Original Research--join In

[Loudmouth]

I am certainly not a Geocentrist. Please show me scripture that states that the earth is the center of the universe.

"First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and no absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumptions that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run the risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures…."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[JacksBratt]

"First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and no absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumptions that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run the risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures…."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

I see that you have failed to show me the Book, Chapter and Verse of any scripture that states or, as you stated, "demands" that I follow a false idea of geocentrics.

I could care less what some cardinal stated in 1615

 

[Loudmouth]

I see that you have failed to show me the Book, Chapter and Verse of any scripture that states or, as you stated, "demands" that I follow a false idea of geocentrics.

I could care less what some cardinal stated in 1615

All of the theologians agreed that the scriptures pointed to a stationary Earth.

"Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[EternalDragon]

All of the theologians agreed that the scriptures pointed to a stationary Earth.

"Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Well, as far as I know the earth has remained in a stationary orbit and
has not flown off into space yet.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, as far as I know the earth has remained in a stationary orbit and
has not flown off into space yet.

This is the type of dishonesty that I am talking about.

Bellarmine clearly indicates that stationary means "doesn't move", as in, doesn't orbit the Sun. Bellarmine couldn't be clearer on this point. If you are willing to twist Bellarmine's words in this manner, imagine what you are willing to do with the Bible.

 

[JacksBratt]

All of the theologians agreed that the scriptures pointed to a stationary Earth.

"Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

I could care less about all the theologens who agree that the scripture, supposedly, points to a stationary earth.
I could also care less about the council of Trent if it forbids the interpretation of scripture the way they see fit.

Any "council" or person of God, priest or preacher or minister, who would forbid you of interpreting scripture differently than them, is not a person of God. This is what caused the problem in the catholic church in the first place. They didn't want you reading the whole book or forming your own opinion. That is not freedom.

They will forbid me of nothing. Only God can forbid me of this type of thinking. There are police, and other men and women who inforce man's laws and will forbid me to do things, like speed, sell drugs, steel etc. But no man forbids me of reading the Bible and beleiving it the way I see it.



You can find anyone stating anything. There are even people out there that will try to tell you that the Bible tells you the earth is flat.. Imagine.

Please. You stated that the scripture demanded me to believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Can you enlighten me with the Book, Chapter and Verse of such a scripture?

 

[Loudmouth]

I could care less about all the theologens who agree that the scripture, supposedly, points to a stationary earth.
I could also care less about the council of Trent if it forbids the interpretation of scripture the way they see fit.

Any "council" or person of God, priest or preacher or minister, who would forbid you of interpreting scripture differently than them, is not a person of God. This is what caused the problem in the catholic church in the first place. They didn't want you reading the whole book or forming your own opinion. That is not freedom.

They will forbid me of nothing. Only God can forbid me of this type of thinking. There are police, and other men and women who inforce man's laws and will forbid me to do things, like speed, sell drugs, steel etc. But no man forbids me of reading the Bible and beleiving it the way I see it.

Like I said, there have been buffet christians since Galileo. They change their interpretation to whatever they want. They pick the interpretations they want.

Please. You stated that the scripture demanded me to believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Can you enlighten me with the Book, Chapter and Verse of such a scripture?

It's right next to the verses that say that evolution did not happen.

 

[EternalDragon]

This is the type of dishonesty that I am talking about.

Bellarmine clearly indicates that stationary means "doesn't move", as in, doesn't orbit the Sun. Bellarmine couldn't be clearer on this point. If you are willing to twist Bellarmine's words in this manner, imagine what you are willing to do with the Bible.

The bible does not say anywhere that the earth doesn't orbit the sun.
As long as I have lived the earth has remained immovable and has
also always been under my feet. I assume it has been this way for
centuries for everyone else that has lived as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

The bible does not say anywhere that the earth doesn't orbit the sun.

God stopped the Sun, not the Earth, for Joshua. This means that it is the Sun that moves about the Earth.

As long as I have lived the earth has remained immovable and has
also always been under my feet.

Yet another example of the dishonesty that you are willing to use in these discussions.

A car can be moving while still being under your rear. A skateboard can be moving, and be moveable, while staying under your feet.

The Earth moves about the Sun. Period. Everytime you try to avoid this fact, it only makes you look more dishonest.

 

[EternalDragon]

God stopped the Sun, not the Earth, for Joshua. This means that it is the Sun that moves about the Earth.

Yet another example of the dishonesty that you are willing to use in these discussions.

A car can be moving while still being under your rear. A skateboard can be moving, and be moveable, while staying under your feet.

The Earth moves about the Sun. Period. Everytime you try to avoid this fact, it only makes you look more dishonest.

Wow. Just wow.

Joshua specifically asked for the the sun and moon to be stopped. So
they were stopped. That means the earth would have been stopped as
well.

Specifically nothing was actually stopped except for time, for only those
people in that battle, so that the prayer could be answered specifically
and locally.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wow. Just wow.

Joshua specifically asked for the the sun and moon to be stopped. So
they were stopped. That means the earth would have been stopped as
well.

Joshua didn't ask for the Earth to be stopped.

Specifically nothing was actually stopped except for time, for only those
people in that battle, so that the prayer could be answered specifically
and locally.

And now you are making stuff up and adding it to the Bible.

 

[EternalDragon]

Joshua didn't ask for the Earth to be stopped.

And now you are making stuff up and adding it to the Bible.

No, you are the one adding to it. Joshua specifically asked that the sun
and moon stand still in a specific area. Not for the entire societies of earth.
He was asking for more time.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you are the one adding to it. Joshua specifically asked that the sun
and moon stand still in a specific area.

Correct. He didn't ask for the Earth to be stopped as you are trying to claim.

He was asking for more time.

He was asking for more daylight. That's what it means to keep the Sun in the sky and stop it moving.

 

[EternalDragon]

Correct. He didn't ask for the Earth to be stopped as you are trying to claim.

He was asking for more daylight. That's what it means to keep the Sun in the sky and stop it moving.

I don't think you realize that the sun and moon didn't physically stop
moving.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think you realize that the sun and moon didn't physically stop
moving.

I don't think you realize that there was not a recent global flood, that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, and that species were not separately created.

 

[WisdomSpy]

The fd-tet phage research is interesting but I think the claims you are making for it need to be re-evaluated. Men using complex machines and powerful directed chemical reactions altered a virus. Then, under a specific environment including a man-made antibiotic, they judged the interaction of the modified virus with a certain bacteria, making conclusions about its infectivity.

The main thing I see being proven is that intelligent men can create complex chemistry and cause interesting interactions with pre-existing cells with complex chemistry of uncertain origins. Trying to make inferences to the origins of life or the origins of new genes in bacteria and other organisms is an incredible reach… perhaps we should call it an evolutionary leap of faith!

 

[Loudmouth]

The fd-tet phage research is interesting but I think the claims you are making for it need to be re-evaluated. Men using complex machines and powerful directed chemical reactions altered a virus. Then, under a specific environment including a man-made antibiotic, they judged the interaction of the modified virus with a certain bacteria, making conclusions about its infectivity.

The main thing I see being proven is that intelligent men can create complex chemistry and cause interesting interactions with pre-existing cells with complex chemistry of uncertain origins. Trying to make inferences to the origins of life or the origins of new genes in bacteria and other organisms is an incredible reach… perhaps we should call it an evolutionary leap of faith!

Creationist: Evolution isn't a science because scientists can't recreate evolution in the lab.

Scientist: We just showed that a random sequence evolved function in the lab.

Creationist: That doesn't count. It happened in the lab.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Loudmouth: "...ribozymes have been engineered to act as true enzymes..."

Think about that. It's the same kind of preposterous claims associated with the "self-replicating RNA" myth. Men can do amazing things with their intelligence. They can tinker with existing complex biological systems and come up with slightly different complex systems. How does this validate the supposed accomplishments of undirected mutation and natural selection? How does it say anything credible about abiogenesis?

 

[WisdomSpy]

Loudmouth: "Creationist: Evolution isn't a science because scientists can't recreate evolution in the lab."

That's a straw-man argument. Mutation and natural selection certainly occurs--no one is denying that. The debate pertains to how much power this really has. Evolutionists keep telling wishful stories about it. The evidence fails to support the idea that life could arise from non-life or the idea that viruses could become anything other than different viruses, bacteria could become anything but different bacteria.

Go back to the DNA sequence generator and run numerous tests. You cannot beat the law of averages. Do the math. The evidence shows that life forms of all varieties require very lengthy genes and lots of them. RNA ligases cleaving their products in two is no path towards achieving the requisite cadre of long genes.

And yes, I've considered all 6 reading frames. Do the math instead of posting baseless straw-men. How many total molecules would be required to generate a sequence of 100 codons which lacks an internal stop codon, ON AVERAGE? Now try 500 codons, which is far more realistic, considering the data: the following posted previously, with ref.:

The genome of the microsporidia Encephalitozoon cuniculi is widely recognized as a model for extreme reduction and compaction. At only 2.9 Mbp, the genome encodes approximately 2,000 densely packed genes and little else. However, the nuclear genome of its sister, Encephalitozoon intestinalis, is even more reduced; at 2.3 Mbp, it represents a 20% reduction from an already severely compacted genome, raising the question, what else can be lost? In this paper, we describe the complete sequence of the E. intestinalis genome and its comparison with that of E. cuniculi. The two species share a conserved gene content, order and density over most of their genomes. The exceptions are the subtelomeric regions, where E. intestinalis chromosomes are missing large gene blocks of sequence found in E. cuniculi. In the remaining gene-dense chromosome 'cores', the diminutive intergenic sequences and introns are actually more highly conserved than the genes themselves, suggesting that they have reached the limits of reduction for a fully functional genome.
Math: Since the microsporidia Encephalitozoon cuniculi has 2.9 Mbp, and 2000 genes, the average size of the genes in question is: 1450 base pairs.
***that's about 500 codons each, without stops in their middle regions.
The average human gene is over 27,000bp's, including dystrophin which is over 80,000.

Evolutionists must recon with the gene length data and the complete lack of a valid explanation for their genesis as well as the lack of evidence for an intracellular clean-up mechanism for all the trash that would naturally occur, should such a mechanism exist.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Question: what does the data regarding viruses and RNA suggest or predict about the distribution of gene lengths in living organisms? What should be the most common length of gene produced by naturalistic processes, either during abiogenesis or by subsequent gene mutation (specifically; insertions, deletions, any form of splicing, etc.--anything that risks creation of random frame reading)?