Bob vrs. Scientific American Editor Michael Shermer
10 meg version
Thursday August 28th, 2003. This is show #171.
10 meg version
Thursday August 28th, 2003. This is show #171.
BEL: Bob vrs. Scientific American Editor Michael Shermer 08-28-2003
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
One Eyed Jack
New member
That was pretty funny. Bob wanted to talk about science, and Shermer just couldn't handle it. LOL!
It was funny that Shermer would not concede on even the most minor issues, like whether the Bible is correct in saying that the sun is a light, and not a god.
I also like how Shermer acted all suspicious of Bob's "agenda" in talking about evolution. Meanwhile, Shermer's agenda was clearly to discredit Christianity (at which he failed miserably).
I also like how Shermer acted all suspicious of Bob's "agenda" in talking about evolution. Meanwhile, Shermer's agenda was clearly to discredit Christianity (at which he failed miserably).
I have a different take on this discussion. Enyart was reviewing a list of famous scientists who, at least according to him, were creationists. Only problem was that most were from late 1800's and early 1900's and what their beliefs were at that time mean little today. There are few (I would say none but I am not sure) credible scientists today who believe in:
1. Young earth/universe
2. A world wide flood ala Noah
3. Dinosaurs and man walking together
4. Creation "science" as opposed to evolution.
I suspect that all the famous minds Bob Enyart was quoting would have different opinions were they alive and working today.
I don't blame the guy for hanging up, Enyart was being ridiculous.
1. Young earth/universe
2. A world wide flood ala Noah
3. Dinosaurs and man walking together
4. Creation "science" as opposed to evolution.
I suspect that all the famous minds Bob Enyart was quoting would have different opinions were they alive and working today.
I don't blame the guy for hanging up, Enyart was being ridiculous.
Free-Agent Smith
New member
As some people might say, "Good smack down!" :first:
Hebrew Cosmology
Hebrew Cosmology
From Turbo:
Indeed, one nice thing about the sun is that is produces light. But I see little in that observation that commends early Hebrew science, since that is evident to all people of all religions. But things get a bit more tenuous when you lump in the “lesser light” - especially if you interpret that to be the moon. (The stars are called out as separate items from the “greater” and “lesser” lights in Genesis 1.) If you call the moon a light, then it is equally true to call a rock in your garden a light. The light we receive from the moon is reflected from the sun, in the same way the light reflected from a rock allows you to see it.
Genesis 1 says the lights (Sun, moon and stars) were to give light upon the earth. In ancient times, some stars were noted to wander around the sky, but beyond this they were still classified as stars, with the scriptural admonition to shine upon the earth. Except these wandering stars are what we now know to be planets, and like the moon, they create no light, but rather reflect the sunlight, just like a tree in your yard.
The “lesser light” is to rule over the night. But it apparently is not very good at it’s job, since the moon is “up” during the day just as much as it is when it should be on duty at night, and in absence during the night as much as it is seen. In fact, if we count the fact that the moon, in addition to caring little for whether it restricts it appearance to nighttime, has this tendency to have phases, and seldom does it ever really fulfill its job of beaming forth on the earth. Just be glad the sun is better at ruling over the day than the moon is at fulfilling its swing shift assignment.
Back on the question of the sun, if the Hebrews were in possession of unusual divine guidance on Cosmology, why no mention of an aspect of the sun that is equally important as the source of light – and that is as a source of gravitational attraction? The wonderful light would do little good if the earth were not bound to the vicinity of the sun by the balance between motion and gravity, and instead went hurtling off into interstellar space.
There are more subtle effects of the sun as well, some of which are just being studied by modern science. Sunspots, gamma rays, neutrinos, auroral displays, the Van Allen belts, the Ozone hole, interstellar winds, and stellar evolution are all factors that missed mention in the Genesis account.
Whether or not the sun should be worshipped is a matter of theology. But to go beyond that and claim exceptional scientific insight into the Cosmology of the universe is not something I see very clearly laid out in the Bible.
Hebrew Cosmology
From Turbo:
Listen very carefully again to the exchange, and then think about what we know from science. Is the sun a light? According to Bob’s understanding of the bible, that is the reason it was placed in the sky, along with the “lesser light” (which Bob infers is the moon). He takes this to be a validation of early Hebrew cosmology.
Indeed, one nice thing about the sun is that is produces light. But I see little in that observation that commends early Hebrew science, since that is evident to all people of all religions. But things get a bit more tenuous when you lump in the “lesser light” - especially if you interpret that to be the moon. (The stars are called out as separate items from the “greater” and “lesser” lights in Genesis 1.) If you call the moon a light, then it is equally true to call a rock in your garden a light. The light we receive from the moon is reflected from the sun, in the same way the light reflected from a rock allows you to see it.
Genesis 1 says the lights (Sun, moon and stars) were to give light upon the earth. In ancient times, some stars were noted to wander around the sky, but beyond this they were still classified as stars, with the scriptural admonition to shine upon the earth. Except these wandering stars are what we now know to be planets, and like the moon, they create no light, but rather reflect the sunlight, just like a tree in your yard.
The “lesser light” is to rule over the night. But it apparently is not very good at it’s job, since the moon is “up” during the day just as much as it is when it should be on duty at night, and in absence during the night as much as it is seen. In fact, if we count the fact that the moon, in addition to caring little for whether it restricts it appearance to nighttime, has this tendency to have phases, and seldom does it ever really fulfill its job of beaming forth on the earth. Just be glad the sun is better at ruling over the day than the moon is at fulfilling its swing shift assignment.
Back on the question of the sun, if the Hebrews were in possession of unusual divine guidance on Cosmology, why no mention of an aspect of the sun that is equally important as the source of light – and that is as a source of gravitational attraction? The wonderful light would do little good if the earth were not bound to the vicinity of the sun by the balance between motion and gravity, and instead went hurtling off into interstellar space.
There are more subtle effects of the sun as well, some of which are just being studied by modern science. Sunspots, gamma rays, neutrinos, auroral displays, the Van Allen belts, the Ozone hole, interstellar winds, and stellar evolution are all factors that missed mention in the Genesis account.
Whether or not the sun should be worshipped is a matter of theology. But to go beyond that and claim exceptional scientific insight into the Cosmology of the universe is not something I see very clearly laid out in the Bible.
Tye Porter
New member
Gotta Love Pastor Bob.
Gotta Love Pastor Bob!!!
Gotta Love Pastor Bob!!!
Re: Hebrew Cosmology
Re: Hebrew Cosmology
2.) Before the invention of the telescope in the 17th century, people thought the number of stars could be calculated. Tycho Brahe said there were 777 stars. Then Kepler said, "No, you're wrong. There's 1005." Then Ptolemy came along and said, "You're both wrong. There's 1056 stars." All 3 of them must have laughed at Jeremiah 33:22 for stating the stars "cannot be numbered." Scientists did not have to wait until the invention of the telescope to learn this. All they had to do was to humble themselves and believe the Bible and they would have saved themselves thousands of years of fruitless guessing.
3.) Scientists used to believe that all the stars were basically the same. But today, scientists are busy cataloging all the sizes and varieties of stars. Once again, modern science is supporting the Bible - this time in First Corinthians 15:41 - "one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."
4.) Job 26:7 says the earth is suspended on space: "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
Re: Hebrew Cosmology
1.) The fact that the weight of the earth is balanced was discovered in 1959. But modern science did not have to wait until 1959 to learn the earth is balanced. All scientists had to do was to simply read Isaiah 40:12 - "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, or with the breadth of His hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?"ThePhy said:
2.) Before the invention of the telescope in the 17th century, people thought the number of stars could be calculated. Tycho Brahe said there were 777 stars. Then Kepler said, "No, you're wrong. There's 1005." Then Ptolemy came along and said, "You're both wrong. There's 1056 stars." All 3 of them must have laughed at Jeremiah 33:22 for stating the stars "cannot be numbered." Scientists did not have to wait until the invention of the telescope to learn this. All they had to do was to humble themselves and believe the Bible and they would have saved themselves thousands of years of fruitless guessing.
3.) Scientists used to believe that all the stars were basically the same. But today, scientists are busy cataloging all the sizes and varieties of stars. Once again, modern science is supporting the Bible - this time in First Corinthians 15:41 - "one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."
4.) Job 26:7 says the earth is suspended on space: "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
star 1 and 2 and 3 ...
star 1 and 2 and 3 ...
From Jefferson:
I question this because the mass of the earth and its essential distribution of mass were known far before 1959.
Galileo is the classic example, but there are others, where religion strongly resisted the new realizations from science that astronomy brought forth. To pretend that the correct knowledge was spelled out in the Bible the whole time is to indict the intellect of 15 centuries of Christians, many of whom were faithful and righteous, yet who did not see in those passages what is now alluded to be the meaning.
No matter what criteria you might agree to for deciding whether or not something is a star, it would not be hard to write a number big enough. Just conceptually freeze space at a moment in time, and then put a numbered label on each star.
Your response does not address the specifics of what I mention in Bob Enyart’s statements – that the moon does not create light, but only reflects it, and it’s lackadaisical job of “ruling over the night”.
Sorry, but a dime-store book on astronomy goes vastly beyond the cosmology of the Bible. Use your Bible for your faith and theology, not science.
star 1 and 2 and 3 ...
From Jefferson:
I am not familiar with what is meant by the weight of the earth being balanced. And can you be more specific on what was done in 1959 to show that it was balanced?
I question this because the mass of the earth and its essential distribution of mass were known far before 1959.
This scriptural quotation and the others that you offer are open to a multitude of interpretations. If indeed the meanings are as obvious as you say, then I would expect these understandings to have been the norm within the Christian community over the past two millennia. In your quotation I see a great deal of metaphorical symbolism, but if the intention was to elucidate some fundamental facts of cosmology, then the authors did a miserable job. Is there something wrong with stating facts in plainly understood terms?
Galileo is the classic example, but there are others, where religion strongly resisted the new realizations from science that astronomy brought forth. To pretend that the correct knowledge was spelled out in the Bible the whole time is to indict the intellect of 15 centuries of Christians, many of whom were faithful and righteous, yet who did not see in those passages what is now alluded to be the meaning.
This is another thing that I have not heard before. I would appreciate some documentation on these numbers – this sounds very much like the type of urban myth that fades under real scrutiny.
What is meant by not being able to number the stars? Science knows that stars are continually being born, living out their lives and dying. Is a gas cloud in the early stages of contraction a star? Or must it heat enough to emit visible light first? Or must it be hot enough to start the process of burning nuclear fuel first? How about those that have lived out their lives, and now exist as dark cinders hidden in space?
No matter what criteria you might agree to for deciding whether or not something is a star, it would not be hard to write a number big enough. Just conceptually freeze space at a moment in time, and then put a numbered label on each star.
The early days of astronomy indeed provided some surprises in the diversity of the members of the stellar family. Even now we sometimes find a rogue cousin that is unique in some way. But to say that the Bible speaking of “glory” of stars is a reference to the diversity of stars is more extrapolation than I am comfortable with. If you were to tell King David or Mustard Seed (the two primary advocates of Mormonism at TOL) that that passage was speaking of cosmology, they would heartily disagree with you (for them, that is an allusion to glories that people may receive in the resurrection).
Complete the explanation. Tell me in a scientifically literate way what it means to “stretch out the north over the empty place” (how about the south?) Why speak of hanging the earth at all (I am familiar with more legends that said the earth was held up than one that said it was “hung” from anything, so I would expect a correction to ancient cosmology to address that.)
Your response does not address the specifics of what I mention in Bob Enyart’s statements – that the moon does not create light, but only reflects it, and it’s lackadaisical job of “ruling over the night”.
Sorry, but a dime-store book on astronomy goes vastly beyond the cosmology of the Bible. Use your Bible for your faith and theology, not science.
- Status