mercredi 18 novembre 2015

Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong

1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

I have already answered this point, but this one is stating it so ludicrously, I'll answer it again.

God’s perfection* and the truth of the Bible do not preclude statements that are not literally true. We must consider the facts of the time and place in which the Bible and its stories were being written.

Let us suppose that God communicated to his prophets and messengers “IN THE FIRST 29 BILLION, 369 MILLION, 859 THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND TWELVE YEARS, GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH”. Would this message have been understood?

We are talking about a time in history when the average person could not count far beyond the number of his fingers and toes. Counting into the hundreds or thousands would have been the province of intellectuals and scholars. The concept of Millions or Billions of years would have been incomprehensible. Could such a message have been comprehended, let alone accepted?

When my 5 year old asks how our television works, I do not attempt to explain radio waves, cathode ray tubes, transistors or satellites. I tell him that a machine at the TV station takes the pictures, sends them through the air and our TV catches them and turns them back into pictures.

Am I lying to my son? Am I misleading him? When he reaches college and learns the science behind semi-conductors, radio transmission and imaging technologies, should he accuse me of deceiving him. Should he dismiss everything that I’ve taught him as suspect? Of course not!

  • 1) Have you ever tried teaching your five year old son about radio waves? I started learning about this perhaps at six, seven, eight. At least before nine, when I became a Christian.

  • 2) "We are talking about a time in history when the average person could not count far beyond the number of his fingers and toes.

    No. We are not. Perhaps you were told this by some old earther when you were five years old, but since then you have grown up, and it's about time you start learning history for real.

    Moses who redacted Genesis, and on whose vision very probably the Six Days account is based (Adam was absent before day one and days one to beginning of day six, so it is not Adam's witness account), not only was himself a man with Egyptian élite education, well versed in geometry, but he had men who were able to count:

    Numbers 1:[20] Of Ruben the eldest son of Israel, by their generations and families and houses and names of every head, all that were of the male sex, from twenty years old and upward, that were able to go forth to war, [21] Were forty-six thousand five hundred.

    Some people of a purely "scientific" civilisation have this kind of preconception about "people in the past", but this is not due to their expertise in catodes and radio waves, it is due to their lack of expertise in history.

    • For one, in a century from which there is ABUNDANT evidence surviving, like 20th, you can decade by decade with very good confidence say what the average person either knew or thought he knew, depending on the subject matter and on your viewpoint of it. History cannot say whether Big Bang happened, but it can decade for decade tell you how probable it was for a 20th C. man to think he knew BB happened. If I had agreed with O'Neil, I would have said "who knew" etc, but I don't.

      We have very scarce evidence from the century of the Exodus.

    • For another, this science only oriented subculture has a great propensity to patronise Christianity, Philosophy, Creation account of Genesis, Long Day account in Joshua and so on, and therefore to tell tall tales of how "ignorant" people were in the past.

    • And, third, as I already mentioned, what we do know about this period and about humanity in general, very much suggests the opposite of what Mike O'Neil just stated.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Odo of Tours

* Taken from : Old Earth Creation Science
Discussion of Creation and Science
by Mike O'Neil
© Old Earth Ministries
First Published 15 July 2004

19 commentaires:

  1. I tend to believe you!!! It is clear that so called scientific method which declared age of the Universe at around 13 billion years (what a number - bleah!!!) is not clear at all!! The so called scientists, built a large telescope that is capable to see in the deep space at around 13 billions light years (via long time exposures) and discovered galaxies already formed at that distance!!! So they declared that this is the age of the Universe... Well, why not to wait until we build a twice as big telescope, to see the Universe and the galaxies at 26 billion light years and make a most logical conclusion... Not to mention that the actual theory of the expansion of the Cosmos can't explain the all big dimensions of it. The scientist invented a so call Inflation period, where the Universe expanded with a speed bigger than the speed of light which is in the contradiction with their own laws of physics (the Einstein theory). They also invented a so called dark energy and dark matter (what a name, why not white matter or energy or at least invisible?) to explain this inconsistencies... And again this probes that the human science is not as developed as people tend to think....

  2. Hello Mircea! I was thinking of you!

    "The so called scientists, built a large telescope that is capable to see in the deep space at around 13 billions light years"

    When you see a Church across the Danube, how do you tell how far away the Church is?

    "It must be ten meters away, or four light years away, because my eyes can see ten meters far or four light years far"?

    No, the Church may be further off than ten meters and certainly is closer than 4 light years.

    Your method is sth like "I know how far that tree beside the Church is, because I know it is three meters high and I can see its roots and top branch between my thumb and pinky finger (little finger), and so it must be ... meters away."

    Now, astronomers started with a similar plan.

    FIRST check out how far the stars are by parallax.

    Works for some of the "closer" ones with bigger parallax.

    THEN check out how big stars are, like certain types would be that big because at distance x they look this big and at distance y they look that big.

    THEN use that to check out how far others are, if they are of such a type (main series, supposed to be same type as sun, or red giant or red dwarf or blue .... ok, you get what I am talking about), they should have the size so and so and if they only look so and so big they must be so and so far away.

    THEN they use that to check out how pulsating stars should look and use that to check out how far stars involving such among them are.

    An eye can see as far as the light can carry, and it can carry from one end of cosmos to another. One exception, if light from very far off is very slight, light that is closer and stronger may make it look like total darkness. Also, the smaller an object is, the sooner will its angle (you are a photographer and know this) be too small to perceive.

    So, the question is not if your eye or telescope "can look that far". The question is if the method for checking the distances work.

    Do you think they do?

    I do not think so. But I'll first hear what you have to say before I give my solution.

    1. What I had to say is that the scientific theories of the Universe and the distances between the stars or the galaxies are not coherent in the best case. The accepted scientific theories does not explain the reality.

    2. That I agree on, I just wanted to know if you wanted a go at pointing where the trouble is.

      My turn, then : the trouble is in the very first step, in determining stellar distances by parallax.

      IF Earth turns around Sun each year, THEN an apparent movement of greater or smaller apparent size is really only one movement with only one size, but seen in reverse, namely that of Earth.

      IF that is true, how small or big a star's movement looks like doesn't change the actual size of "Earth's movement around Sun" and so it is distance to a star only which determines how small its movement looks.

      IF instead stars are moved by angels, IF they dance in time with the Sun, and IF Earth is stationary, all this falls down.

      And the rest along with it.

      This is not the blog where I do my defense of Geocentrism, some of my arguments and others' arguments can be seen here:

      Geocentric Wikia

    3. It is very interesting what I have read and this theory can be very valid. I just hope that in the future, with the coming of Jesus Christ the entire true will be revealed. Thank you!!!

    4. You are welcome.

      When Jesus Christ comes, there will be no doubts. But I do not think we have to wait that long for this question.

  3. What are you saying is just great!!!

    1. Have you also checked out the next two parts?

      If I may politely suggest that?

  4. Yes, I do and I think you are right about the Geo-centrism and other things presented on this blog. To be honest, a little incertitude exists from my side but I am also convinced that the truth will be revealed once the Jesus will return. I am patient with that and even if the big return will come after our life it is not very important. Important is that the truth will prevail in the end, for sure!!! Thank you!!!

    1. Glad you liked them.

      Thank you for the enbcouragement, there may come days when I will need it.

    2. I just hope you are OK and you will be so in the future!!!!!

    3. I am so sorry to hear about that!!! Unfortunately I am also in the same big trouble!!! I rely only on my parents for a living (after what happened to me in my life they agreed to support me to the rest of their lives). But we are really poor and I have no true friends. The Romanian state gave me the option to declare myself insane and to give a pension of 50 Euros a month. I refused because I am not a beggar or really insane. I don't own a car or a credit card so I am in a miserable situation. I also didn't sell even a single photo even I have almost 100000 views on my site. I am very sad about that and I am very sorry I can't help. Please forgive me!!!

    4. In that case, you cannot help.

      Perhaps your writing this here is a a way for you to get help, if others read this.

      Best wishes!

    5. Perhaps your problem is you are trying yourself to sell it world wide.

      Everyone can download from your blog, and so everyone can get by ordering from you.

      If you gave a world wide licence, so a man in Copenhagen could sell a booklet "Pictures from Dobrugea" and a man in Paris "12 Months in Roumania" (with Calendars) and indicated where they could send you money, PERHAPS some might do that. But that is what I have tried, and I am still poor.

      You try it if you want to, you leave it if you want to. Up to you.

  5. Thank you for the advice!!! The problem is that no one has contacted me to offer me such a proposition... My offer, here, on my site consists in small sized photos, 1000x750 pixels big or a little bit larger but not suitable for large scale printing... If a visitor downloads a picture it can be printed only to a maximum 10x15cm format. Not to much or it can use the downloaded photo as a wallpaper on his PC display. My heart is telling that everyone deserves at least that. In time, I activated with success (I mean lots of positive comments and small rewards like Hall of Fame, Picture of the Day or prices in monthly contests) on French, Dutch or American websites. Unfortunately no one from the printing companies had contacted me for a proposition on selling my art so... that's it. From my point of view, the Bible is totally right. The world seems to be already run by the devil...
    I want to say that is a big lack of honest people in this world in these times.
    If you know honest people who want to sell my work with such a license I am open totally to this. Otherwise... free wallpapers to free people :-)

  6. I have some difficulty in finding people who are both honest and courageous too.

    The young people I have contacted were possibly daunted by the prospect of the daring involved - God knows if they will get some more courage. And the company I contacted is giving some excuse why they cannot do it.

  7. Never mind!!! You asked me for help and I asked you also for help, so indeed we can't help each other :-( I am sad but that's it!!! Perhaps God will solve this situation in the future... Thank you for this dialogue!!!!

  8. Multsumesc!

    I don't know how to put the hook under the t.