterwalling about how these ideas can only be explored on a TE basis. Can't you just relax? Let's hear what the man has to say on his terms.

Quite frankly, I am interested in hearing more about where you are going with this. I recognize that there is no prize at the end of the inquiry, just an opportunity to learn.

I would also like to learn some more about the physics you have studied.

 

[shernren]

Lightwait,

I can't make head or tails of what you're saying. This is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. It is not a judgment of ideas, since I have no idea what the ideas are, but a judgment of language, presentation, and clarity.

Imagine that you were writing out a thesis or a paper to be presented for peer review - even if you don't do that any more, at least you should remember how you used to do it. Imagine that you are writing in that manner and describe your beliefs and opinions about origins in such a manner. Use thesis statements, topic sentences, paragraphing, and the like. I cannot engage with you, whether for good or for bad, if I cannot even understand what you are saying.

Comprende?

 

[KerrMetric]

Always on the offense, as in being offensive.

Can't you find a better way to engage people?

You really need to learn the nuances of language. Calling something rubbish does not mean it was done with an offensive tone in mind. You must really struggle with dealing with people in the real world. Everything with you seems to be in a stark black and white world with no middle ground or complexity to any topic.

By the way - I'm still waiting for your answer to my science based Setterfield critique on the red shift thread a couple of weeks ago. I notice that if anything technical is posted you never touch it again. Funny that isn't it?

 

[KerrMetric]

I would also like to learn some more about the physics you have studied.

Why do I have a feeling this isn't true?

 

[busterdog]

You really need to learn the nuances of language. Calling something rubbish does not mean it was done with an offensive tone in mind. You must really struggle with dealing with people in the real world. Everything with you seems to be in a stark black and white world with no middle ground or complexity to any topic.

By the way - I'm still waiting for your answer to my science based Setterfield critique on the red shift thread a couple of weeks ago. I notice that if anything technical is posted you never touch it again. Funny that isn't it?

Well, I doubt I need much schooling in language. But, indulge yourself on that point if you wish.

As for science, every time we bring up science you move the goal post. Halton Arp, well, that's not science, is it?

What you clearly mean is science accepted by you and people you like.

 

[Assyrian]

As in scientists?

 

[busterdog]

As in scientists?

Begging the question.

The point is, the anti-YEC gotchas can't both say we ignore all technical issues and that our technical information is the work of those who don't exist for all scientific purposes.

As Mr. Kerr probably knows, Hugh MacDiarmid once said of resolving Scottish/English conflict, the answer was a trench seperating the countries, six feet deep -- and filled with English blood. If you really want a radical divide in recognition YEC and TE in terms of what is and what isn't science, knock yourself out. But, don't expect to come into a forum like this with any pretense of resolving anything.

 

[KerrMetric]

As for science, every time we bring up science you move the goal post.

Give me one instance where I ever moves the goalposts? This is ironic in the extreme coming from a Creationist - the team that doesn't know what a fixed goalpost even is.

Please - give me one instance where I ever moved a goalpost. I dare, I double dog dare you - no make that the infamous triple dog dare.

 

[busterdog]

Give me one instance where I ever moves the goalposts? This is ironic in the extreme coming from a Creationist - the team that doesn't know what a fixed goalpost even is.

Please - give me one instance where I ever moved a goalpost. I dare, I double dog dare you - no make that the infamous triple dog dare.

The first issue of scientific dialogue was dropped by the TEs. The supposed error bars were raised in the historic measurements of the speed of light. My basic argument about how stats are done was not answered. The most aggressive terms possible were brought to bear on the question, but not any real dialogue about statistics.

The TE argument against the stats is partially ad hominem: "Alan Montgomery is biased" is one of these silly argument. He may be truly evil for all I know, but that has nothing to do with statistics. The use of "error bars" was a very pedestrian/one dimensional view of the data. I argue with people all day long who are refuse to concede anything, so I know it when I see it. It is a style of prosecution and not any thing like professional dialogue among scientists or others.

Another such attack by a TE was that with very low change in speed of light as measured presently, we have nothing but "convenient" use of older measurements of the speed of light. One could barely imagine a more incredulous/suspicious and tendentious approach. Obviously scientists do not apply the same standard to conventional studies. Notably, citations to measured variations in the planck constant as a complimentary portion of the c decay theory were ignored.

Your fraud argument and non-science argument is essentially the same thing. The statistical arguments are buried under personal attacks.

The essential "moving the goal post" problem is best characterized by the threshold of what is or is not science. The study is judged by whether people you like agree with it, not by whether "scientists" given any support.

You say no scientists buy into this type of criticism of standard cosmology. Then you say, well, no one except people like Arp, a scientist, who is disqualified from being a serious scientist. Those are two different positions as to where the goal post should be. Why not just stop calling YEC people names like "non-scientist"?

"Peer review" represents the same problem. The hecklers from the TE crowd presume to define who is and who is not a peer.

Much less is the integrity of the data itself on your radar. The standard should be, for example, the statistical correlation, not how many scientists have approved of the theory.

Do with this what you will. Call me coward, idiot or whatever. I am not discussing data with someone who has already started from the proposition that someone I like is a fraud. I have a number of upcoming arguments about whether a particular vertebral disc injury is a real injury, whether the doctor is over-treating, whether another person is incompetent or simply under some measure of dementia, the physics of deceleration and crush data on vehicles, etc. I deal with cat fights between doctors and engineers all day long. I get paid to fight about it. I don't care to fight about it here and pretend that is fellowship.

 

[shernren]

The TE argument against the stats is partially ad hominem: "Alan Montgomery is biased" is one of these silly argument.

The problem is that I take claims of martyrdom seriously. I looked back at all 14 pages of the Shift on Red Shift thread ... (which is seeing renewed activity, btw, thanks to everyone's favorite two TEs mucking about) and guess what. I didn't see a single personal attack on Alan Montgomery. (I was surprised. I expected to see some and have to apologize for them.) I did see some on Setterfield, but then again they were all by Kerr who has an, um, unique way of expressing himself. But none on Alan Montgomery.

To be sure, Deamiter was rather harsh on Montgomery's throwing out many points which seemed to fall off the curve. But note that Deamiter essentially said "That's weird, anyone can make wonky datasets say what they want if they throw out lousy points." Is that an accusation of bias? No, he related his own story of fitting a sinusoidal curve to measurements of radioactive decay. A character assassin doesn't stab himself and his target in the same thread! Montgomery's mistakes were noted, but nowhere did they turn into character attacks.

If you disagree, check out the thread and show me where Montgomery was specifically accused of being biased: http://www.christianforums.com/t4301356

 

[KerrMetric]

You say no scientists buy into this type of criticism of standard cosmology.

email Arp and see if he gives Setterfield and the c-decay argument any time of day. I guarantee you he doesn't.

Then you say, well, no one except people like Arp, a scientist, who is disqualified from being a serious scientist.

Show me where I have ever said Arp is not a serous scientist? Halton Arp 4 decades ago was a first rate astronomer. Arp's problem is that when his ideas were rejected by the astrophysical community he became a bitter old man. He wanted fully 50% of the time on the only large telescope in the world for his own personal research into ideas that had been determined by his peers to be worthless. So for want of a better word he resorted to a combination of polemical rants against the astronomy community and sulking when he was refused half of the Palomar 200 inch telescope time.

Those are two different positions as to where the goal post should be. Why not just stop calling YEC people names like "non-scientist"?

What euphemism do you suggest I employ?

"Peer review" represents the same problem. The hecklers from the TE crowd presume to define who is and who is not a peer.

No the scientific community does not TE's.

Much less is the integrity of the data itself on your radar. The standard should be, for example, the statistical correlation, not how many scientists have approved of the theory.

That's the YEC problem not the scientific communities. We are the ones that actually analyse all the data. It is the YEC hacks that throw it out and cherry pick.

Do with this what you will. Call me coward, idiot or whatever. I am not discussing data with someone who has already started from the proposition that someone I like is a fraud. I have a number of upcoming arguments about whether a particular vertebral disc injury is a real injury, whether the doctor is over-treating, whether another person is incompetent or simply under some measure of dementia, the physics of deceleration and crush data on vehicles, etc. I deal with cat fights between doctors and engineers all day long. I get paid to fight about it. I don't care to fight about it here and pretend that is fellowship.

The only reason you avoid an actual science discussion is the obvious one - you don't seem to know much about the science and so you avoid it. Your idea of good science and a good scientist is if the message sounds good to you and the deliverer of the message must be a good scientist.

 

[KerrMetric]

The first issue of scientific dialogue was dropped by the TEs. The supposed error bars were raised in the historic measurements of the speed of light. My basic argument about how stats are done was not answered. The most aggressive terms possible were brought to bear on the question, but not any real dialogue about statistics.

All I can say is - read the Setterfield data analysis. If you come away from that thinking his methodology was acceptable science then you do not know what scientific analysis is.

How you could read that and not see that he fudged and cherry picked is beyond me.

 

[Assyrian]

As in scientists?

Begging the question.

It is hardly begging any questions to suggest KerrMetric and 'people like him' are scientists.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Always on the offense, as in being offensive.

Can't you find a better way to engage people?

Agreed!