Ah, come on! The Bible says the earth cannot be moved, but it is moving - at thousands of miles per hour through space. The fact that the earth appears to be motionless is the whole point - people thought the earth was still and the sun moved around it, until astronomical observations began to cast doubt on this viewpoint. And I'd love to know how you get around the Bible describing the moon as a light. It appears to be a light, yes, but it isn't actually one.

I'm not going to enlighten you with a clear picture of what I think evolution is, sorry. It would be waste of everyone's time, when that Wikipedia article does a perfectly good job of explaining evolution already. If I asked you to explain, for example, what electromagnetism is, wouldn't you just direct me to something like Wikipedia as a starting point?

Mind you, I gather there is dispute among scientists regarding some of the finer points of evolution. But that's normal - there's often dispute on specific matters within a (nearly) universally accepted wider framework.

Counter come on! Not an English language expert but seems to indicate/mean earth cannot be displaced. Or can't it be? Do you still see a contradiction?

Unlike other things like electomagnetism, here the definition is ambiguous. People court is confused already.

@South Coast Kevin:

Once again, over and over again, you are *constantly* trying to cast doubt upon the Bible and what it says.

Not only that; but, the things that you are saying here about the Bible make me really wonder: -- "Kevin, DOES the Holy Spirit of God really live in your heart??!!"


Chess Fan

That's it, I give up. PA, go study English so we can understand you.

I do still see a contradiction, yes - sorry. But anyway, what about the Genesis description of the moon being a light; how do you harmonise that one with what we now know? (That the moon only reflects the light from the sun.)


No, that's not what I'm intending to do. I'm trying to cast doubt on a totally literal interpretation of the Bible, because I think reading the Bible this way forces Christians to tie themselves up in many knots of linguistics and logic.

My faith does not need the Bible to be fully accurate on matters of science and physical reality. I'm sorry that your faith does need this, because it leads you into denial of the evidence and the sidelining of your God-given intellect. We are supposed to worship God with our minds, but (in my opinion) your literal approach to the Bible runs counter to this. Let your mind join the rest of you in worship of the One who made all the wonders of the universe!

I'm much more concerned by his science methods and critical thinking background. He has demonstrated neither yet is critical of those characteristics in others.

It seems clear to me that his position is one of extreme confirmation bias. He will see only that which agrees with his prior position and rejects/ignores anything that does not.

For example, I carefully explained the basics of scientific methodology a several posts back and his response was simply a personal attack telling me to learn real science. Yet he never made any effort to explain what was wrong with my explanation (since there was nothing wrong with it I am not surprised) or provide a counter explanation. He just declared me wrong and himself the victor.

He repeatedly asks for proof of evolution but has already rejected anything that comes from the scientific community. He has also shown no willingness to do the background work necessary for the level of explanation he is demanding.

As such he is not an honest discussant and improving his English will not change that.

spock -
If my addressing or non-addressing (I hope Ed will appreciate my improved English!) of below is what made you say I am not an honest discussant, let me address it right away. If any other thing that I missed out or avoided as it appeared to you, let me know. I will try and address that as well.
I understand what science methodology is. At least in a broad sense. So I thought we stick to evolution and not divert this into a discussion on science methodology.

Of course, evolution, big bang etc. attempt to explain things in a scientific way, that is using scientific methodology. The issue, however, is with "observable fact" in what evolution and big bang try to consider and explain. That is why I am repeatedly asking for the definition of evolution. Is man evolving from monkey or from some primitive organism an observable fact as per "evolution" science? If so, is the definition of observable fact overstretched or distorted when it comes to evolution, big bang theory etc.? If it cannot be considered as an observable fact, can evolution and big bang be still considered scientific fact/theory/law?

If you say some mutations/adaptations/transformations are observable facts and it is acceptable to use these observable facts to explain an unobservable fact and in this way evolution or anything can still be considered as science, let me ask this. You must have seen the Petro's funny link post on another thread (politics??) about contribution to global warming by methane emitting dinosaurs! Can that also be considered an observable fact and science?

I hope you understand my point. And I also hope I addressed whatever you wanted to be addressed from me. So over to you, spock!

Btw, here is a Christian scientist perspective on evolution and science. Is evolution a theory, a fact, or a law

And again, before you give any detail explanation about "evolution science", please first
1. State what is evolution as understood within scientific community
2. Place or state whatever evidences you can from what is available within scientific community to see if it good enough to support the scientific claim of "evolution is fact".

Woud you care to explain?

I just think a plain, literal reading of 'The earth cannot be moved' means the earth is motionless. I don't really understand what difference you are trying to explain when you said maybe it means 'the earth cannot be displaced'.

It seems clear to me that the psalmist(s) believed the earth was stationery while the sun moved around it. Obviously we now know that isn't the case, but hey - the Bible isn't there to teach science. So I'm not fussed if the Bible is inaccurate in some matters of science.

Any thoughts on the moon being a light, according to Genesis 1?

I have heard in the news houses being moved. I do not mean the mobile houses here. These are regular houses. So when I look at a tall building, I say this building cannot be moved. What would you say to that? Can it be moved, or can it not be moved?

Please answer this hypothetical question.