Jump to content


Divine Inspiration Of The Bible

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#21 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,542 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:06 AM

"Modern astronomy has shown that the constituent stars of Pleiades are expected to dissociate within the next 250 million years, and hence Pleiades is an open or unbound cluster. That is, the motions and velocities of its constituent objects are such that the gravitational forces between them are not sufficient to hold it together (as a recognizable cluster) over the longer term. A 'bound' cluster, by contrast, can be shown to still be a recognizable grouping even if its motions are projected forward by a billion years or so."

Jake, I can only maintain a level of diplomacy for so long, so here it is - don't be dumb and waste my time. Read what you just quoted. For this creation author to accept evolutionary redefinition of "bound" to mean to "dissociate within the next 250 million years" is equivocation at best.. When God wrote "who can Bind the Pleiades", it is a completely accurate statement in the context of a young universe. If you believe God is working in the context of an old universe, then by golly you can reject this verse and make excuses for it.

I don't expect you to believe the verse, given your world view and rejection of the Bible. But I do expect you to accept surface facts, such as

1) The Pleiades are CURRENTLY gravitationally bound, and will remain so for a long time
2) The Bible contains a verse where God claims to have bound the Pleiades

Do you deny either of these two facts? If yes, then don't expect a reply becuase you are too dumb to help and you might as well believe in pink monkeys that fly. If no, can 't you see that Hartnett makes an absurd argument for being someone who claims to believe in a YOUNG universe?


#22 ikester7579



  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 December 2011 - 12:12 PM

Are you really claiming that ancient people would have been otherwise unaware that there are seasons, days and years? You don’t need divine inspiration to know whether the sun or moon is out, and for how long.

Twist my words. Ignore what I said because you cannot address it. Not my problem.

And the concept of a firmament has long been shown to be incorrect. There’s no such thing.

By mere opinion. But every time they shoot the shuttle into space the evidence that such a thing can exist appears in the sky.

Posted Image

And because ice crystals can be magnetized everyone of the clouds produced always goes to the north pole because that is the closest magnetic pole.


How did such a thing form around the planet? According to what the Bible says, the earth was completely covered with water. So much so that it had to go underground before dry land could appear. gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

There was no atmosphere yet, so the water was exposed to space before it receded. Water in a vacuum will boil. Water exposed to the absolute zero of space will also try to freeze. So just like how the shuttle leaves that ice cloud, the water left a frozen semi solid firmament that surrounded the planet. And because ice reacts to magnetic fields, the firmament became a huge magnetic dome. And because such a huge magnet would create extreme pressure within itself, it made metallic hydrogen.

I agree that ancient people didn’t know that the Earth is tilted on its axis, or that it rotates. Does the Bible say that this is the case?

Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

That is so easy to figure out even a child could do it.

This just seems like arbitrary numerology. How do these things relate to the Bible? If the Bible’s authors knew that we are the 3rd planet from the sun that would be impressive. Did they?
If the Bible says that it takes 3 molecules to make water then it’s wrong there. A molecule of water contains 3 atoms. Is that what you meant?

Again, you are missing the point on purpose. If these things did not match up like I showed could I use them as I just did? Nope. So if you want to ignore this go ahead.

Again, with the exception of days and years, these are arbitrary, man-made measurements that post-date the Bible. And only one of these units (days in a week) fits in with your numerology.

So you ignore one point (days and years) to justify ignorance?

Still, I’m interested to know where you get these ideas about numbers. What evidence do you have for your claims about the numbers 3, 4 & 7?

You have made it clear that when and if I go to the trouble you will ignore it and categorize it. So to what point would I go to the trouble?

Maybe so, but perhaps that’s because so many are given away. There have been billions of copies of Mao’s little red book of quotations published, but we’d both agree that it wasn’t divinely inspired.

Preferred ignorance again.

If it outsells everything why is it missing from the bestseller lists? On Amazon UK the KJV isn’t even in the top 60 of free Kindle downloads, and that’s in its 400th anniversary year, when there’s been heightened publicity in the media.

Preferred ignorance again. A constant best seller does not need the advertisement to stay the best seller.

I expect that’s your perception, but that’s probably because as an English-speaking American who’s active on the internet the atheists you encounter are from societies where Christianity is the dominant religion, or the religion that they once had and then lost. A Saudi Arabian atheist would be more likely to attack Islam if he or she felt it could be done without risking imprisonment.

Preferred ignorance. Why don;t you provide proof that I am wrong instead of voicing it? Show me where atheists anywhere are going up against any other belief on the same level as the Christian faith. You cannot because that proof does not exist so your conclusion is wrong.

In my country and yours I would argue that in much of the media and public opinion, it's Islam that's been under greater attack in recent years.

If you go only by what the media reports of course it looks that way. They like making the Islamic belief look like the innocent victim and Christainity the problem. But we don;t fly planes into buildings now do we?

“Why go after a lie when you can go after the truth?” is an interesting statement coming from someone who sets up a blog and moderates a forum that goes after mainstream science. Is there a reason why that observation shouldn't apply to your actions?

Let's put this into prospective shall we? Today you use certain evidence to say I am wrong and a liar. Tomorrow your evidence gets proven wrong. Who was the real liar? And would you ever apologize or claim that's how science works? It allows you to be always right regardless of the evidence, and me always wrong.

Now let's put this same problem to the court system. Let's say You have committed a crime that will lock you up for many years. The witness against you changes his testimony everyday. He claims that the reason it changes is because it's improving and therefore getting better. Now do you think the court should accept that answer and allow the witness to continue?

So let's take it a step further. The scopes trial was the trial that got creation out of school and evolution in, right? The evidence they use has now been proven fraudulent, and debunked. Now should the judgment stand even though the evidence used has changed? And should it still be considered truthful even though it is now wrong because that's how science works?

This is more numerology, but nothing directly from the Bible itself. What tells you that 4 is the number of completion?

a) Four divided by twelve is actually 0.33

b ) Or 8, or even 9 if you count the dark moon phase. You could always say that 8=4+4 or that 9=3x3, if you still want to fit phases of the moon into your 3, 4 and/or 7 thing.

c) Or just 2 if you read the poetic refrains of the first chapter of Genesis. (And the evening and the morning were the nth day)

d) 400 now? Posted Image This is more of an argument for apparent fine-tuning than for the divine inspiration of the Bible. Unless the Bible mentions something about these relative distances. Does it?

e) As I remember it the Ionosphere isn’t really a separate atmospheric layer – it overlaps some of the others, so I think that’s a bit shaky.

Preferred ignorance again.

And even Creation Wiki says that Henry Morris’ canopy theory is largely discredited. But if the Bible indicates that its authors had divine inside knowledge about these layers then please show me where I can read it.

People abandon things when they can find no further evidence. I already have shown earlier in this post that there is visible evidence for this possibility. Not my problem that science considers debunked creation evidence or ideas eternally debunked because they don;t wish to deal with them.

On the other hand, if you’re just saying that if you add a layer that doesn’t exist to some layers that do then that adds up to one of 3 numbers that you are asserting are special in some way, then can you understand why I’m underwhelmed?

I never claimed it still exists.

Your first sentence here is flatly false. Prophecies are found in other religious books, such as the Quran & Hadiths, and the Book of Mormon. Much like your extremely precise figures, some are hits and some are misses. I could get similar results with a free day and a penny.

And they branched off the Bible. Though I know nothing about Hadiths,

You’re probably right, I doubt it too.

But if you can just give me the verses that support your claims above, I'll look into it, thanks.

You may say you will but you actions so far deem you are not remotely interested so what's the point?

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users