Which explanation of the flat earth in Daniel's vision is VASTLY more likely to be correct?
1. That the flat earth represents the historically known flat earth views of the author's time and place?
2. That the author, who knew no better than his culture, was magically dissuaded from that meaning when he came to write it, lest some fundamentalist in the 21st century should have to face up to history?
Can you answer that dispassionately and rationally or are you only able to toe the party line? A vision is a vision. It conveys and idea through visual references. Daniel in vision also saw a leopard with wings, and a giant statue made of gold silver bronze and iron, each metal represented in various parts of the statue, which was destroyed by a stone hurled at speed by no mans hand. Since I assume you are ignorant of the meanings, these things represented kingdoms and nations, they weren¨t things Daniel believed to exist. Either of your two options are simply not relevant.
There is no mention of a vision in the text. You just made that up as a cheap excuse not to admit it's a flat earth, again the same flat earth view of that time and culture. You sir, are in above your head, and your snarky remark is antithetical to decent discourse. You don¨t understand Biblical exegesis, you don understand anything about prophetic visions, their purpose and what they mean. In other words you have slim knowledge you are attempting to apply to a subject of which you are completely ignorant.
And obviously you don't need to go up on a high mountain to have a vision. Hmmmm, I never said the confrontation between Christ and satan was a vision. I said it was exactly what it was, a confrontation between two supernatural beings. Do you REALLY believe that those people were so utterly stupid as to think you could see ¨ all the kingdoms of the earth¨ from the top of a mountain in the Judean wilderness ? Are you familiar with the mountains in the Judean wilderness ? They are about like those in Britain, puny. You don think they may have climbed them, or talked to people who had ? They were ancient people, not stupid people. These two beings were capable of ¨seeing¨ whatever on earth there was to see. That is the whole point.
Also, you didn't tell me:
if the earth is spherical ─
What is the 'water under the earth' with fishes in it? (Deut 4:18). There are caves throughout the earth, very deep caves, that have fish populations.
What are its 'skirts'? (Job 38:13) I need to check this in Hebrew.
What and where is the 'end of the heavens'? (Ps 19:6) The border of the universe. Various shapes for the universe are proposed, but it is not infinite. In fact, the alleged singularity that resulted in the big bang was outside the universe.
What are the 'foundations of the earth' and where are they laid? (Pss 102:25, 104:5, Is 48:13) Are you familiar with plate tectonics ? Those plates are ¨ the foundations of the earth¨
What would shake the earth in the absence of those foundations? (Ps 104:5) I am a native Californian who has experienced many earthquakes. If these plates move against each other, massive earthquakes would result. If one were to begin breaking up, the entire earth would experience a massive and hugely catastrophic earthquake.
What is 'the circle of the earth'? (Is 40:22 - apologies, in my previous post I gave Ecc 1:22) What do you see when you look at the full moon ?
And how can a sphere have four corners? (Rev 7:1) A vision. Look at the other things written by John that he saw in his visions, gain, visual references to convey a message, not to be taken literally
And the overarching question again:
why would any disinterested but informed observer expect the writers of those passages to refer to a spherical earth when culturally they had no concept of one?
So you're using 'information' as a synonym for 'data'. Thank you for clearing that up. And I'd be obliged if you just say 'data' in future. Information and data are interchangeable, that is why people who work on computers are called information technicians, not data technicians.
What 'method' that 'understands' the data? Every organism must have on a cellular level a physical process that requires DNA to be read and processed into instructions for the huge number of chains of proteins to operate the organism. Not just any DNA will do, it must be very specific to ẗhe organism to be processed.
Are you referring to anything other than the ordinary operations of chemistry / biochemistry here? If so, what, exactly?
Yes, much more. Chemicals in any combination do not contain information, so, no matter how they combine, a functioning organism cannot result. Biochemistry cannot explain this quandry, I have done much reading on the subject by ID and non ID biochemists, no solution has been found.
Yes. Advanced biochemistry.
No need to wander around looking dazed and saying 'How? How?" You'll find a great deal of real information, deep understanding, about this in the genetics side of the modern theory of evolution. Research is ongoing, of course, but it's vastly more advanced than you seem to think. If you
really want to know, go and look it up. Oh, I have, Iĺl bet much more than you. The more genetics advances, the less likely abiogenesis becomes. Your alleged deep understanding is from someone complacently sitting on a pat and comfortable set of ideaś that generally no longer exist. You need to look at up to date and current research. Google abiogenesis and the information problem, I am sure that would be a good start.
Why do you think it sprang into existence fully formed? Science doesn't. Why aren't you following the progress of abiogenesis research and the ideas about how the elements of the cell might each have developed, the origin of the cell envelope, the evidence for and against, and so on? Either matter is alive, or it is dead. The exact same problems exist with dead pieces coming together to form a living organism. How do they integrate, how do they recognize each other and not reject one another, how do they combine in the right proportions, on and on it goes, with the final, where does the correct operating code for the organism come from ?
No, the theory of evolution points to the obvious. In any particular situation, the creature best adapted to handle that situation is more likely to survive and pass on its genes, and the others are less likely. That likelihood ─ natural selection ─ filters reality, distinguishes the results from simple chance. You think ? The mutations are by chance, so their contribution to survival of the fittest is too. An organism survives as the fittest because a chance mutation has made it by chance the fittest. Surely you can see that for yourself ?
Surely you can see that for yourself?
They MAY disappear, but if they're neither beneficial nor harmful, they'll probably just hang around. The filter doesn't catch them either way.
You were going quite well (though 'races through the species' is only one of the possibilities) until the last sentence, when you completely overlooked the filter of natural selection.
Didn't think you'd take your own bet.
The evidence that it's happened at least once couldn't be plainer ─ you're here. Utter bilge and nonsense. The evidence that it happened, at least once, is growing less and less. You are here, but it was not because of abiogenesis
And it's not necessary for science to detect a contemporary example of abiogenesis in the wild. The present conditions on earth may be inimical to such a thing, for example. What science seeks to do is demonstrate at least one possible wholly natural pathway from chemistry to life. Once it's shown that this pathway can exist, the abiogenesis question is answered in the affirmative.
