Fahrenheit temperature scale came from the physicist Daniel Fahrenheit back in the early eighteenth century. I can’t find anything that indicates a link to Babylon unless his original proposal putting 30 degrees as the freezing point of water and 90 degrees as the temperature of the human body that put a 60-degree difference between them has some link to the Babylonian system with its love of units of 60.
If you have something more definite, that would be great.
Richard always goes back to the mechanistic view – but that is contrary to scripture which tells us that He is “involved” in the creation of everything, and that means the clouds, the raindrops, the winds, etc. because “apart from Him has nothing been made that was made”.
If it happens, God is behind/under it, sustaining it and thereby giving it existence.
It’s ironic that he wrongly claims that evolution removes God from things while he actually does remove God from things – and openly disagrees with the scriptures in so doing!
2 Likes
Does Scripture say how the storm came to be in the first place?
How many more times are you going to confuse miracles with everyday life?
Forget it. You believe what you want. Just don’t expect me to believe the same or claim some sort of inferiority or lack of faith for not doing so.
Richard
1 Like
So why do you contradict yourself?
Jesus did not even break any natural laws. A man in a boat said something during a storm. What’s miraculous about that?
I Didn’t
Only in your eyes
Jesus was no ordinary man. And he did not use ordinary powers
everything!
Just give up arguing!
Richard
The point is, yes, he did get involved with the weather, yes, there was great benefit in him doing so, yes, we have scriptural indication that he did, and therefore yes, you contradict yourself.
If you would open yours, you would see that he did not. What is supernatural about a storm stopping?
Not everything, as I just showed.
And of course I believe it was a miracle, but it was a miracle of timing and placing, just like the miraculous timings and placings of his miraculous interventions into the lives of others of his children.
I keep wondering, “What about walking on the water?”
I do not believe I said none of his miracles ever broke the laws of nature, so that isn’t helpful. We are talking about God’s sovereignty over everything, all the time.
OCD is the scientist’s gift of total absorption in their field of study. There is nothing day-job about the Nobel Prize.
2 Likes
Also, on the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point and boiling point of water are 180 degrees apart, so top and bottom on a dial.
A previous scale by Danish astronomer Romer, set the boiling point of water at 60 degrees, reflecting his coordinate background.
Passion of belief is what drives human purpose, whether or not that belief is in actual truth. Thus, the dogma of YEC.
Interesting note on passion: (bear with me) a fellow suffered a local brain cell death in the region governing emotion. Sent to the store to purchase cookies, he failed to return. When found he admitted that he had no qualifying response to any of the various products on the cookie aisle.
Facts are acknowledge, e.g. evolution. Dogmas are notions that lack sufficient factual support, hence are not fact-related. Dogmas deeply seated in one’s emotional fundament are (uh) fundamentalist.
Not so. Some dogmas are true, like “Thou shalt not put water or sugar in your gas tank!” Dogmas are important for life and safety, like how to correctly operate a nuclear reactor. (It’s not totally unrelated to doctrine and indoctrination.)
That was the whole point of the story!
Codswallop!
The whole point of the story was that the disciples were amazed that Jesus could do what he did. It was a miracle like any other.
Now it is you who claims that manipulating the weather is not only common it is always.
Therefore
God kills thousands of people every year! That is not providence that is murder.
Furthermore, The weather forecast would never be right because there would be no way to second-guess God.
It just isn’t true! You can argue scripture until you are blue in the face. it still isn’t true! So you are misreading scripture! Not me. You are claiming something that Scripture does not. Scripture only claims that God stilled one storm. (And you never answered the way the storm started.
Mark 4
A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped
It does not say that God sent a storm, it says that the storm came up. Implying that it just appeared. It does not say God was controlling it.
Jesus stopped it. God did not start it.
God does not control the weather in the manner you claim. it is run by the workings set by God. not controlled by God.
Now whether you believe that God does control the weather or not, you are in a vast minority. I can honestly say that in all my 60 (or so) years I have never heard of any one else believing what you do. No one. (and two come along at once)
Richard
What natural laws were broken? Who is sovereign over timing and placing?
Do you know what logical fallacy you just committed? (Truth ain’t democratic, fyi. ; - )
That won’t wash.
Maybe not but you are arguing a single inspiration that trumps all others.
You have accused me before now of having opinions shared by no one else. Well the boot is on the other foot here. (and besides there appears to be a person with almost identical viewpoints as mine)
Richard
The only thing that comes to mind that is ‘accusing you of’ anything is conflating methodological science with questionable theology/philosophy. You are not alone among Christians, and Richard Dawkins does it too.
That does not seem to be an argument that helps your case at all.
“Thou shalt not put sugar in thy (not your) gas tank” is fact, not dogma.
Dogmas are human attempts to condense profound theology into LEGO blocks useful to constructing a theological edifice.
- a : something held as an established opinion
especially : a definite authoritative tenet
Authoritative does not mean illegitimate.
tenet
: a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true
Tenets and doctrines can be true whether ‘generally held to be true’ or not.
The initial premise is based on popular YEC errors. “It seems that the main debate rages around two main issues…The uniformitarian view that science must be right and, YEC claim the Bible is self-evident and the ultimate source of all authority.” Neither of these are accurate descriptions of the actual position.
YEC often label science they don’t like as “uniformitarian” and treat that as an excuse to dismiss it, yet routinely use bad uniformitarian arguments to support YEC. The reality is that modern old-earth geology developed in the context of catastrophism, not uniformitarianism. Of course, the problem is defining “uniformitarian”. All reconstruction of the past requires uniformitarian assumptions. We cannot use the biblical narrative (or any other historical document) to recreate the past unless we assume that words do not abruptly and arbitrarily change meaning. We also cannot use the biblical narrative to recreate the past unless we accept the premise that the laws of nature, human nature, etc. were the same then as now. The challenge is working out what actually does follow fixed laws and what is more variable. For example, the “Enlightenment” idea of the earth and human life on it going through endless cycles was an imaginary fixed law, like the supposed progression of societies through Marx’s stages or the YEC misrepresentation of the diffusion rate of helium out of zircons under different temperatures and pressures. But we can’t make sense of the Bible unless we and the people then all know that dead people stay dead. If one asserts philosophical naturalism, claiming that natural laws are inviolable with no possibility of miracles, then obviously one rejects miracles. So-called methodological naturalism however, does not imply nor lead to philosophical naturalism. At every moment of every day, we are assuming that natural laws will work. This is a major point of Genesis 1. We do not need to worry about rival gods, chaos monsters, or uncontrolled forces - everything is a part of God’s creation and follows His commands. Like Moses with the burning bush, we should take a closer look if something seems to not follow the usual patterns. But they are the usual patterns, and we need to have good reason to think that something did not follow them.
How do we know that Song of Songs 6:5 doesn’t really mean that she had a bunch of goats running around on her head? We examine the available evidence. The relative size of heads and goats rules out that interpretation, no matter how self-evident it is to someone with a poor grasp of metaphors. Likewise, the evidence from God’s physical creation plainly and unambiguously points to a vast age for the earth, as has been clear since the mid-1770’s and suspected since the late 1600’s. Not one science-based argument against an old earth actually gives an accurate representation.
The modern YEC movement puts the claims of creation science, not the Bible, as the authority. This is especially conspicuous when YEC sources claim to be providing something like a “biblical explanation of the Grand Canyon”. The Bible doesn’t say anything about the Grand Canyon. They are providing a young-earth argument and marketing that as the biblical option. But the “self-evident” reading of the Bible of YEC is actually a modernistic interpretation that elevates science rather than the Bible. It claims that the Bible has to be scientific to be true, and makes up bogus science to support their claims rather than obeying the biblical commands to not bear false witness. “I read the Bible as teaching a YEC position, but don’t know how that fits with science” would come closer to treating the Bible as the authority.
Although the basic message of salvation is straightforward, Peter noted that some things are hard to understand. YEC fails to distinguish between “anyone can read the Bible and learn for themselves” and “I can read the Bible and ignore millennia of church scholarship to push my own interpretation.”
Given that Barnard in fact did quite a lot of scientific research that made use of uniformitarian assumptions, your interpretation of the quote is likely to be inaccurate. “If the final outcome of all the boasted discoveries of modern science is to disclose to men that they are more evanescent than the shadow of the swallow’s wing up on the lake” sounds hardly different from the many biblical admonitions to bear in mind the brevity of life. Barnard was actually having difficulty with the idea that God could create a soul as part of forming organisms through an evolutionary process. But that is a mistake on Barnard’s part (and on the part of plenty of unbelievers as well). God could provide a soul in many ways, and there are many possible relationships between the soul and the physical body. The claims fashionable among some in neuropsychology that experiments disprove a dualistic body-soul model are silly; all the experiments show is that the physical body is involved in the process of decision-making, which must be true in a dualistic model as well as a more integrated one. I would guess that the New Testament emphasis on bodily resurrection hints that the human soul is not completely independent, but the Bible simply doesn’t give much information about such details and there’s no practical experimental approach to answer them, either.
3 Likes
Dogma is typically understood as an opinion with religious authority. YEC is a dogma with religious authority because it appeals to the human imagination. The original premise of this conversation was about the dogma of YEC that allowed the believer to lie down to pleasant dreams that appeal to the believer’s imagination.