Abaddon,
You wrote: Let's just remind everyone (whilst you ponce around on your high-horse) that you used my first post on this thread (which was not in any way disrespectful) as an example of how Christians would not be treated with respect in such threads. You lied about me, implying I was disrespectful when I had not been.
In the post you refer to, you wrote: If there was no guidance from god in writing the Bible, then trying to reconcile the Genesis account to science is likely to be as accurate as reconciling the Greco-Roman creative myths in a similar fashion. They might appear to work, but it's more due to imagination on the part of those making the fit than any actual fit there is.
I responded by saying: As I think Abaddon's post makes plain, regardless of how well anyone here may show that the scriptures may actually speak in harmony with proven scientific realities, it is unlikely that the scriptures or the one defending them will ever be very much respected on this forum.
In saying that, I did not lie about you. And I did not imply that you were being disrespectful. However, it appears that I misunderstood what you wrote. Because I did I replied poorly.
You wrote: As you are yet to apologise for your behaviour it seems your double-standard for accuracy is matched by your double standard as regards personal conduct.
But as you know, or maybe have already forgotten, earlier in this same thread (page 10), I wrote: I'm sure I worded something I said to you poorly and in the process offended you. For that I am sorry. Please forgive me.
You then rejected my apology, saying: You lied about me, you didn't call me a liar. So, apologise for what you did, not for something you didn't do.
OK. I apologize for understanding you to say that any Christian who tries to reconcile the Genesis account of creation and the flood with science will only be able to do so in his imagination. You didn't exactly say that. You said that will only be true, "If there was no guidance from god in writing the Bible." That being the case, I admit I misrepresented what you said. However, I assure you that I did so as a result of misunderstanding what you wrote. But in any case, I again ask for your forgiveness. I was wrong. I'll try to read what you write more carefully in the future before responding to it.
So, since you say I misrepresented what you wrote (by missing the word "If"), are you saying that you feel there is a possibility of, "guidance from god in writing the Bible" ? Just curious.
You wrote: Now, you have been shown that there is NOT an exact 400 x ratio between Sun and Moon diameters, yet you continue to say; "But it can truthfully be said that the sun is always exactly 400 X the size of the moon, in diameter..."
As I wrote earlier, since you have shown me that the actual ratio is most likely not exactly 400, but 400 decimal point something or other, in the future I will be careful to always refer to this ratio with the words, "nearly exact."
You wrote: you are lying, intentionally. ... who is the father of the lie a Christian? If you lie, who's YOUR daddy?
Since I have now apologized to you for misrepresenting your views, I hope you will please stop these insulting, personal attacks.
You wrote: Oh, and the paper you posted just shows the Sun's diameter is not constant NOT THAT IT IS EXACTLY 400x that of the Moon.
I posted it, not to show that the Sun's diameter is exactly 400 X the size of the moon's diameter, and not to show that the Sun's diameter is not constant. I posted it to show that it is virtually impossible to ever say for sure exactly what the Sun's diameter is to the very mile, as we can with the moon's diameter. For different systems of measuring it produce different results. And at times even the same system of measuring it has produced contradictory results.
You wrote: As I have repeatedly said, you have little care for glorifying god, just yourself and your own errant theories.
Again, I hope in the future you will keep your posts constructive and dispense with all these insulting, personal attacks. I complemented Alan F for his quality post. For it contained new information very relevant to this discussion. Not just a bunch of repetitive low blows.
In referring to the number of stars in our galaxy, I wrote: Ok, so maybe I should say, "400 billion observable light emitting stars".
You responded: Errrr... you can't SEE 400 billion stars with the naked eye.
I didn't say you could. I know in making this estimate telescopes were used. The reason I said "observable light emitting stars" is because Alan was referring to planets and other various forms of dark matter, not just to stars. I don?t see that what he said changes ?400 Billion? as being the most recent and best estimate of the number of ?stars? in our galaxy. I tend to think that when Carl Sagan made that estimate he took into consideration that there are many new stars just now forming, and others which are just now dying, which may not now be able to be seen by us even with telescopes.
You then referred to me as being ?intentionally deceitful?.
Again, if you are going to participate in this discussion I wish that you would add to it something of substance, not just slander and insults. You wrote: It's great how the best estimate of Jesus' birth is now 2BC,
It is? Says who? That is only one man?s study. I and many others have also studied this subject matter at great length and disagree with his conclusions. But his opinion now is ?the best estimate?? Why is that? Because he disagrees with me? Or because Alan F says so?
You wrote: you post an article which only shows there could have been no 'star' as described in that year (if the star was a comet).
I posted much more information than that. In my post I clearly showed that, when Finegan dated the time of Christ?s birth, he underestimated the time of John the baptist?s ministry by three years. In reference to the 5 BC Star of Bethlehem article I posted, you wrote: you
assume it wasn't made up.
The article on the time of Christ's birth by Colin Humphreys, with specific emphasis on the "Star of Bethlehem", is the most comprehensive and thoroughly documented I have ever read on the subject. Humpreys who is "a renowned Cambridge University physicist" who "was recently honored by the Queen with the title of Commander, Order of the British Empire, for services to science research." "He has been president of the Physics section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He has published over 400 scientific papers and given plenary lectures at major international conferences throughout the world." Do your own Google search. But you seem to feel his work can't be as good as Finegan's. Why? Can you tell me why you feel Finegan's work is superior to Humphrey's and to that of myself and others who date Christ's birth to 5 BC? I'd be interested to know.
