Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[DOC]

I came across this site that claims many scientific principles were actually presented first in the bible.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

[Hokulele]

Ha ha ha ha ha!

One of the claims is that precipitation was unknown at the time the bible was written. Yeah, like it never rained back then.

Ooh and snow was unheard of.

And cavemen! Wait, I thought fundamentalists didn't believe in cave men.

This site really is too funny.

[DOC]

Yes, but how many people knew that the rain initially came from the earth.

Job 36 verse 27. -- It is God who takes water from the earth and turns it into drops of rain. (Todays English Version)

[Hokulele]

Wrong. You are using a version of the bible that has been reinterpreted to more closely match what has been learned recently. From the original KJV:

For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:


You aren't very good at this whole "research" thing, are you?

And you have clearly proven that cave men did exist! Go Neandertals!

[DOC]

Actually, even though Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) probably never took a science course or had access to a telescope he seemed to know a lot about modern scientific theory.

Here is what I heard Dr. Carl Baugh talk about one time on his TV program:


Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7

[DOC]

Wrong. You are using a version of the bible that has been reinterpreted to more closely match what has been learned recently. From the original KJV


Job 36:27

For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:

Well, if you don't like that explanation of rain, how about this one.

Psalms 135 verse 7 KJV

HE causeth the vapours to "ascend" from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain;

[quixotecoyote]

Let me illustrate what they were talking about. This is how the ancient Israelites pictured the water cycle:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/Hebrew.gif

Endless waters above created by god which fall through windows in the sky to drain into the Great Deep. Very sciencey, eh DOC? Or is this still a few centuries too advanced for you?

[H3LL]

I prefer all the science stuff that god either didn't know about or was too mean to tell.

The number zero would have been a nice start. No special equipment needed.

Great link. I love the way that they actually think this makes sense:

Such a list confirms that the Scriptures are scientifically credible. It further confirms that the Scriptures were supernaturally inspired.

I'm off to do some experiments with Gravity Pixies*.

.

* Tiny pixies that grab hold of everything and pull them down. i.e. Bullets don't immediately drop out of the end of the gun as it takes a while for the pixies to catch up and grab the bullet. Faster bullets make it more difficult. I'm developing a faster than pixie weapon. Copyright H3LL 2007

[Safe-Keeper]

The Bible supposedly talks about the TV in Revelations. The relevant verses read:

For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth. But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them.:confused:

[H3LL]

In the DOC's link, "Dr" Henry Morris (is this idiot you DOC?) does not provide links to his scripture, nor does he quote them.

The reason is because he is a lying, liar and, I assume, expects the faithful to take his word for it:

I just looked at the biology section. I haven't done the others as all the lies and distortions just got me annoyed. Someone else may want to take the time to look at his other lies.

Here we go - Lying for Jesus: From the link:


Biology






Blood Circulation - Leviticus 17:11 - LIE - No mention of circulation -11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Psychotherapy - Proverbs 16:24; 17:22 - LIE - No therapy and the heart has nothing to do with emotions or behaviour.24Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.22A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.

Biogenesis and Stability - Genesis 1:11,21,25 - LIE - Nothing in the science of biogenesis says god did anything.11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Uniqueness of Man - Genesis 1:26 - LIE - When is the dominion over viruses and bacteria going to happen then? Still waiting.....26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Chemical Nature of Flesh - Genesis 1:11 - LIE - No chemicals or flesh mentioned - Lots of veggies though.11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Chemical Nature of Flesh - Genesis 24-2:7 - LIE - Here we have those famous and useful chemicals popular in medicine - "Dust" and "Mist". - How would science manage without them.Find the scripture HERE (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis;&version=9;). There is enough garbage in this post as it is.

Chemical Nature of Flesh - 3:19 - LIE - More of that chemical, "Dust".19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Cave-men - Job 12:23-25; 30:3-8 - LIE - A wilderness is a cave now. Well bats are birds, apparently, so wildernesses being caves is just as plausible.23He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them: he enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again.24He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way.25They grope in the dark without light, and he maketh them to stagger like a drunken man.

Well DOC - Utter, utter drivel in your link. Did you actually bother to read it or even check even one of the bible quotes.

Even more bizarre is that you didn't expect anyone here to look.

Even being very, very generous I found it impossible to make any lucid connections between the bible quotes and the science.

Try this book (http://www.lulu.com/content/827764) - it has all the real science in the Bible - You can preview it.

.

[MRC_Hans]

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

That is hardly rocket science. First of all, there is no mention of a universe, just that there is a void. Which is rather obvious if you are to describe the beginning of the world.

Then Earth appears in that void. Simple logic.

Then land and sea appears on Earth, where or when else could it appear? There had to be somewhere for it to appear.

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

You conviniently ignore that birds are mentioned together with sea animals ;).

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Well, maybe somebody had already figured out evolution. After all, they were cattle breeders.

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation.

At what?? At what time was there no precipitation????

Why shouldn't ancient people have quite some knowledge about evaporation and condensation? Don't you think they observed what happened when they boiled water?

and that the earth hung suspended in space.
Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7

That is a very generous interpretation.

......

However, the main failure of this line of argument is that it assumes that ancient humans were completely ignorant beasts. They were not. They had exactly the same brains as we have (and since you must be a creationist, I double dare you to imply otherwise ;) ).

At the time of the writing of the OT, they had invented ceramics (millienna earlier, in fact), built multi-storey buildings, developed simple metallurgy, quite advanced chemistry, had probably invented galvanic plating, were writing books (goes without saying, really), mastered fairly advanced math, and had complex (if somewhat flawed) knowledge of astronomy.

Why exactly should we be surprised if they had some insights in science that were later confirmed by modern research?

Why should we assume they needed divine help for that?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Well, if you don't like that explanation of rain, how about this one.

Psalms 135 verse 7 KJV

HE causeth the vapours to "ascend" from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain;Lessee. Somebody figured that rain had to coem from somewhere. He noticed that when a pot with water boiled on the heath, the water disappeared from it, cloud-like vapour billowed up, and condensation collected on things above. He then wen outside, saw the rain-clouds, and figured: Hey! God must be boiling a lot of water somewhere!

Yeah, no mortal human could ever have gotten that thought, that's for sure :rolleyes:.

..... Wait! I just did! Does that make me divine?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

So, to the question in the OP, "Is science getting closer to God and the Bible?":

There are really two answers:

1) No, it's the other way around: Now that science has found the real answers, bible scolars are desperately trying to reinterpret scripture to hang on.

2) Yes, science is getting closer to God and the Bible: Science is finding the truths that God and the Bible used to pretend to have.

Hans

[joobz]

The Bible supposedly talks about the TV in Revelations. The relevant verses read:

:confused:Well, sure. It predicts night of the living dead.

[Ocelot]

Actually, even though Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) probably never took a science course or had access to a telescope he seemed to know a lot about modern scientific theory.

Here is what I heard Dr. Carl Baugh talk about one time on his TV program:


Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7

Or Genesis 1:1 The Earth First
Genesis 1:2 Then light
Genesis 1:11 Then Plants
Genesis 1:16 Then the sun and the moon
Genesis 1:27 Then men and women
Genesis 2:7 Then a Man again
Genesis 2:19 Then animals again
Genesis 2:22 Then a Woman again

Can you really suggest such a self contradictory just so story is the parallel of empirical knowledge. That's as big as lie as when your God said "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm off to do some experiments with Gravity Pixies*.

.

* Tiny pixies that grab hold of everything and pull them down. i.e. Bullets don't immediately drop out of the end of the gun as it takes a while for the pixies to catch up and grab the bullet. Faster bullets make it more difficult. I'm developing a faster than pixie weapon. Copyright H3LL 2007


Gravity pixies?!?!?! Get real. Everyone knows gravity is caused by His Noodliness, pressing down on every single thing with his noodly appendages.

[Foster Zygote]

Gravity pixies?!?!?! Get real. Everyone knows gravity is caused by His Noodliness, pressing down on every single thing with his noodly appendages.

There is no gravity, the world just sucks.

[Garrette]

Gravity pixies?!?!?! Get real. Everyone knows gravity is caused by His Noodliness, pressing down on every single thing with his noodly appendages.Close, but you're missing the important part.

The FSM is attempting to grab everything with his noodly appendages in order to bring them up into his Holy Pastaness. Gravity Pixies are the fallen angels of FSMology and prevent the rightful ascension of all things into their deserved glory where they will be seated next to the Virgin Marinara.

[Upchurch]

I came across this site that claims many scientific principles were actually presented first in the bible.

What you have here, DOC, is a hydraulic engineer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris) who is (1) speaking outside his area of expertise and (2) redefining science to suit his purposes. He's fitting the facts to his theory rather than properly fitting his theory to the facts.

I would not recommend this man as a reliable or authoritative source.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, even though Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) probably never took a science course or had access to a telescope he seemed to know a lot about modern scientific theory.

Here is what I heard Dr. Carl Baugh talk about one time on his TV program:


Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea


Then the Sun and Moon.


Just like in astronomy!

[Jimbo07]

What you have here, DOC, is a hydraulic engineer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris) who is (1) speaking outside his area of expertise and (2) redefining science to suit his purposes.

I'd be tempted to say something mean about civil engineers, but I'm probably just nostalgic for my school days...

:D

[Apathia]

But don't you just love these "The Science in Star Trek" and "The Science in Harry Potter" books! There was even one for the X-Files.

[Ladewig]

Even if your claim were true, one has to wonder why your God included only those scientific facts that were completely worthless to humans a couple of millenia ago. Wouldn't your God have been much more praiseworthy if He gave instructions on how to perform artifical respiration, or how to wash out cuts with alcohol, or how to apply pressure to stop bleeding? Of all the millions of scientific facts available, your God choose to make veiled references to the rain cycle. What a Tool. Instead of including important information, He spends a whole chapter describing what kind of curtains will make Him happy (Exodus 26:1-37). Go peddle your version of Christianity somewhere else, DOC. No one here is buying

[bokonon]

And Star Wars:

Judges 5:20: "They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera."

[Ryan O'Dine]

If an argument for the truth of the Bible is that it agrees with science, does that not imply the validity of the scientific method? If so, then you have a problem. Rather, you have many -- the Bible contradicts science repeatedly and under no uncertain terms.

Either science is a valid method of approaching the truth or it isn’t; it’s conclusions either trustworthy or not. You can’t have it both ways.

[Foster Zygote]

Here is what I heard Dr. Carl Baugh talk about one time on his TV program:

"Dr." Carl Baugh's claims are about as well thought out as Velikovsky's.

[JoeEllison]

Ignore the lies for a minute. They are the same lies that "Christians" have been pushing for decades. It is boring, and attacking DOC for repeating these same boring lies isn't too interesting either.

Instead, it is much more interesting to explore the various mental states of the people involved. We can assume that somewhere along the chain, someone must understand that these ARE lies... but is that a safe assumption? We know that the people repeating the lies aren't applying any rational or critical thinking when they are presented with these make-believe "facts"... but how can they manage to hold jobs and dress themselves, and still fall for this nonsense?

There are a lot of really intriguing things to explore here.:)

[Taffer]

Ignore the lies for a minute. They are the same lies that "Christians" have been pushing for decades. It is boring, and attacking DOC for repeating these same boring lies isn't too interesting either.

Instead, it is much more interesting to explore the various mental states of the people involved. We can assume that somewhere along the chain, someone must understand that these ARE lies... but is that a safe assumption? We know that the people repeating the lies aren't applying any rational or critical thinking when they are presented with these make-believe "facts"... but how can they manage to hold jobs and dress themselves, and still fall for this nonsense?

There are a lot of really intriguing things to explore here.:)

Wishful thinking, and/or not thinking for themselves.

[fuelair]

BTW "DoK" Still haven't spotted that post on your college and major (still curious due to your comment about being great in Logic in college) (and the strong lack of support for that statement given his writings here). ( This refers to the Thomas Jefferson silliness/thread. My post 1866 there in response to his claim an noted here).

[linusrichard]

Hilarious. I can't find a single one that describes a scientific process or phenomenon that wouldn't have been known to the people at the time. Most don't describe what they say they describe.

It's funny that when you point out to a fundie some scientific error in the Bible, like bats being birds, or insects having four legs, the excuse is always that God had to put it in those terms because that's what would have been understood by the people at the time. But now comes the claim that there are all these things that wouldn't have been understood by people at the time (like snow!!), and that goes in the Bible as well.

Some particularly funny ones:

Number of stars:
Genesis 22:17
"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies"
(So... a lot? There's no way ancient people could have known there were a lot of stars without divine guidance? When exactly did humans master the scientific art of "looking up"?)

Size of the universe:
Job 11:7-9
"Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."
Isaiah 55:9
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
(Amazing! Who in those times could have guessed that the sky was above the earth, and that the universe was somewhat bigger than the earth?)

Electrical transmission of information:
Job 38:35
"Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?"
(The point of this passage is that people can't do these things. It's in the middle of a whole bunch of things that humans can't do. If you want to argue that humans today can "send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are," then you're arguing that this passage of the Bible is wrong.)

[bokonon]

Actually, even though Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) probably never took a science course or had access to a telescope he seemed to know a lot about modern scientific theory.

Here is what I heard Dr. Carl Baugh talk about one time on his TV program:


Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7

Here's another account:

Ezra 6:38 - Heaven and earth
Ezra 6:40 - Light
Ezra 6:41 - Water above, water below
Ezra 6:42 - Water confined to 1/7 of the earth; 6/7 dry land
Ezra 6:44 - Fruits and flowers
Ezra 6:45 - Sun, moon, stars
Ezra 6:46 - Sun, moon, and stars commanded to serve man.
(Sun, moon, and stars laugh behind God's back; there IS no man yet...)
Ezra 6:47 - Watery 1/7 gives birth to fish and birds
Ezra 6:49 - One living creature for the water (Leviathan), one for the land (Enoch)
Ezra 6:53 - Beasts, unbeastly cattle, and creeping things
Ezra 6:54 - Adam

I hope science never catches up to that 1/7 water, 6/7 land factoid; I much prefer 7/10 water, 3/10 land. And I do wonder how the earth (and light!) was created before the sun, moon, and stars. And how the flowers and fruit trees managed photosynthesis before the creation of the sun (oh, wait, there was still all that LIGHT, so God could see while he worked). And I hope Jesus won't need to be crucified again to atone for all the people who might mistake this for good science.

[zizzybaluba]

I came across this site that claims many scientific principles were actually presented first in the bible.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

To answer the thread's title question, "Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?", that would be a resounding "No".

FWIW, my introduction to skepticism was through a college philosophy class called "Science and Pseudoscience" and I recall studying one of Morris' books then... guess which side he was studied as an example of? :D

[Jimbo07]

We can assume that somewhere along the chain, someone must understand that these ARE lies... but is that a safe assumption?

In Space by Michener, there is a character who runs small-time UFO scams in the back of magazines during the rise of the space age in the United States. The character senses the winds of change as the 80s approach (and interest in space wanes) and switches to a televised ministry. I wonder if Michener wrote this as an indictment of liars at the top of ministries.

[JoeEllison]

Wishful thinking, and/or not thinking for themselves.

Well, yes and no. "Wishful thinking" makes me hope I'll win the lottery, not imagine that the reason I haven't won the lottery is that there is an international cabal of Jewish bankers, Freemasons, and Latin American meat packing glitterati conspiring to keep me from collecting my rightful winnings. There's a difference of degree AND of kind between normal wishful thinking and the willful rejection of reality in favor of some millennia-old sheepherder mythology, combined with a delusional twisting of both to create a false agreement between the two.

[Upchurch]

Here is what I heard Dr. Carl Baugh talk about one time on his TV program:


Carl Baugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh)

He and several others are known for claiming to have discovered human and dinosaur footprints together in rocks near the Paluxy River in Texas. Baugh's "research" has put him at odds with other young earth creationists. His claims are rejected by many in the scientific community as pseudoscience.

{snip}

He also appears on a weekly Trinity Broadcasting Network show called "Creation in the 21st Century" and is president and Ph. D alumnus of the Pacific International University, which many have accused of being a diploma mill.

{snip}

Baugh has claimed several degrees, at one point professing to earning three doctorates. All three "doctorates" are from unaccredited "schools." One is an honorary "Doctor of Philosophy in Theology" from the California Graduate School of Theology (not accredited). His 1989 "doctorate" comes from Pacific International University (not accredited), a distance education only "school" Baugh was the president of. His dissertation titled "Academic Justification for Voluntary Inclusion of Scientific Creation in Public Classroom Curricula, Supported by Evidence that Man and Dinosaurs Were Contemporary" was reviewed at the "Talk Origins Archive" website as including "descriptions of his field-work on the Paluxy river 'man-tracks', speculation about Charles Darwin's religious beliefs and phobias, and odd ramblings about the biblical Adam's mental excellence." In 2005, Baugh completed a Doctorate degree in Theology from the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University.
Yikes. This guy is an even worse source than the guy in your OP. At least Henry Morris had an education and didn't just invent things out of whole cloth.

[Jimbo07]

*Double freakin' post*

[Ryan O'Dine]

Ignore the lies for a minute. They are the same lies that "Christians" have been pushing for decades. It is boring, and attacking DOC for repeating these same boring lies isn't too interesting either.

Instead, it is much more interesting to explore the various mental states of the people involved. We can assume that somewhere along the chain, someone must understand that these ARE lies... but is that a safe assumption? We know that the people repeating the lies aren't applying any rational or critical thinking when they are presented with these make-believe "facts"... but how can they manage to hold jobs and dress themselves, and still fall for this nonsense?

There are a lot of really intriguing things to explore here.:)


I can’t help wondering how much difference there is between a fundamentalist who insists on things which are easily and repeatedly proven wrong, and brain-washed cultists.

ETA: And hey, did the forum clock update to the old end of DST, or is something paranormal going on in the temporal dimension?

[JoeEllison]

I can’t help wondering how much difference there is between a fundamentalist who insists on things which are easily and repeatedly proven wrong, and brain-washed cultists.

ETA: And hey, did the forum clock update to the old end of DST, or is something paranormal going on in the temporal dimension?

Why would you assume that there's any real difference at all?

[Crossbow]

I came across this site that claims many scientific principles were actually presented first in the bible.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

The answer to your question is "No!".

There, I hope that clarifies things for you.

[DOC]

Even more bizarre is that you didn't expect anyone here to look.

Huh?

[DOC]

Here's a site that claims the Bible taught the Big Bang first?

Go to Big Bang - The Bible taught it first (Spanish Edition)

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first

[Ryan O'Dine]

Why would you assume that there's any real difference at all?


I’m not sure if the concept of cultic brainwashing is especially well defined, but I imagine the minimum you need is some form of unusual coercion, and a external limiting of freedom of choice. If that’s right, then I question whether fundamentalism fits the bill. Are the means of persuasion particularly extraordinary? Are the thought patterns forced externally, or chosen freely? If believers “brainwash” themselves, is that really brainwashing?

I’m no expert, but I don't see a clear-cut case here.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Here's a site that claims the Bible taught the Big Bang first?

Go to Big Bang - The Bible taught it first (Spanish Edition)

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first


I have a friend who claims the Bible predicted string theory. Something about ten aspects of God translating to the ten dimensions of the theory. When I pointed out that 11 dimensions are now favored, he pulled another Biblical dimension out of his hat. When the theory that supplants string theory requires a different configuration altogether, you can be sure the Bible will be right up there, predicting all the way.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing eventually gets more tiresome than amusing.

[DOC]

That is hardly rocket science. First of all, there is no mention of a universe, just that there is a void. Which is rather obvious if you are to describe the beginning of the world.

The 1st verse is "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

I would assume he considered the term heaven to be the universe.

And I'm not completely sure but didn't Einstein put a fudge factor into one of his theories because his theory indicated a beginning to the universe and that didn't fit into his current belief about the universe. I remember hearing something about this was the biggest regret of his career. So if this is true maybe H3LL, who was talking about lies earlier, should call Einstein a liar too.

[skeptifem]

why would god make it so friggin cryptic instead of just spelling out exactly what happens and why??

[DOC]

why would god make it so friggin cryptic instead of just spelling out exactly what happens and why??

Eternity is a long time -- maybe He doesn't want us to get bored.

[Hokulele]

Or maybe the men who wrote the bible weren't scientists.

After all, they thought that bats were birds.

[bokonon]

Ignore the lies for a minute. They are the same lies that "Christians" have been pushing for decades. It is boring, and attacking DOC for repeating these same boring lies isn't too interesting either.

Instead, it is much more interesting to explore the various mental states of the people involved. We can assume that somewhere along the chain, someone must understand that these ARE lies... but is that a safe assumption? We know that the people repeating the lies aren't applying any rational or critical thinking when they are presented with these make-believe "facts"... but how can they manage to hold jobs and dress themselves, and still fall for this nonsense?

There are a lot of really intriguing things to explore here.:)
Deep down, even pithed fundamentalists realize that science is a more valid route to truth than the Bible. That's why they're so desperate to make their "revealed" fables match scientific truth wherever possible. There are dozens of "Science of the Koran" websites and films too. The problem is, it doesn't match up very often, so they have to bend and twist and lie a lot. When that doesn't work, they go off and invent "creation science."

[Safe-Keeper]

Gen 1:27 - lastly humansWell, maybe somebody had already figured out evolution. After all, they were cattle breeders.Except, of course, humans weren't last. Several of the animals we see today came after humans, the dog being but one example.

Even if your claim were true, one has to wonder why your God included only those scientific facts that were completely worthless to humans a couple of millenia ago. Wouldn't your God have been much more praiseworthy if He gave instructions on how to perform artifical respiration, or how to wash out cuts with alcohol, or how to apply pressure to stop bleeding? Of all the millions of scientific facts available, your God choose to make veiled references to the rain cycle. What a Tool. Instead of including important information, He spends a whole chapter describing what kind of curtains will make Him happy (Exodus 26:1-37).Actually a very good point.

[ponderingturtle]

Or maybe the men who wrote the bible weren't scientists.

After all, they thought that bats were birds.

And that insects had 4 legs.

[DOC]

Even being very, very generous I found it impossible to make any lucid connections between the bible quotes and the science.

So your willing to go on record that none of the almost 60 bible verses in this website is related to a science phenomenon or process.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

[H3LL]

So if this is true maybe H3LL, who was talking about lies earlier, should call Einstein a liar too.

You're an idiot.

Your Henry Morris is a liar.

Your promotion of lying for Jesus here and elsewhere is sick.


.

[skeptifem]

Eternity is a long time -- maybe He doesn't want us to get bored.

thats a pretty crappy excuse

[Beerina]

Chemical Nature of Flesh - 3:19 - LIE - More of that chemical, "Dust".

That a body rots away into "dust" is hardly a Biblical revelation, either. It's appeared that way as long as humans have had a brain large enough to grasp the concept of death.

To think that some god is just poetically describing chemicals and the atomic theory of matter as "dust" is quite fanciful itself.

[H3LL]

So your willing to go on record that none of the almost 60 bible verses in this website is related to a science phenomenon or process.

So "scientific principles" in your OP have now changed to "science phenomenon".

Henry Morris is a liar.

The organisation he belongs to is known for lying.

The people promoting the ideas from that organisation were called liars by a high court judge.

I picked Biology from Morris' list as a starter and each and every one was a lie.

It is said that birds of a feather flock together.

DOC - I suspect you are a lying, liar who lies but when you are not lying you decieve.

Well done.

.

[Ashles]

So your willing to go on record that none of the almost 60 bible verses in this website is related to a science phenomenon or process.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

Yes I am willing to "Go on record" (gasp!) to state that - (with the obvious exception of things they would already have known about 200 years ago such as the shape of the earth etc. and which we already knew they knew about. - It's hardly earth shattering the Bible states the earth is round and it rains).

Now, can you "go on record" and say that Revelations 11:9-11 - these passages:
9 For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.
10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them.


Actually predicts Television as claimed on that website.

Do you honestly believe that?

[Lothian]

Here's a site that claims the Bible taught the Big Bang first?

Go to Big Bang - The Bible taught it first (Spanish Edition)

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_firstWeir d. I am sure that I have read some where that there exists some Christians who claim the big bang never happened and that God popped the world into existence out of nothing in a 6 day magic fest.

It is obviously an obscure Christian cult if the bible clearly details the full events of the big bang and the subsequent expansion of the universe and the creation of solar systems and the like.

So Doc. Do you know anyone in this ignorant cult? Why are they incapable of reading the bible properly?

Is it because they don’t study it properly and instead flit in and out like bats and other birds?

[Tanstaafl]

Actually, even though Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) probably never took a science course or had access to a telescope he seemed to know a lot about modern scientific theory.

Here is what I heard Dr. Carl Baugh talk about one time on his TV program:


Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7


Ah yes, DOC, the energizer bunny of misinformation.

I see you have found a new liar to quote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html

Baugh Sites Examined

In my study of Baugh/McFall sites in 1982 and 1983 I found that none of the "man tracks" there closely resembled real human prints. Some were mud-collapsed and/or poorly preserved specimens of metatarsal dinosaur tracks. Several in striding sequence were dinosaur tracks with partial metatarsal impressions; these Baugh had identified as human tracks overlapping dinosaur tracks. Others were long (and sometimes curved), incompletely cleaned grooves which occurred near dinosaur trails. These may have represented intermittent impressions of the dinosaur's tail, snout, or other body parts. Other "man tracks" were vague, shallow, often isolated depressions (not in striding trails), with only a remote resemblance to human footprints. One set of "toe marks" were composed of an invertebrate burrow system (made by ancient worms or crustaceans). Other alleged "toes" were small notches or grooves at the margins of vague depressions, formed by selectively abrading or pushing into firm marl (limy clay) left at the margins of incompletely cleaned depressions, or gouging at friable portions of the limestone. Often this was done under the pretense of "uncovering" toes; such misconduct by Baugh was repeatedly witnessed by Alfred West and others present at the site, and can be seen in one of Baugh’s own video tapes (Baugh, 1982).

Despite Baugh's creative efforts, none of the markings on his excavations closely resembled real human footprints. Many of the print outlines, alleged toe marks, and other features showed unnatural shapes, sizes, and positions. When critical observers visited the site, Baugh would often state that the prints were perfect when first found, but that the toes had "eroded away quickly." Indeed, they did often deteriorate quickly--much more quickly than real features in rock, because such toes were typically composed of marl or clay incompletely or selectively removed from the substrate. Real track features generally remain recognizable for years or even decades.

[Upchurch]

Here's a site that claims the Bible taught the Big Bang first?

Go to Big Bang - The Bible taught it first (Spanish Edition)

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first

here's what they have to say:
All these scientists, however, were upstaged by 2500 years and more by Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Bible authors. The Bible’s prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, “This is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens and stretched them out.”


Well, not exactly. They conveniently quoted only a small portion.
Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
In the Bible's "version" of the Big Bang Theory, not only were the heavens stretched out, but the Earth (and presumably al planets) where spread forth. In fact, planets are collections of matter that are pulled in by the effects of gravity. Spreading the earth out would not have caused it to break apart, not form.

Obviously, the person or persons who wrote this passage did so not from a position of scientific knowledge. They got lucky on the first part (assuming you take "the heavens" to mean "the Universe") by a lucky chance use of imagery. They got it dead wrong on the second, which is why it is not included in the article.

The article's authors are cherry-picking, DOC. They are pointing out the good bits and ignoring where the Bible got it wrong.


eta: None of this includes the fact that that particular part of Isaiah is not talking about the origins of the universe. That particular line is bloviation about Oz God, The Great And Powerful.

[Hokulele]

Also, it should be noted (as I mentioned earlier), DOC is fond of a version of the bible that is known to be a very loose translation, completed fairly recently, and probably takes into account the current state of knowledge, as opposed to what was known at the time the first biblical accounts were being compiled. In addition to the other fallacies already mentioned, there is a good deal of circular argument being used here as well (see the post on the first page quoting Job).

You will notice that many of the passages DOC and his sources quote do not match what Upchurch and I have posted.

[Foster Zygote]

thats a pretty crappy excuse

Not to mention that it's eternity. Even if it takes a trillion trillion years we will get bored eventually, then we'll be bored for eternity.

[joobz]

Wow, thanks DOC, for that site. I know understand christianity. You have something you want to believe, and you make up stuff and pretend the bible agrees.


Let me practice a bit:

Jesus wants me on to gamble on a river boat -luke 5:3

mole men are real -1 John 4:5

God doesn't Like 80's Music -1 john 5:21

Jesus teaches the force - Matthew 17:20

God predicts the existance of Cleveland - Matthew 10:15

the bible predicts the Biggie smalls-Tupac feud. But it also says they record a new album in heaven. -1 John 5:7

[Foster Zygote]

Ah yes, DOC, the energizer bunny of misinformation.

I see you have found a new liar to quote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html

The "human prints" are among the least nutty of "Dr." Baugh's creationist claims. I first saw him about ten years ago on the Kenneth Copeland show while surfing channels when I was home sick one morning. The guy is coo-coo for Coco Puffs

[Tanstaafl]

He is indeed, so much so that most of the other creationists don't like to be associated with him.

Now that should tell you something!

[Tanstaafl]

Another site with information on several of the many hoaxes perpetuated by "Dr." Carl Baugh:

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/carl_baugh.htm

[Ashles]

You're all so out of date. Have you not read the recent Bible version from the Modified New International Version? That is now considered the definitive Bible.

To Quote from Genesis alone:
1 In the beginning God created the universe in one big bang and made it expand.

2 Now he created the earth and it was a barren chunk of rock, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light, but he did this before the previous verse

4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness which took little effort as it already was separate; and this still all happened before verse 2

5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day; because he had spun the volcanically forming earth on its spherical, slightly tilted axis at the rate of approximately one day per day

6 And God said, "Let there be expanses of water between the land to separate land from land." (subtle inversion for the bible scholars there)

7 So God made the land and water and allowed an atmosphere to coalesce above it. And it was so. And yeah he did it. And stuff.

8 God called the expanse "sky." and thus invented concepts, language and cable television. And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. And lo he had invented maths too.

9 And God said, "Let the land under the sky be gathered to one place, and let at be called Pangea." And it was so. And cool and groovy.

10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good, although even he admitted that after creating an entire universe out of nothing the simple feat of giving somehing a name wasn't really that awesome and probably not deserving of a verse all to itself.

11 Then God said, "Let the sea produce simple amino chains from naturally occuring chemicals: and eventually some form of plants and stuff." And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And occasionally slightly different kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. Because not much ever happens on Wednesdays.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
So your willing to go on record that none of the almost 60 bible verses in this website is related to a science phenomenon or process.

So "scientific principles" in your OP have now changed to "science phenomenon".

What's of greater importance is what the website you so vehemently criticized said, and the chart in that website has "phenomenon or process" as the heading so it seems to be talking of generalities not the pinpoint specifics you used in your criticisms.


Sciencex Phenomenon or Process Scripture

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

[schlitt]

Description of an occurance does not imply understanding of it.

[DOC]

Another site with information on several of the many hoaxes perpetuated by "Dr." Carl Baugh:

Well actually Dr. Baugh did not write the chart that was presented in the OP but can you list the alleged hoaxes yourself and explain why you think they are a hoax.

[Tanstaafl]

I'm not about to waste my time coming up with information that you will ignore.

Maybe someone else will be interested in what other creationists think of Baugh:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm

You ought to do at least minimal research before you decide to hitch your wagon to someone like this.

And I never implied that Baugh came up with that chart. You brought him into the discussion, not me.

[Hokulele]

Well actually Dr. Baugh did not write the chart that was presented in the OP but can you list the alleged hoaxes yourself and explain why you think they are a hoax.


Tanstaafl does not have to do this, as the site he linked does this quite nicely.

Let me guess, you didn't bother to read Tan's link. This is still a dishonest practice DOC.

[DOC]

Not to mention that it's eternity. Even if it takes a trillion trillion years we will get bored eventually, then we'll be bored for eternity.

Yes but there are 10 billion trillion stars that we know of. Maybe God has something else in store after we get done studying and exploring those areas. I once read where Billy Graham believes we will do heavenly work on other planets in the afterlife.

[DOC]

Tanstaafl does not have to do this, as the site he linked does this quite nicely.

I definitely wouldn't say quite nicely. If there is a clear concise argument about a hoax bring it in.

[joobz]

What's of greater importance is what the website you so vehemently criticized said, and the chart in that website has "phenomenon or process" as the heading so it seems to be talking of generalities not the pinpoint specifics you used in your criticisms.

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. What are you trying to claim?

[JoeEllison]

I’m not sure if the concept of cultic brainwashing is especially well defined, but I imagine the minimum you need is some form of unusual coercion, and a external limiting of freedom of choice. If that’s right, then I question whether fundamentalism fits the bill. Are the means of persuasion particularly extraordinary? Are the thought patterns forced externally, or chosen freely? If believers “brainwash” themselves, is that really brainwashing?

I’m no expert, but I don't see a clear-cut case here.
Telling a child that he or she will burn in hell for all of eternity seems pretty coercive to me. :cool:

[DOC]

Now, can you "go on record" and say that Revelations 11:9-11 - these passages:


Quote:
9 For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.
10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them.


Actually predicts Television as claimed on that website.

Do you honestly believe that?

I believe it certainly could predict Television because the only possible way people from all over the world could watch an event for 3 and a half days is by television. For example the pope's funeral and events that led up to it had almost non stop coverage for days on CNN. This would have been impossible at the time of the vision of John.

______

And I remember reading something about George Washington saying to not bury his body for several days to make sure he was dead.

[DOC]

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. What are you trying to claim?

What is the mistake you are talking about.

[ThatSoundAgain]

So your willing to go on record that none of the almost 60 bible verses in this website is related to a science phenomenon or process.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

"Related" is a pretty broad term to pick here, DOC. The bible talks about rain, meteorology talks about rain, therefore the bible is scientific. Is that where you're going with this?

But that's not the real issue here. As big and muddled as the bible is, you can find support for almost anything, just by stretching a bit*. So the only way you're going to demonstrate the predictive power of said book, regarding science, is to predict something that science doesn't know for sure yet.

So, DOC, look in your bible and tell us, why do galaxy clusters not drift apart? DOC, What is dark matter?

If you think that's too big a question, pick something more mundane, but make sure to pick something that mainstream science doesn't have a ready answer to. In short, tell us something we don't know.

* (for very large values of bit).

[joobz]

What is the mistake you are talking about.
I truly have no clue what that sentence was trying to say.
that's all

[Slimething]

When is the babble gonna predict something science hasn't already discovered?

[Cleon]

I once read where Billy Graham believes we will do heavenly work on other planets in the afterlife.

That sounds very Mormon...

[wollery]

"Dr." Carl Baugh's claims are about as well thought out as Velikovsky's.That bad? :jaw-dropp

Number of stars:
Genesis 22:17
"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies"
(So... a lot? There's no way ancient people could have known there were a lot of stars without divine guidance? When exactly did humans master the scientific art of "looking up"?)More to the point - if we were to be multiplied "as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore" we'd take up far more space than is actually available on the planet! :rolleyes:

[The_Animus]

DOC how is it you have been here so long and posted so many times without learning anything? Please for the benefit of yourself, and those you talk to, read up on the basics of critical thinking, logic, skepticism, and fallacies.

I guess you can't teach ALL old dogs new tricks.

Also God does not take the waters from earth and make them rain down from the heavens. God doesn't do anything. It's a natural scientific principal that has nothing to do with God.

[bokonon]

I believe it certainly could predict Television because the only possible way people from all over the world could watch an event for 3 and a half days is by television. For example the pope's funeral and events that led up to it had almost non stop coverage for days on CNN. This would have been impossible at the time of the vision of John.

______

And I remember reading something about George Washington saying to not bury his body for several days to make sure he was dead.
So maybe George Washington thought he was half a pair of prophets?

People from every nation could watch an event if a couple of prophets dropped dead on the floor of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and
bioterrorism was suspected, resulting in a quarantine, and on the third day the delegate from Haiti remembered he had some zombie dust in his wallet. Are you sure that isn't what the Bible is predicting? Doesn't it say people from every nation, rather than people in every nation? Maybe it's a Siggraph convention.

[Hokulele]

I believe it certainly could predict Television because the only possible way people from all over the world could watch an event for 3 and a half days is by television.


Heh, and the passages just before that predict the invention of Tabasco sauce (the lines where the prophets are breathing fire out of their mouths). Yeah, you really can read anything into the bible. :rolleyes:

[shadron]

In the DOC's link, "Dr" Henry Morris (is this idiot you DOC?) does not provide links to his scripture, nor does he quote them.

I presume this is THE Henry Morris, PhD, deceased (not DOC, I presume), past president of the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801716.html) and "Darwin of the creationist movement". Henry was a hydraulic engineer of distinction with standard hydraulics texts to his credit that are used to this day. Unfortunately, he decided to apply his knowledge to the Great Flood, and never looked back. Reputedly a very nice fellow to know, as is Philip Johnson, the founder of ID.

Incidently, NOVA has done a 90 minute program on ID including a re-enactment of the Delaware trial; it ought to be a hum-dinger, as anyone who has read the transcript of the trial might anticipate. They have prequel matter about it (including an interview with Philips) at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html, and the program will be viewable after Nov 14.

[Gregory]

Source of Energy for Earth
His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

...eh?

Atomic Disintegration
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness...

...are you serious?

[Fidelio]

...DOC stuff deleted...

Incidently, NOVA has done a 90 minute program on ID including a re-enactment of the Delaware trial; it ought to be a hum-dinger, as anyone who has read the transcript of the trial might anticipate. They have prequel matter about it (including an interview with Philips) at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html, and the program will be viewable after Nov 14.

Friend, if you have ever thought about starting a thread the above would be an excellent starting point. (See my sig)

[Dr Adequate]

Hi, DOC.

Short answer: NO.

Long answer NO, you halfwitted delusional pitiful lunatic, now would you please try to get in touch with the real world, y'know, the one that exists and that you actually live in?

[Dr Adequate]

More to the point - if we were to be multiplied "as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore" we'd take up far more space than is actually available on the planet! :rolleyes: But surely that is your Sekrit Jooish Plan?

[H3LL]

Long answer NO, you halfwitted delusional pitiful lunatic, now would you please try to get in touch with the real world, y'know, the one that exists and that you actually live in?

I wish you would speak your mind and stop beating around the bush.

Tut!

;)

[Ryan O'Dine]

Telling a child that he or she will burn in hell for all of eternity seems pretty coercive to me. :cool:


Mere coercion isn't enough. Brainwashing requires the "unusual" or "extraordinary". Hell is pretty commonplace.

But this is a derail. I'll let you have the last word, if you want it.

[Ashles]

I believe it certainly could predict Television because the only possible way people from all over the world could watch an event for 3 and a half days is by television. For example the pope's funeral and events that led up to it had almost non stop coverage for days on CNN. This would have been impossible at the time of the vision of John.

That's not a prediction any more than if you take the passage from
1 Thessalonians 4:14
We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

And then in a million years scientists invent an anti-gravity machine and some lunatic claims that because Jesus "rose" that the Bible predicted that.
And because they "fell asleep" it predicted hypnosis and anaesthesia and insomnia medications. And because they fell asleep "in him" the Bible predicted the film Fantastic Voyage.

Taking words stupidly out of context may be fun, but it has no bearing on reality. Sorry.

[Ocelot]

Here's a site that claims the Bible taught the Big Bang first?

Go to Big Bang - The Bible taught it first (Spanish Edition)

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first

Interesting though to be fair it does appear to be a list of bible quotations selectively chosen as suitable candidates for retrofitting into current scientific understanding rather than an actual teaching of the big bang.

I don't remember any theologians suggesting an expanding universe at any point in the 6000 years prior to Einsteins theory of General Relativity. Though George Lemaitre was indeed a Jesuit Priest he was also a scientist and it appears that his inspiration for his theories was not scripture but relativistic theory.

So on the whole, no the bible is very clear on creation, - God did it in 24hours some time in the last 10,000 years. Various references to God "steching out the universe" even if I could be bothered to cross reference them to see if they're not just creative translations don't mean that the big bang was predicted from biblical sources. Certanly nothing in there is rigorous enought to be of any scientific value even if the bible could be considered a reliable source.

[Ocelot]

I believe it certainly could predict Television because the only possible way people from all over the world could watch an event for 3 and a half days is by television. For example the pope's funeral and events that led up to it had almost non stop coverage for days on CNN. This would have been impossible at the time of the vision of John.

______

And I remember reading something about George Washington saying to not bury his body for several days to make sure he was dead.

Erm if we met a Picadilly circus and I pulled youir trousers down people from all over the world would see it. People from all over the known world gathered in large metropolises in the time of John, This might equally be interpretted as talking about navigation, jet travel, the UN or the Internet or any number of unreal supernatual effects acceptable to those who can concieve of people living inside whales or floods that cover the entire world.

This only counts as a prediction for television of prior to Logi Baird's inventions Theologians were stating that the end times couldn't come about because the technology for these predictions hadn't been inveted yet. If theologians suggested that cathode rays, radio broadcasts and satalite links were involve prior to these being known to science.

[Tanstaafl]

I definitely wouldn't say quite nicely. If there is a clear concise argument about a hoax bring it in.


You could always read it.

Carl Baugh was caught carving toes onto dinosaur footprints and trying to pass them off as human footprints. That's what's referred to as a "hoax".

[Tanstaafl]

But surely that is your Sekrit Jooish Plan?


Hah! Gotcha! You misspelled "seekrit"!

*Tanstaafl smiles smugly*

[Alice Shortcake]

I'll say this for DOC - he's thick-skinned.

Or just plain thick. :rolleyes:

[Zygar]

That sounds very Mormon...

Well, a little Mormon. Mostly in that Mormons are the only major religious group that even mentions the possibility of life on other planets.

[Garrette]

Well, a little Mormon. Mostly in that Mormons are the only major religious group that even mentions the possibility of life on other planets.Xenu, anyone?

[Tanstaafl]

No thanks, I have plenty of crazy already.

[fuelair]

So your willing to go on record that none of the almost 60 bible verses in this website is related to a science phenomenon or process.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html
Are you being incompetant, or pretending incompetance here? The difference between your quotes and the actual science are total - the quotes indicate nothing approaching scientific reasoning, interpretation. To use one already picked over: 'rain come down, make Absolump wet'(not the specific phrase) is in no way equivalent to "Heat from the sun causes the surface water to gain more energy and allows the more active (energised) molecules to escape the surface and move into the atmosphere........and as the water molecules gather around the dust particle (condensing) the drop becomes larger until it reaches a mass sufficient to overcome air resistance from the atmosphere's winds and begins it's fall as a raindrop!"

[fuelair]

I'll say this for DOC - he's thick-skinned.

Or just plain thick. :rolleyes:The latter - but great at avoiding real answers to questions:D:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[quixotecoyote]

No thanks, I have plenty of crazy already.

Perhaps a skosh of Rael?

[joobz]

I would say that Heaven's Gate is as completely nuts, but...well you know.

[Zygar]

Xenu, anyone?

Sorry. I meant to say "Christian" in there, but whatever. It's entirely possible there are other counterexamples.

ETA: This is a thread about the Bible. So the above should have been obvious.

[Garrette]

Sorry. I meant to say "Christian" in there, but whatever. It's entirely possible there are other counterexamples.

ETA: This is a thread about the Bible. So the above should have been obvious.It was obvious. I was tongue-in-cheeking, not critiquing.

[circuit_bent]

Perhaps a skosh of Rael?

I have to question why you single out Rael here. He's an atheist (and an anti-theist I'm quite sure) and has a great admiration of Science. He thinks that there is no afterlife and that it's up to us to make the best of our limited lives, and progress technologically for the sake of ourselves and future generations.

Maybe there's some parts of his beliefs that I'm unaware of that are plain nuts. Care to fill me in?

[wollery]

I have to question why you single out Rael here. He's an atheist (and an anti-theist I'm quite sure) and has a great admiration of Science. He thinks that there is no afterlife and that it's up to us to make the best of our limited lives, and progress technologically for the sake of ourselves and future generations.

Maybe there's some parts of his beliefs that I'm unaware of that are plain nuts. Care to fill me in?Let's see, he was abducted by aliens and instructed to tell humanity that they created us, and that we'd misinterpreted the bible, which is actually a message from them. They gave him full annotations to the bible, and told him to write a book. In a total of six hours. He has to achieve world peace and build an embassy in Jerusalem before they'll visit to meet with the world's leaders.

No, you're right, nothing nutty there at all.

:rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, to the question in the OP, "Is science getting closer to God and the Bible?":

There are really two answers:

1) No, it's the other way around: Now that science has found the real answers, bible scolars are desperately trying to reinterpret scripture to hang on.

2) Yes, science is getting closer to God and the Bible: Science is finding the truths that God and the Bible used to pretend to have.

HansThis topic comes up on a regular basis. It's hard to say if people who started these myths made them up with the goal of tricking converts all for a good cause, or if they themselves were simply trying to make the Bible's round pegs fit into science's square holes.

For example there is a common claim the Bible describes the Earth as a "sphere". The actual passage refers to a circle and in no way presents some knowledge the people who wrote the Bible shouldn't have known if not divinely informed.

The Bible only contains the knowledge the people who wrote it would have had at the time. For one glaring example, the germ theory is totally absent and claims of things like avoiding pork had a medical reason because of trichinosis may sound good, but don't hold up to closer scrutiny. If that was the reason, then why not simply require pork be burnt before eaten? And why single out trichinosis when something as simple as hand washing would have prevented more disease by far. Or why not just eliminate the trichinosis if you are God, or make your followers immune?

It's all wishful thinking on believers' parts. One so badly wants the Bible to be true. But it isn't. And no amount of lipstick will fix it.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's all wishful thinking on believers' parts. One so badly wants the Bible to be true. But it isn't. And no amount of lipstick will fix it.

But a nice corset and fishnet stockings couldn't hurt.........

[DOC]

" As big and muddled as the bible is, you can find support for almost anything, just by stretching a bit*.

When Christians find things that support their case its "Oh, the bible is big and muddled and you can support anything. But when atheists find things its "Hey, everybody, look what the bible says here!"

[DOC]

deleted

[joobz]

When Christians find things that support their case its "Oh, the bible is big and muddled and you can support anything. But when atheists find things its "Hey, everybody, look what the bible says here!"
Not quite. It's more like, "Hey, everybody, look what that big muddled book, the bible, says here!"
But then again, I'm only assuming that's what an atheist would say.
I know it's what I would say, but that's not the same thing.

[linusrichard]

When Christians find things that support their case its "Oh, the bible is big and muddled and you can support anything. But when atheists find things its "Hey, everybody, look what the bible says here!"

Could be because the Bible actually says the things we say it says, while it doesn't say the things you're saying it says.

[Safe-Keeper]

1) No, it's the other way around: Now that science has found the real answers, bible scolars are desperately trying to reinterpret scripture to hang on.As they have for hundreds of years.

When Christians find things that support their case its "Oh, the bible is big and muddled and you can support anything.Wrong. When Christian fundies misinterpret things to suit their liking, atheists state that the Bible is big and etc. etc.'.

Come on, Revelations being a reference to a TV? That's not stretching?

[DOC]

I presume this is THE Henry Morris, PhD, deceased ... Henry was a hydraulic engineer of distinction with standard hydraulics texts to his credit that are used to this day. Unfortunately, he decided to apply his knowledge to the Great Flood...

It looks like this author of hydraulic texts still in use also applied his knowledge to a thorough examination of the Bible and its references to currently known scientific phenomenon and processes.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

[Hourglassmemory]

Actually, even though Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) probably never took a science course or had access to a telescope he seemed to know a lot about modern scientific theory.

Here is what I heard Dr. Carl Baugh talk about one time on his TV program:


Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7

Just to claim that doesn't mean anything.
I recently tried to calculate what a divine day would mean. If you stick with divine days plants should appear in about 1.5 billion years.
If you stick with what we know from science, each divine day would have to change length. It doesn't make sense.

[Hokulele]

It looks like this author of hydraulic texts still in use also applied his knowledge to a thorough examination of the Bible and its references to currently known scientific phenomenon and processes.


Appeal to Authority fallacy!

[Foster Zygote]

You could always read it.

Carl Baugh was caught carving toes onto dinosaur footprints and trying to pass them off as human footprints. That's what's referred to as a "hoax".

Others have tried such hoaxes as well. The obvious give away is that real impressions compress the layers of sediment beneath the imprint. Many fossil track ways are actually already eroded through the uppermost layers into the layers below, resulting in a less distinct impression. Simply carving into the rock results in no compression. The sediment is simply carved into like a miniature version of the Grand Canyon.

[linusrichard]

It looks like this author of hydraulic texts still in use also applied his knowledge to a thorough examination of the Bible and its references to currently known scientific phenomenon and processes.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

You are a brick wall. Have you looked at these passages? We have. Some of them do not describe a scientific phenomenon or process. None of them describe a scientific phenomenon or process in a way that would be unfamiliar to people at the time.

A lot of people in this thread have quoted specific examples of the passages from that link, and talked about why they don't say what you say they say. If you want to argue in this thread, the most effective thing you could do would be to address those - quote specific passages, and discuss why they do say what you say they say. But you aren't going to do this, for reasons which are obvious, at least to the rest of us.

[ladida]

It looks like this author of hydraulic texts still in use also applied his knowledge to a thorough examination of the Bible and its references to currently known scientific phenomenon and processes.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html

Wow. I really want to believe that DOC isn't sincere.

[Safe-Keeper]

Pondering Scripture-stretching, I just realized two can play that game. Let's try Håvamål (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A5vam%C3%A5l) of Norse mythology, shall we?

All door-ways,
before going forward,Doorways didn't go forward in the time of the Old Norse, so clearly this is a prediction of the revolving or sliding door.

less sure is that
which a man must have
in another’s breast.The ancient Norsemen didn't need things from each others' chests, so this must be a reference to later heart transplants.

103. At home let a man be cheerful,
and towards a guest liberal;
of wise conduct he should be,The term 'liberal' didn't exist at that time, so obviously it must be a reference to today's liberal. We are obviously the Norse Gods' chosen people.

There's also this guy who rides over the sky with a hammer to create lightning. Clearly this is a reference to how modern humans, with our planes, are creating more bad weather for ourselves with global warming.

Or what about the valkyries? They flew in over battlefields and retrieved the fallen. No one could fly in those days, so clearly they're refering to the Med-Evac choppers of today - and choppers are even closely linked to the tune Ride of the Valkyries.

Then we have Odin, who sacrificed his eyes for infinite wisdom. This must be a prophecy that one day we'd have the Internet, a source of near-infinite wisdom, and that gazing for too long on the computer screen would damage our eyesight.

- - - -

I could go on all day. And when I was finished with Norse mythology, I could move on to Buddhism, Aztec mythology, African mythologies, or any other religious text. And upon finishing those, I could move on to classic literary works such as the Narnia Chronicles.

[DOC]

Xenu, anyone?


I assume your talking about this Xenu.

http://historyofscientology.ytmnd.com/

[Hokulele]

I assume your talking about this Xenu.


Do you believe in Xenu?


(Yes, I know we have done this bit before.)

[Garrette]

I assume your talking about this Xenu.

http://historyofscientology.ytmnd.com/ THAT'S HIM! Don't make him mad.

Are you talking about this Yahweh (http://frimmin.com/books/historyofgod.html)?

[Darth Rotor]

Close, but you're missing the important part.

The FSM is attempting to grab everything with his noodly appendages in order to bring them up into his Holy Pastaness. Gravity Pixies are the fallen angels of FSMology and prevent the rightful ascension of all things into their deserved glory where they will be seated next to the Virgin Marinara.
Splitter!

The FSM wishes alla his chillun to join him in eternal Bolognese.

It's people like you what cause unrest, and the Thirty Years' War, and the Hussite Rebellion, and pasta that is not al dente! :jaw-dropp

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Close, but you're missing the important part.

The FSM is attempting to grab everything with his noodly appendages in order to bring them up into his Holy Pastaness. Gravity Pixies are the fallen angels of FSMology and prevent the rightful ascension of all things into their deserved glory where they will be seated next to the Virgin Marinara.
Splitter! :eek: (Grabs torches and pitchforks)

The FSM wishes alla his chillun to join him in eternal Bolognese.

It's people like you what cause unrest, suh, and the Thirty Years' War, and the Hussite Rebellion, and pasta that is not al dente! :jaw-dropp

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Not to mention that it's eternity. Even if it takes a trillion trillion years we will get bored eventually, then we'll be bored for eternity.
Who's this "we," kemo sabe, are you one of the immortals?

There Can Be Only One! :D

DR

(Gratuitous Highlander reference, please be gentle with me.)

[Darth Rotor]

DOC asked

Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

When the scientists start measuring things in cubits, get back to me. Until then, understand that the Bible was not written as a science text book. I bothered to read the Bible, years ago, cover to cover. I refer to it these days for a variety of reasons, but never once have I opened the Bible looking for a scientific explanation for much of anything.

I also don't look in the phone book for information on repairs to Chrysler vehicles.

Your shoehorn cannot force a gorilla's foot into a horseshoe, DOC, and the sooner you accept that the better.

DR

[ThatSoundAgain]

When Christians find things that support their case its "Oh, the bible is big and muddled and you can support anything. But when atheists find things its "Hey, everybody, look what the bible says here!"

Yes, DOC, but what you're missing is that the Christian is saying: "Here's some verse that supports my case, within this text that I believe to be divine."

The atheist, on the other hand, says: "Hey, everybody, look what I found in the bible, which I find to be internally inconsistent, and not in any way divine or special."

IOW, I'm not trying to use scripture to support anything but the point that scripture can't meaningfully be used for all that you (DOC) want it to be used for, or can even be taken at face value. When I do this, I'm not nervous (like the believer must be) that somebody else might come along and post a verse that contradicts mine - because my point in the first place is that it's self-contradictory.

It's you who's arguing for the divinity of the text. All we're doing is point out the contortions you must suffer to pretend that the text makes sense at all, much less is divine truth.

So yes, what you describe above is what's going on, and it's entirely fair.

[TX50]

Here's another account:

Ezra 6:38 - Heaven and earth
Ezra 6:40 - Light

[...]


So the universe was made in total darkness! :eek: (that would explain a lot, actually...)

[circuit_bent]

Let's see, he was abducted by aliens and instructed to tell humanity that they created us, and that we'd misinterpreted the bible, which is actually a message from them. They gave him full annotations to the bible, and told him to write a book. In a total of six hours. He has to achieve world peace and build an embassy in Jerusalem before they'll visit to meet with the world's leaders.

No, you're right, nothing nutty there at all.

:rolleyes:

Thanks for filling me in. I think I made it plain that I didn't have a complete picture, and I was wondering if there was nuttiness I was unaware of.

Your last statement spoils your message and is demeaning. I never said there was nothing nutty about it.

[wollery]

Thanks for filling me in. I think I made it plain that I didn't have a complete picture, and I was wondering if there was nuttiness I was unaware of.

Your last statement spoils your message and is demeaning. I never said there was nothing nutty about it.Please don't take offence, that is not my intent, but it took me 30 seconds of googling, and less than 5 minutes of reading to find out the information I gave in that post. I'm afraid that I sometimes lose patience with people that don't do their own research, particularly if the information is so easily available.

Again, that may sound demeaning, but it isn't meant to be. It is, in fact, a statement of my own shortcoming. As a professional researcher I occasionally forget that reaching for the reference book, or firing up google isn't everyone's first reaction when they find they don't know something.

[bokonon]

So the universe was made in total darkness! :eek: (that would explain a lot, actually...)

More explained here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes I am willing to "Go on record" (gasp!) to state that - (with the obvious exception of things they would already have known about 200 years ago such as the shape of the earth etc. and which we already knew they knew about. - It's hardly earth shattering the Bible states the earth is round and it rains).For the record, the actual passage refers to a circle and has nothing to do with the Earth being round. And I've looked at this nonsense before. I will most certainly go on record and say it's a load of horse-pucky.

From the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/):

Isaiah 40:22
40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

[comment: "He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"
The earth is a flat disc that God looks down upon from his throne in heaven.
TalkOrigins.org
-Index of Creationist Claims
Capella's Guide to Atheism
-The Bible's Flat Earth]

Job 26:10
26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

[Comment: Heaven is set upon pillars that tremble when God gets mad.]

Psalm 103:12
103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.


It takes some absurd stretching of these fables to claim they make scientific sense. Why would a Bible believer not just read the passages for themselves instead of this guy's interpretation? After all, it could be Satan making those false claims in order to trick proselytizers into making dishonest claims knowing skeptics will look up the actual passages and call the proselytizer a fool.

:degrin:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow, thanks DOC, for that site. I know understand christianity. You have something you want to believe, and you make up stuff and pretend the bible agrees.


Let me practice a bit:

Jesus wants me on to gamble on a river boat -luke 5:3

mole men are real -1 John 4:5

God doesn't Like 80's Music -1 john 5:21

Jesus teaches the force - Matthew 17:20

God predicts the existance of Cleveland - Matthew 10:15

the bible predicts the Biggie smalls-Tupac feud. But it also says they record a new album in heaven. -1 John 5:7John 4:5 "Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph."

Darn! I thought there was going to at least be a reference to a rodent.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is the mistake you are talking about.I don't know about joobz, but I'll give you one.

"God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5" (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/abs_list.html)

After light is made, then God makes the Sun and Moon. And, the Moon is not a reflection but a night light. Of course the fact you can see it during the day escaped the tellers of the Genesis myth.

"God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16" (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/sci_list.html)

[Hokulele]

God predicts the existance of Cleveland - Matthew 10:15


I am sorry that I didn't track all these down earlier. Joobz, I think I strained a rib on this one.

Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.


ETA: I just can't resist this one. The bible predict the prevalence of the Brazilian in adult entertainment! Matthew - 24:12

[Lothian]

ETA: I just can't resist this one. The bible predict the prevalence of the Brazilian in adult entertainment! Matthew - 24:12So the answer to; What would Jesus do? is, he would go for the back, sack and crack.

[DOC]

This website claims there are billions of different ways the sequence of events presented by Moses could have been presented.



"If a human author had written Genesis 1 without God's help he could have presented/listed the 14 events mentioned in over 87 billion different sequences. How could a human author have selected the sequence, beginning with Light first and Man last, which has now (3600 years later) been shown to match the sequence that modern science accepts?

Over 3,000 years ago, God presented men with the story of Genesis. He knew that man would always have great curiosity about his environment and history. Since this story was presented to very primitive humans, who were almost universally illiterate, He knew that the story should be brief and clear and fairly simple. (Few modern Christians seem to realize that at the time of Moses (around 1600 BC), there was not yet any written language invented (the first written languages being developed around 1200 BC. Prior to that, only symbols in stone, hieroglyphs and similar systems, but no language.)

__

"Since no human up to less than a hundred years ago had the knowledge to list the various Genesis events in the "correct" scientific order, and since it just isn't written in the anthropocentric way that we humans tend to do, there seems to be overwhelming support for the validity of the Bible being directly from the Inspiration of God. The many additional proofs offered by others, including historical and archaeological evidence and textual analysis, collectively make, to me, an overwhelming case for the Bible being directly from God."


http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

[Lothian]

"Since no human up to less than a hundred years ago had the knowledge to list the various Genesis events in the "correct" scientific orderVery good point, I recall my granddad telling me that when he was a boy 100 years ago scientists thought that first God created man then carelessly lost him so on the second day he created the sun and stars to see if he could find him. But God lost those as well as he hadn’t made light, a small error corrected on the third day. When he finally found man, who by this time was pretty pissed off God sought to appease him with grass and trees and the like. Which was fine but he had nowhere to stick them so God quickly on the 5th day made the land. At which point man said "hey, I am lonely" so God made the animals, birds and fish. The animals and birds loved their new land but the fish were well miffed, so on day 7 God gave them water.

[Tanstaafl]

This website claims there are billions of different ways the sequence of events presented by Moses could have been presented.



As shown earlier, the order in the bible isn't even close.

[Hokulele]

"Since no human up to less than a hundred years ago had the knowledge to list the various Genesis events in the "correct" scientific order, and since it just isn't written in the anthropocentric way that we humans tend to do, there seems to be overwhelming support for the validity of the Bible being directly from the Inspiration of God. The many additional proofs offered by others, including historical and archaeological evidence and textual analysis, collectively make, to me, an overwhelming case for the Bible being directly from God."


So since the information in the bible isn't scientifc, it is proof of god? Isn't that the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove with your original post?

[joobz]

John 4:5 "Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph."

Darn! I thought there was going to at least be a reference to a rodent.
it's 1 John 4:5, not John 4:5

"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them."

[Skeptic Ginger]

it's 1 John 4:5, not John 4:5

"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them."OMG, mole men are the antichrist!
:yikes:I John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

[joobz]

OMG, mole men are the antichrist!
:yikes:

Yes.
When will people realize that the true threat is what lies beneath, in elaborate cities of mud and stone. Those who dwell in caves and earth, shall one day rise and take the throne.


oogie boogie, oogie boogie, oogie boogie!

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have postulated that the lack of information in the Bible which one might expect if a god being actually inspired it, wrote it, or actually walked the Earth with Adam and Eve is clearly evidence the Bible as well as the Judeo-Christian religion is solely of human origin.

[Foster Zygote]

Yes.
When will people realize that the true threat is what lies beneath, in elaborate cities of mud and stone. Those who dwell in caves and earth, shall one day rise and take the throne.


oogie boogie, oogie boogie, oogie boogie!

Even now their spies walk among us.

[kinkymagic]

Since this story was presented to very primitive humans, who were almost universally illiterate,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_literature

He knew that the story should be brief and clear and fairly simple.

If it is so clear and simple why are you still debating it's meaning now?

(the first written languages being developed around 1200 BC. Prior to that, only symbols in stone, hieroglyphs and similar systems, but no language.) I thought that was what written language was. How is the written language now that different to the lwritten languages back then?

[Kopji]

(Few modern Christians seem to realize that at the time of Moses (around 1600 BC), there was not yet any written language invented (the first written languages being developed around 1200 BC. Prior to that, only symbols in stone, hieroglyphs and similar systems, but no language.)

I suspect that the Egyptians (of pyramid building fame) could somehow have recorded a tale of a God in the sky, taking some clay and making people out of it.

Or maybe God should have taught them some Chinese or ancient Persian first, then they could write it down. :rolleyes:

[articulett]

I think science is getting very close to why humans think there is a god and a soul-- though it is surely an illusion.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran07_index.html

[Ocelot]

This website claims there are billions of different ways the sequence of events presented by Moses could have been presented.



"If a human author had written Genesis 1 without God's help he could have presented/listed the 14 events mentioned in over 87 billion different sequences. How could a human author have selected the sequence, beginning with Light first and Man last, which has now (3600 years later) been shown to match the sequence that modern science accepts?


Erm.. how many of those 87 billion sequences are simply logicly unsound you know like creating the sea before creating the earth? You don't really need divine help to get that in the right order. Then here's the order I just read...

1 heavens
2 earth
3 light
4 sky
5 land
6 sea
7 plant life (on land)
8 sun
9 moon
10 stars
11 sea life
12 birds
13 land animals
14 man

Here's what I'd regard as the correct order

1-3 Light and Heavens Simultaneously. sky too it's the same thing as Heavens.
4 Stars
5 Sun
6-7 Earth and Land Simultaneously - it's the same thing
8 Sea
9 Moon (not 100% on this one might have been captured earlier or perhaps even later)
10 Sea life
11 Plant life (on land)
12 Land animals
13 Birds
14 Man

Do you see how the two lists are not in the same order? So a fair chunk of those 87 million sequences don't need divine help to exclude and another fair chunk are just a close as the one gensis mentions. Only on of them is correct and science isn't even 100% sure which one. What we do know for certain is that the list in Genesis is wrong. Birds evolved from land animals not the other way round. The sun is a young star, other stars happend first.

[Pyrts]

This website claims there are billions of different ways the sequence of events presented by Moses could have been presented.
"If a human author had written Genesis 1 without God's help he could have presented/listed the 14 events mentioned in over 87 billion different sequences. How could a human author have selected the sequence, beginning with Light first and Man last, which has now (3600 years later) been shown to match the sequence that modern science accepts?

You've just been shown three account from the Bible, all of them different, and none of them match the sequence shown by modern science.

Secondly, almost ALL creation stories in other faiths start with creating light and earth and then plants and animals and finally man.


Since this story was presented to very primitive humans, who were almost universally illiterate

Not true.

(Few modern Christians seem to realize that at the time of Moses (around 1600 BC), there was not yet any written language invented (the first written languages being developed around 1200 BC. Prior to that, only symbols in stone, hieroglyphs and similar systems, but no language.

That's just silly. Hebrew wa derived from ancient Phoenecian and the hieroglyphs are far more than just "symbols in stone." They're syllables of a language (not pictures) and there's poetry and stories and prayers and medical advice and books of mathematics written in Egyptian and in cuneiform (Babylonian/Sumerian/Akkadian/etc). Written materials date to before 3000 BC.


"Since no human up to less than a hundred years ago had the knowledge to list the various Genesis events in the "correct" scientific order, and since it just isn't written in the anthropocentric way that we humans tend to do, there seems to be overwhelming support for the validity of the Bible being directly from the Inspiration of God.

This shows that he hasn't bothered to read any history or he'd know that the sequence was known as far back as those unchristian Greeks like Aristotle and even farther back.


The many additional proofs offered by others, including historical and archaeological evidence and textual analysis, collectively make, to me, an overwhelming case for the Bible being directly from God."

Speaking as an anthropologist who's familiar with some of the archaeological evidence, I can say this is complete nonsense.

[UnrepentantSinner]

(Few modern Christians seem to realize that at the time of Moses (around 1600 BC), there was not yet any written language invented (the first written languages being developed around 1200 BC. Prior to that, only symbols in stone, hieroglyphs and similar systems, but no language.)

I should hope they don't realize that since it's demonstrably untrue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communication#Symbols

And apart from the error about the advent of written language, Moses was a legendary figure who didn't exist.

[Skeptic Ginger]

For an interesting account of some of the precursors to the Bible myths this is a great book, The Hero with an African Face. (http://fp.premier1.net/cwford/)

[Achán hiNidráne]

I can’t help wondering how much difference there is between a fundamentalist who insists on things which are easily and repeatedly proven wrong, and brain-washed cultists.


Wait? There's a difference?

[Cleon]

(Few modern Christians seem to realize that at the time of Moses (around 1600 BC), there was not yet any written language invented (the first written languages being developed around 1200 BC. Prior to that, only symbols in stone, hieroglyphs and similar systems, but no language.)

They don't "seem to realize" this because they have a better education than you do.

First, hieroglyphics is most certainly a written language. Saying otherwise is simply incorrect.

Second, you may have heard of a written language called "Hebrew," which dates long before 1200 BCE.

Third, Cuneiform, the writing system of Mesopotamia, dates back to about 3000 BCE.

Fourth, written Chinese puts them all to shame, going back as far as 6,000 BCE.

Fifth, DOC, just stop already. You obviously not only don't know what you're talking about, you refuse to acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about. The wise man is not he who feigns knowledge, the wise man is he who acknowledges his ignorance.

DOC, my degree is in anthropology. I actually bothered to study this stuff. You might do the same before trying to "inform" people of things that are simply not true.

[kinkymagic]

Wait? There's a difference?

It depends on how big their religion is.

[Achán hiNidráne]

It depends on how big their religion is.

I always agreed with Master Yoda that "Size matters not."

[Achán hiNidráne]

DOC, my degree is in anthropology. I actually bothered to study this stuff. You might do the same before trying to "inform" people of things that are simply not true.

Jesus' Advocate Mode: ON

"Ah, but you learned your anthropology from the godless, leftist, ivory-tower academics who run American higher education. A real anthropologist would recognize the historical accuracy of the Bible, accept Jesus as his personal lord and savior, and make sure his research reflected these facts."

Jesus' Adovate Mode: OFF

Man! I need another shower after that. Role-playing a fundy makes me feel dirty and sticky.

[Oroborus]

Is it just me or is the pattern usually the same?

Fundy: *inane random statement here*
Skeptic1: *eloquent and valid counterpoint*
Skeptic2: *another eloquent and valid counterpoint*
Skeptic3: *yet another eloquent and valid counterpoint*
Skeptic4: *wow another valid counterpoint*
Skeptic5: *something off topic*
Fundy: *ignores counterpoints*
Fundy: *comment on offtopic topic trying to rope it into OP*
Skeptics1-4: Are you going to keep ignoring our questions?
Fundy: *another inane fallacy possibly not even related to the first*


:jaw-dropp

[DOC]

In the DOC's link, "Dr" Henry Morris (is this idiot you DOC?) does not provide links to his scripture, nor does he quote them.

The reason is because he is a lying, liar and, I assume, expects the faithful to take his word for it:

I just looked at the biology section. I haven't done the others as all the lies and distortions just got me annoyed. Someone else may want to take the time to look at his other lies.

Here we go - Lying for Jesus...

I certainly don't agree that Dr. Morris was lying but let's not forget
Liars for Science.

Hwang Woo-Suk

(황우석) (born 29 January 1953)[1] is a South Korean biomedical scientist. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who rose to fame after claiming a series of remarkable breakthroughs in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field of stem cell research, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he fraudulently reported to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning. Both papers have been editorially retracted after being found to contain a large amount of fabricated data. He has admitted to various lies and frauds.

On May 12, 2006, Hwang was "indicted on embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to faked stem cell research."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

______


Ernst Haeckel


Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities. We reported on this particular fraud in a recent issue of Creation magazine.2

Haeckel’s German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering—without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!2

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp

[wahrheit]

Is it just me or is the pattern usually the same?

Fundy: *inane random statement here*
Skeptic1: *eloquent and valid counterpoint*
Skeptic2: *another eloquent and valid counterpoint*
Skeptic3: *yet another eloquent and valid counterpoint*
Skeptic4: *wow another valid counterpoint*
Skeptic5: *something off topic*
Fundy: *ignores counterpoints*
Fundy: *comment on offtopic topic trying to rope it into OP*
Skeptics1-4: Are you going to keep ignoring our questions?
Fundy: *another inane fallacy possibly not even related to the first*

You might add

*random copy & paste job from some web-site*

to that list.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I certainly don't agree that Dr. Morris was lying but let's not forget
Liars for Science.

Hwang Woo-Suk

(황우석) (born 29 January 1953)[1] is a South Korean biomedical scientist. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who rose to fame after claiming a series of remarkable breakthroughs in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field of stem cell research, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he fraudulently reported to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning. Both papers have been editorially retracted after being found to contain a large amount of fabricated data. He has admitted to various lies and frauds.

On May 12, 2006, Hwang was "indicted on embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to faked stem cell research."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

______


Ernst Haeckel


Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities. We reported on this particular fraud in a recent issue of Creation magazine.2

Haeckel’s German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering—without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!2

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp


Perhaps you could explain how this constitutes lying for science? Surely lying, and surely lying about scientific ideas, and uncovered by other scientists who sniffed them out. These two examples show lying for personal gain and profit not for science.

Lying for Jesus, in which you clearly engage, concerns lying to try and prove the existence of Jesus or the existence of a young earth, etc. That actually is lying for Jesus. Neither of your examples promoted science over some other viewpoint. They did not lie for science.

Not that I expect you to understand the distinction based on our limited earlier exchange.

[linusrichard]

I certainly don't agree that Dr. Morris was lying but let's not forget
Liars for Science.

Hwang Woo-Suk

(황우석) (born 29 January 1953)[1] is a South Korean biomedical scientist. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who rose to fame after claiming a series of remarkable breakthroughs in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field of stem cell research, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he fraudulently reported to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning. Both papers have been editorially retracted after being found to contain a large amount of fabricated data. He has admitted to various lies and frauds.

On May 12, 2006, Hwang was "indicted on embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to faked stem cell research."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

______


Ernst Haeckel


Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities. We reported on this particular fraud in a recent issue of Creation magazine.2

Haeckel’s German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering—without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!2

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp

1 - The big difference is that no one in this thread brought up Hwang or Haeckel, so it's not really relevant at all. Whereas the liar Morris is your horse in this race.

If someone had looked at your link, and said, "Henry Morris, huh? Well, Kent Hovind lies for Jesus," then it would be fair for you to say, "Well, Hwang Woo-Suk lies for science," and then both of you would be making equally irrelevant statements. But this is obviously different.

More to the point, it's not so much that Henry Morris is a liar, but that the statements he made in the link you gave are lies specifically. I'm sure Hwang and Haeckel have said true things, and their status as liars about other things doesn't affect the truth or falsity of the true things they've said. And I'm guessing Morris has said true things, and those things stand up despite his lies about other things. But you didn't present true statements Morris made; you presented lies.

2 - These guys (if your claims about them are true) didn't lie for science. They lied for greed, personal gain, fame, glory, whatever. But their lies were the opposite of science. If your point is, sometimes people who are thought of as scientists lie, then yes, thank you, we know. People lie in general. That's why scientists (unlike, say, creationists) have their work peer-reviewed, have ethical standards to follow, are subject to government regulation, etc., etc. Morris's lies, on the other hand, were not the opposite of promoting Jesus; they were lies to help him promote Jesus.

The fact that you had to reach back ~150 years to find an example of a lying scientist (whose lies other scientists debunked 70 years ago) speaks well, I think, to the credibility of science in general.

3 - Your only link about Haeckel is to Answers in Genesis, which no serious person takes seriously. If what you're saying is true, provide a link to real information. The point of providing a link is so that people don't have to do their own research to verify your claims. You don't have to provide links, but if you do, make it a useful one.

[Taffer]

(Few modern Christians seem to realize that at the time of Moses (around 1600 BC), there was not yet any written language invented (the first written languages being developed around 1200 BC. Prior to that, only symbols in stone, hieroglyphs and similar systems, but no language.)

The stupid... IT BURNS!

[Taffer]

Ernst Haeckel


Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities. We reported on this particular fraud in a recent issue of Creation magazine.2

Haeckel’s German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering—without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!2

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp

DOC, this really is pathetic. It took me only a few seconds to check this assertion. I conclude that the assertion is intentionally incorrect and misleading.

It has been claimed (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) that some of Haeckel's embryo drawings of 1874 were fabricated.[9] [10] There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud but did admit one error which he corrected.

Some creationists have claimed that Darwin relied on Haeckel's embryo drawings as proof of evolution[12] [13] [14] implying that Darwin's theory is therefore illegitimate and possibly fraudulent. This claim ignores the fact that the Darwin published the "Origin of the Species" in 1859, and "The Descent of Man" in 1871, whereas Haeckel's famous embryo drawings did not appear until 1874 (8 species). In "The Descent of Man" (1871) Darwin used only two embryo drawings, neither taken from Haeckel[15]

It has been claimed that Ernst Haeckel sent a letter to the January 9, 1909 publication of "Münchener Allgemeine Zeitung"

Relevant parts quoted from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel#.22Infamous.22_embryo_drawings).

So, not only is it not proven that he lied (rather, it is simply claimed that he has lied), but even if he did lie it is about something which he used to support a theory which is universally rejected by modern scientists.

You think after being wrong so often, you would learn not to trust "sources" such as Answersingenesis.

[wahrheit]

You think after being wrong so often, you would learn not to trust "sources" such as Answersingenesis.
We've been dreaming this dream for a long time now. Just think of the Jefferson thread, which started in February this year. DOC doesn't care if a source is reliable, it only needs to support his point.

[EatatJoes]

I certainly don't agree that Dr. Morris was lying but let's not forget
Liars for Science.

Hwang Woo-Suk

(황우석) (born 29 January 1953)[1] is a South Korean biomedical scientist. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who rose to fame after claiming a series of remarkable breakthroughs in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field of stem cell research, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he fraudulently reported to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning. Both papers have been editorially retracted after being found to contain a large amount of fabricated data. He has admitted to various lies and frauds.

On May 12, 2006, Hwang was "indicted on embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to faked stem cell research."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

______


Ernst Haeckel


Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities. We reported on this particular fraud in a recent issue of Creation magazine.2

Haeckel’s German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering—without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!2

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp


Oh oh fun! Let me play. Let's not forget these (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html)Liars for Jeebus.

[Hokulele]

Stephen Jay Gould had an article about the Haeckel illustrations in one of his essays in Nature magazine. It was included in one of his books (I forget which one at the moment, I will check my library). It not only discusses the extent of Haeckel's "adjustments" but how they were treated by both the biologists of his time, as well as current evolutionary theory.

The theory that Haeckel was trying to promote was more about embryology than evolution.

And as many, many people have asked DOC, "So what?"

[UnrepentantSinner]

The theory that Haeckel was trying to promote was more about embryology than evolution.

And as many, many people have asked DOC, "So what?"

One of the great ironies of people from Jonathan Wells to DOC mentioning Haeckel's drawings is that, when studied in context, embryology is acutally a powerful evidence for evolution. {DOC mode} Dr. Douglas Theobald, Phd{DOC mode dropped}, who I {as if you hadn't noticed, I've dropped DOC mode} have actually communicated with over the Internet and was, as of my last contact with him, a Christian, notes in his 29+ Evidences essay that embryology is even more evidentiary towards evolution than even Haeckels tweeked drawings would have been.

And I'm thowing down a gauntlet to DOC regarding evolution. If you're up to it, how about you and me have a moderated thread regarding the evidences for evolution and an Old Earth? No "you're stupid" posts. Just evidence will be allowed to be posted. If you think you can put up or shut up on evolution reply here and I'll start the thread in the next 24 to 48 hours.

[thaiboxerken]

When DOC is proven to be wrong, does he just ignore it or does he not understand that he's been proven wrong?

[Cleon]

When DOC is proven to be wrong, does he just ignore it or does he not understand that he's been proven wrong?

A little from column A, a little from column B...

[Lord Emsworth]

Actually, even though Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) probably never took a science course or had access to a telescope he seemed to know a lot about modern scientific theory.

Here is what I heard Dr. Carl Baugh talk about one time on his TV program:


Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7


I prefer a reading of the p-creation account (Gen 1:1-2:3) that does not reduce the text to rubble. As such ...

Gen 1:1: Has to be read as either
• a summary statement of what is created in the beginning of the creation week. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and how exactly this was done is described later.
• or, with a slightly different translation, as an introductory line. One option is:
"When God began to create the heavens and the earth [...] God said"
Another is:
"When God began to create the heavens and the earth, and the earth was" as described in Gen 1:2

In any case there is nothing 'happening' in Gen 1:1.

Gen 1:2 is a description of the state of affairs before God begins to order things. A watery chaos, a dark watery chaos.

Gen 1:3-13: The first half of the creation week, where God forms the basic structure of the cosmos as imagined by the ancient Hebrews.

One the first day, light and darkness are separated to form day and night.
One the secone day, the watery chaos, the deep, is separated by a solid barrier.
One the fifth day, finally dry land is separated from the water below the skydome.

Note that on each of these day something is separated from something else.

Gen 1:14-31: The second half of the creation week, where the basic structure created on the firts half of the creation week is filled with inhabitants.

The celestial bodies created on the fourth day to inhabit what was created on the first day.
Birds, fish etc created on the fifth day to inhabit what was created on the second day.
Land animals and humans created on the sixth day to inhabit that what was created on the third day.

Gen 2:1-3: The seventh day where creation is finished (as opposed to Gen 1:2).


Scientific accuracy? Not really.


NRSV translation of Gen 1:1-2:3: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=61198539

[H3LL]

I certainly don't agree that Dr. Morris was lying

Well DOC - What do you call it then?

Morris said:

Such a list confirms that the Scriptures are scientifically credible

I'll take the first one I looked at and see how it does:
Biology - Blood Circulation -Leviticus 17:11

If a book contains the word "blood" it doesn't make it scientifically credible. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is not scientifically credible.

Blood circulation is the key and lets assume in 1242 the Arab physician Ibn al-Nafis became the first person to accurately describe the process of blood circulation in the human body, including pulmonary circulation.

Some parts of the bible were written before 1242 - Lets see how Morris' quote does against several versions of the bible and its divine revelations about blood circulation:

The New International Version: 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.Nope - Morris is a liar - and you are a liar to suggest he is correct. There is no mention of blood circulation. Lying, liars. What do you call it if it's not lying?

The New American Standard Bible: 11'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' Nope - Morris is a liar - and you are a liar to suggest he is correct. There is no mention of blood circulation. Lying, liars. What do you call it if it's not lying?

The Message: 10-12 "If any Israelite or foreigner living among them eats blood, I will disown that person and cut him off from his people, for the life of an animal is in the blood. I have provided the blood for you to make atonement for your lives on the Altar; it is the blood, the life, that makes atonement. That's why I tell the People of Israel, 'Don't eat blood.' The same goes for the foreigner who lives among you, 'Don't eat blood.' Nope - Morris is a liar - and you are a liar to suggest he is correct. There is no mention of blood circulation. Lying, liars. What do you call it if it's not lying?

Amplified Bible:11For the life (the animal soul) is in the blood, and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life [which it represents].Nope - Morris is a liar - and you are a liar to suggest he is correct. There is no mention of blood circulation. Lying, liars. What do you call it if it's not lying?

New Living Translation: 11 for the life of the body is in its blood. I have given you the blood on the altar to purify you, making you right with the Lord.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:11;&version=51;#fen-NLT-3247a)] It is the blood, given in exchange for a life, that makes purification possible. Nope - Morris is a liar - and you are a liar to suggest he is correct. There is no mention of blood circulation. Lying, liars. What do you call it if it's not lying?

King James Version: 11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.Nope - Morris is a liar - and you are a liar to suggest he is correct. There is no mention of blood circulation. Lying, liars. What do you call it if it's not lying?

English Standard Version:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.Nope - Morris is a liar - and you are a liar to suggest he is correct. There is no mention of blood circulation. Lying, liars. What do you call it if it's not lying?

Contemporary English Version:11Life is in the blood, and I have given you the blood of animals to sacrifice in place of your own. Nope - Morris is a liar - and you are a liar to suggest he is correct. There is no mention of blood circulation. Lying, liars. What do you call it if it's not lying?

This is getting tedious......other versions.....

New King James Version: 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’New Century Version: 11 This is because the life of the body is in the blood, and I have given you rules for pouring that blood on the altar to remove your sins so you will belong to the Lord. It is the blood that removes the sins, because it is life.21st Century Version: 11For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.American Standard Version: 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Young's Literal Translation: 11for the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar, to make atonement for your souls; for it [is] the blood which maketh atonement for the soul. Darby Translation: 11for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul. New Life Version: 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood. I have given it to you on the altar to make your souls free from sin. For the blood makes you free from sin because of the life in it.' Holman Christian Standard Bible: 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have appointed it to you to make atonement on the altar for your lives, since it is the lifeblood that makes atonement.New International Reader's Version: 11 The life of each creature is in its blood. So I have given you the blood of animals to pay for your sin on the altar. Blood is life. That is why blood pays for your sin. Wycliffe New Testament: No Leviticus :DWorldwide English: They have lost the word of god too. No Leviticus.:cool:New International Version - UK: 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.Today's New International Version: 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.Phew! That's enough.

Lucky for us that god wrote all this and no human was involved in their interpretation of the translation or we would be in a right mess.

In each and every version - Morris is a liar - and you are a liar to suggest he is correct. There is no mention of blood circulation. Lying, liars.

In which version is Morris telling the truth?

What part of sacrificing animals in atonement for sins is scientifically credible?

What do you call it if it's not lying?

.

[Safe-Keeper]

They had obviously figured out that you needed blood to live. But blood circulation is not mentioned, and that's the kicker.

[articulett]

I smell pants on fire...

[joobz]

When DOC is proven to be wrong, does he just ignore it or does he not understand that he's been proven wrong?
depends on the situation. Most commonly he'll ignore it. The next most common tactic is to play with context. You must remember, his greatest fear is to admit error.
I'm willing to bet that the examples of scientific fraud that he presented is (in his mind) proof that science is flawed and inferior to religion.

What he fails to present is that it was science (other scientists) who, when trying to recreate the Woo-suk experiments, discovered the fraud.
Science bases itself off the fact that nobody is perfect. It provides a clear mechanism for self-correction and will continue to be more complete and more correct with each passing year. Religion doesn't. Religion assumes it is correct and rejects any proof to the contrary. It has only made adjustments kicking and screaming, when there was no other choice.

[wahrheit]

I'm willing to bet that the examples of scientific fraud that he presented is (in his mind) proof that science is flawed and inferior to religion.
Bolding mine.

I agree 100%, I'm afraid that's how DOC's brain works.

What he fails to present is that it was science (other scientists) who, when trying to recreate the Woo-suk experiments, discovered the fraud.

And this is where I'm not yet quite sure. Does he omit this observation because he doesn't understand it, or does he ignore it intentionally?

[Hokulele]

Bolding mine.

I agree 100%, I'm afraid that's how DOC's brain works.

And this is where I'm not yet quite sure. Does he omit this observation because he doesn't understand it, or does he ignore it intentionally?


Judging by his behavior in other threads, I would call it intentional.

[DOC]

They had obviously figured out that you needed blood to live. But blood circulation is not mentioned, and that's the kicker.

Morris was probably simply "generally" comparing the bible writer's knowledge that the life of the flesh is in the blood to our current knowledge that it is the movement of this oxygenated blood to the flesh that gives life to the flesh.

In order for the bible writer to know that the "life of the flesh" is in the blood, he had to conclude that there is some kind of "movement" of life force from the blood to the flesh. That's what I see is the main point. It is the "movement" of life force from the blood to the flesh. I think Morris is just "generally comparing" the process of life force moving from the blood to the flesh that both times were aware of.

[DOC]

Also, although a minor detail, I find it interesting that the biblical writer didn't just say the life of the flesh comes from the blood. He said the life is "in" the blood. Which correlates with our modern knowledge that it is the red blood cells "in" the blood (which includes the liquid plasma) that is what actually supplies the oxygen and nutrients to the flesh.

[Cleon]

And I find it interesting that you've completely ignored that little fib you told about how there was "no written language prior to 1200 BC."

No, wait, I can't call it a lie. It may simply be a lack of education on your part, or a simple mistake, or maybe you just misremember something you read somewhere.

Now, if you fail to acknowledge that what you said was a load of bullocks, or try to somehow defend it, then it would become intentional dishonesty (and therefore a lie).

Come on, DOC. Prove us all wrong, and do the mature thing, own up to your mistake. It might even get you a smidgen of respect.

[DOC]

And I find it interesting that you've completely ignored that little fib you told about how there was "no written language prior to 1200 BC."

This is a fib. I told no such thing.

[Hokulele]

So, not only do you fail to read what we post, you also fail to read what you copy and paste. Nice.

[Mashuna]

This is a fib. I told no such thing.

(Few modern Christians seem to realize that at the time of Moses (around 1600 BC), there was not yet any written language invented (the first written languages being developed around 1200 BC. Prior to that, only symbols in stone, hieroglyphs and similar systems, but no language.)

So do you think that the websites you quote are lying then? If so, why quote them?

[UnrepentantSinner]

{DOC}

examples of scientific fraud

So you admit science is fruadulent?

{/DOC}

DOC, I see you didn't respond to my offer for a moderated evolution thread. I case you missed it, here's my offer again. Why don't we have a moderated thread debating whether the Earth is old and whether evolution has happened? No "that's inane" posts will be allowed, only substantive responses.

Are you up for it?

[DOC]

{DOC}

So you admit science is fruadulent?

{/DOC}

DOC, I see you didn't respond to my offer for a moderated evolution thread. I case you missed it, here's my offer again. Why don't we have a moderated thread debating whether the Earth is old and whether evolution has happened? No "that's inane" posts will be allowed, only substantive responses.

Are you up for it?


Where did I admit "Science" is fraudulent. You and have others like to put words in my mouth. How many times do I have to say my threads are not about me, although people new to the threads might think so with all the Doc this and Doc that, that others post.


And with regard to your debate offer, I'm basically just a messenger of the facts. I'm not an expert on evolution or creation science. I mostly just put the facts out there, what you do with them is up to you. If you think a fact is not accurate, look it up, and tell us you found something different.

[Hokulele]

And with regard to your debate offer, I'm basically just a messenger of the facts. I'm not an expert on evolution or creation science. I mostly just put the facts out there, what you do with them is up to you. If you think a fact is not accurate, look it up, and tell us you found something different.


If you aren't an expert, how do you know that what you post are "facts" as opposed to opinion? Can't you see that this is yet another dishonest debating practice (offering unknown information as fact)?

[articulett]

Bolding mine.

I agree 100%, I'm afraid that's how DOC's brain works.



And this is where I'm not yet quite sure. Does he omit this observation because he doesn't understand it, or does he ignore it intentionally?

I think it's part of the extreme confirmation bias that religious brainwashing does. Because they all seem to have blinkers or something where their brain glides right over the pertinent information. I think they learn to do that when they claim to believe in the bible... in order to say that... you have to really NOT read it... skip over parts... look for the "nuggets". I think his brain just absorbs what can support his view... like all woo and has learned to ignore anything that negates it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Where did I admit "Science" is fraudulent. You and have others like to put words in my mouth. How many times do I have to say my threads are not about me, although people new to the threads might think so with all the Doc this and Doc that, that others post.

You know I sometimes wonder if you're as ignorant and dense as you seem to be or if you're just pulling our collective legs. It's responses like this that let me know you're for real. I'm not really shocked to have to tell you this but when people don't quote you, they're not putting words in your mouth, they're satirizing your "debate style".

And with regard to your debate offer, I'm basically just a messenger of the facts. I'm not an expert on evolution or creation science. I mostly just put the facts out there, what you do with them is up to you. If you think a fact is not accurate, look it up, and tell us you found something different.

I'm fine with that for a moderated thread. You just post what you consider to be facts and others will respond to them. As I said, I'll tell the mods that moderation means no snarky comments or superfluous banter. If you don't think your supposed facts can withstand scrutiny, I'll understand though.

[thaiboxerken]

Doc, the problem is that 80% of what you post is not fact and the other 20% is misrepresented.

[DOC]

You know I sometimes wonder if you're as ignorant and dense as you seem to be or if you're just pulling our collective legs. It's responses like this that let me know you're for real. I'm not really shocked to have to tell you this but when people don't quote you, they're not putting words in your mouth, they're satirizing your "debate style".

You still didn't answer my question -- "Where did I admit "Science" is fraudulent, as you attempted to imply I did in this post.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3121568#post3121568

[DOC]

Doc, the problem is that 80% of what you post is not fact and the other 20% is misrepresented.

100% of the scientific theory that the first one celled organism (over time) came from non-living chemicals is not fact.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You still didn't answer my question -- "Where did I admit "Science" is fraudulent, as you attempted to imply I did in this post.

Your question was rooted in ignorance and density so I have no reason to answer it. But I will try to enlighten you.

First off you never "admitted 'Science' is fraudulent" nor did I imply that you did so.
Second, I was selectively quoting joobz in an attempt to parody you...

Oh nevermind, it's just not worth it at this point...

There's plenty of substantial questions posed in this thread you've never answered - "no written language before 1200 B.C.E. ring a bell?" - that me wasting my time with this tangent is rediculous.

[DOC]

First off you never "admitted 'Science' is fraudulent"

Well thanks for clearing that up.


nor did I imply that you did so.

You can't deny that anybody who didn't read almost every post in the forum (especially newbies) wouldn't get the impression that that's what I thought based on this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3121568#post3121568

[Cleon]

This is a fib. I told no such thing.

*Sigh* So you decided to make it intentional lying, then. I wish I could say I was surprised, but regrettably this seems to be par for the course with you.

(Few modern Christians seem to realize that at the time of Moses (around 1600 BC), there was not yet any written language invented (the first written languages being developed around 1200 BC. Prior to that, only symbols in stone, hieroglyphs and similar systems, but no language.)

Bolding mine.

DOC, why do you bother lying about something you just said? Is this a psychological thing?

[UnrepentantSinner]

You can't deny...

Yes I can. I'd wager that every single newbie reading any of your threads would be able to discern between a satire of your rediculous, unsupported, baseless claims and your actual rediculous, unsupported, baseless claims.

Any chance you can respond to the real issue of your false assertion about the advent of language being in 1200 B.C.E. instead of just whining about this tangent?

[joobz]

This is a fib. I told no such thing.
Yes, you did.

By the way, to make this clear under no uncertain terms:
The Tale of Gilgamesh is one of the oldest known literary works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
ealiest copies are from ~2000BC, 800 years before your time span.

Also, check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_literature
You'll see there are dozens of written texts that predate the bible in any form.


Please note, that your distinction about symbols note being a written language is horrifically ignorant. to the point of being racist. Because the statement effectively states thatall of chinese, japanese, korean, ... languages have no "written language".

[Taffer]

Stop lying, DOC. Do you think the quote you posted lied when it claimed there were no languages before 1200 BCE?

[thaiboxerken]

100% of the scientific theory that the first one celled organism (over time) came from non-living chemicals is not fact.

It's not established fact, but the evidence all points to it.

[Lothian]

You know I sometimes wonder if you're as ignorant and dense as you seem to be or if you're just pulling our collective legs. DOC is almost certainly a troll.

I originally thought that he was a brainwashed fundie who was simply regurgitating what he understood to be true. However, the flaws in his arguments were clearly pointed out to him and instead of taking them on board he repeated them. His arguments were refuted in so many ways nobody could possibly be so stupid as to repeat them, but repeat them he did.

I then decided that he could not be that thick and decided that he was a fundie that realised that he was talking crap but hoped that some people could be converted by his drivel. However his arguments got such a battering that if anyone was to read his threads and be converted it would be the other way. Anyone with half a brain cell would see that DOC is not doing the religious cause any good. There are good arguments but he shuns them for extraordinarily pathetic ones. This behaviour does not fit in with the premise that he is doing it to convert people.

There is only one other option I can see.

[Ryan O'Dine]

DOC is almost certainly a troll.

I originally thought that he was a brainwashed fundie who was simply regurgitating what he understood to be true. However, the flaws in his arguments were clearly pointed out to him and instead of taking them on board he repeated them. His arguments were refuted in so many ways nobody could possibly be so stupid as to repeat them, but repeat them he did.

I then decided that he could not be that thick and decided that he was a fundie that realised that he was talking crap but hoped that some people could be converted by his drivel. However his arguments got such a battering that if anyone was to read his threads and be converted it would be the other way. Anyone with half a brain cell would see that DOC is not doing the religious cause any good. There are good arguments but he shuns them for extraordinarily pathetic ones. This behaviour does not fit in with the premise that he is doing it to convert people.

There is only one other option I can see.


I disagree that DOC is necessarily a troll. I think we’ve seen this exact behavior from other missionary type posters (kurious kathy, 1inChrist, etc.), and I think it brings to light once again one of my biggest grievances with modern-day Christianity.

DOC simply does not care whether his facts are straight, whether we believe him one way or another, or whether we’re even reading him. In his own words...

And with regard to your debate offer, I'm basically just a messenger of the facts. I'm not an expert on evolution or creation science. I mostly just put the facts out there, what you do with them is up to you. If you think a fact is not accurate, look it up, and tell us you found something different.


It seems to me that what he’s after has nothing to do with us, and everything to do with Divine favor. Posting for Jesus on a board of unbelievers is just a cheap and easy way of getting it. “I mostly just put the facts out there, what you do with them is up to you.”

He may not save a single soul, but he won’t have failed, because the trying itself is worthy of spiritual reward. And that, in my opinion, is what posters like DOC are after. Their ultimate goal -- and that of many, if not most, modern Christians -- is about getting their own buttinskies into heaven.

And while this very me-centered attitude is not unique to Christianity, there are religions which avoid it. The ultimate goal of Judaism is to save the world. In many forms of Buddhism, it’s to raise the state of all sentient beings.

None of this, as I’ve said before, makes Christianity necessarily wrong. But on any comparative scale of nobleness, it’s hard to imagine ranking Christianity terribly high.

[H3LL]

DOC would appear to be well aware that he is Lying For Jesus as evident by his rather pathetic attempts to weasel. Changing what the OP stated halfway through the thread and the most feeble of attempts to support Morris.

He is a lying, liar and knows full well that he is a lying, liar telling lies.

But he is Lying For Jesus...So it's OK.

.

[joobz]

[quote=Ryan O'Dine;3123299And while this very me-centered attitude is not unique to Christianity, there are religions which avoid it. The ultimate goal of Judaism is to save the world. In many forms of Buddhism, it’s to raise the state of all sentient beings.

None of this, as I’ve said before, makes Christianity necessarily wrong. But on any comparative scale of nobleness, it’s hard to imagine ranking Christianity terribly high.[/quote]
DOC and KK are representatives of a fundie movement in christianity. Much of the pentacostals, baptists and nondenominationals that I know definitely fit into the claim you state.

However, to say that the me-centered view is a trait of christianity in general is wrong. Most of the teachings of christianity ARE centered on helping eachother. This is reflected in the number of religious charities that have religion as only a subset and not the forefront of their goal, the red cross and easter seals coming to mind.

DOC's attitude is self defeating in christian doctirine anyway. Remember the quote, "Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? "

[H3LL]

This is reflected in the number of religious charities that have religion as only a subset and not the forefront of their goal, the red cross and easter seals coming to mind.

I would like to see some evidence for your claim that the Red Cross is a religious charity or has religion as a subset.

To my knowledge, and I have posted their statement (http://www.redcross.int/EN/fundprincips/namibiaseven.asp) here before, their only religious activity is not to discriminate on religious grounds and clearly state their impartiality and neutrality from religion.

What is your evidence for your claim?

[Ryan O'Dine]

However, to say that the me-centered view is a trait of christianity in general is wrong. Most of the teachings of christianity ARE centered on helping eachother. This is reflected in the number of religious charities that have religion as only a subset and not the forefront of their goal, the red cross and easter seals coming to mind."


I agree that the teachings of Christianity center around helping others. I also agree that helping people is one of Christianity’s proximate goals. I disagree, however, that it’s the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal centers around one’s personal relationship with Jesus, and consequently one’s own very personal place in the afterlife.

As for religious charities, they are designed to be about charity first. Church, on the other hand -- the "body of Christ" -- is about Jesus first, charity second.

[H3LL]

I agree that the teachings of Christianity center around helping others.

I disagree.

The teachings of christianity centre around promoting and funding christianity....Period.

Everything else is just a means to an end.

.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I disagree.

The teachings of christianity centre around promoting and funding christianity....Period.

Everything else is just a means to an end.

.


The rantings of modern day evangelists may have much to do with filling the coffers. I don't think you can say the same about the Sermon on the Mount.

[thaiboxerken]

But the sermon on the mount is just a story.

[Upchurch]

I would like to see some evidence for your claim that the Red Cross is a religious charity or has religion as a subset.
I have to agree. The Red Cross symbol, itself, is modeled after the Swiss flag with the colors transposed.

Now, granted, the Swiss flag is modeled after the Holy Roman Empire, but I think that is far enough removed that I don't think any direct connections were implied.

[Lothian]

I have to agree. The Red Cross symbol, itself, is modeled after the Swiss flag with the colors transposed.

Now, granted, the Swiss flag is modeled after the Holy Roman Empire, but I think that is far enough removed that I don't think any direct connections were implied.From here (http://www.redcross.org.uk/standard.asp?id=19314)
The simple red cross on a white background - the reversal of colours of the Swiss flag - was adopted as the emblem of the Movement when it was founded in 1863 by Swiss humanitarians trying to care for battlefield casualties who otherwise would have been left to suffer.

But while it has no religious connotations, the symbol unintentionally reminded Muslims of the Christian crusaders, and they began using a red crescent in the 19th century.

[Ryan O'Dine]

But the sermon on the mount is just a story.


A teaching story.

[Upchurch]

But while it has no religious connotations, the symbol unintentionally reminded Muslims of the Christian crusaders, and they began using a red crescent in the 19th century.
Oops! I thought it was simply an early example of being PC. I didn't even consider the Crusades. :D

[H3LL]

The rantings of modern day evangelists may have much to do with filling the coffers. I don't think you can say the same about the Sermon on the Mount.

If the Sermon on the Mount isn't about promoting christianity..Then I'm not sure what is.

What would one do if one was impressed by the sermon? Stay at home and watch soaps? I suspect that it would involve time (money), travel (money) and putting a dime in the tray (money).

If people actually did as Jesus said in the sermon, the churches would have a serious problem and I would be a very happy man:

When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.


So perhaps you are right. :D

.

[Ryan O'Dine]

If the Sermon on the Mount isn't about promoting christianity..Then I'm not sure what is.

I’m probably not understanding you, but if stating a religion’s teachings is “promoting” that religion, then you simply couldn’t have a religion without promoting it. What’s a religion without stated teachings?

If people actually did as Jesus said in the sermon, the churches would have a serious problem and I would be a very happy man:



So perhaps you are right. :D

.

:D

[drkitten]

I’m probably not understanding you, but if stating a religion’s teachings is “promoting” that religion, then you simply couldn’t have a religion without promoting it. What’s a religion without stated teachings?

Stating a religion's teachings is not promoting it, but stating that a religion's teachings are true is.

Simply citing that Jesus told us that the peacemakers are blessed is not promoting religion. Telling us that the peacemakers are in fact blessed is promoting Christianity.

[Hokulele]

This thread just became much more interesting. :)

[joobz]

I would like to see some evidence for your claim that the Red Cross is a religious charity or has religion as a subset.

To my knowledge, and I have posted their statement (http://www.redcross.int/EN/fundprincips/namibiaseven.asp) here before, their only religious activity is not to discriminate on religious grounds and clearly state their impartiality and neutrality from religion.

What is your evidence for your claim?
My apologizes, I was going off of the Red Cross/Red Crescent dichotomy that led me to also believe it had religious undertones. So I will correct myself and strike red cross from my list.

In it's place, I'll substitute in
Habitat for Humanity and the IOCC (international orthodox christian charities)

[Ryan O'Dine]

Stating a religion's teachings is not promoting it, but stating that a religion's teachings are true is.

Simply citing that Jesus told us that the peacemakers are blessed is not promoting religion. Telling us that the peacemakers are in fact blessed is promoting Christianity.

Well, there's promotion and there's promotion. This was H3LL's post:

I disagree.

The teachings of christianity centre around promoting and funding christianity....Period.

Everything else is just a means to an end.

.

The question isn’t so much whether Christianity promotes itself, no matter that you mean "promote" as in “asserts itself to be true,” or (as I suspect H3LL meant), “pushes itself on others.” It’s whether any kind of promotion, together with the funding aspects, are the end-all and be-all of Christianity.

I think they aren't. I think the end-all be-all is in having a personal relationship with God essentially in order to get into heaven; and that this, at its core, is an ultimately me-centered goal.

[joobz]

I disagree.

The teachings of christianity centre around promoting and funding christianity....Period.

Everything else is just a means to an end.

.
It is my understanding that leading a good life (being kind, helping your fellow man, ...) was the proper way to being christian. I was never taught that you had to "spread the word" actually. rather, let your actions speak for themselves. But then, I never went on missions nor did my church actively work on the missionary front.

Definitely the church would like to see everyone as christian. But this isn't the 'end goal.' They believe that if eveyone is christian, the world would be more peaceful/wonderful. It's why you see a lot of christians inherently blame "others" for evils. Whether that "other" is a christian of another denomination, a muslim, a jew, an atheist. but that assumption of superiority seems to be inherent in any group defining quality (whether it is nationality, religion, athlete, music preference, school, educational dicipline...).

The only difference is religion has had the greatest success at getting people to commit horrific deeds.

[thaiboxerken]

A teaching story.

It's still just a story. Christianity is about promoting christianity first and foremost, then it's about charity, but only if you're the right type of person (Christian). Only since it has become secularized has it been more tolerant and accepting of those outside of it's religion, and even then, many christian churches still teach intolerance of certain people (homosexuals.)

[Ryan O'Dine]

It's still just a story. Christianity is about promoting christianity first and foremost, then it's about charity, but only if you're the right type of person (Christian). Only since it has become secularized has it been more tolerant and accepting of those outside of it's religion, and even then, many christian churches still teach intolerance of certain people (homosexuals.)

I’m really having trouble seeing Christianity being primarily about promoting Christianity. The church’s goal may well be to promote the religion. The preacher’s and pastor’s goal may be that. But I don’t agree it’s the goal of the practicing lay Christian.

I see the ultimate goal of the individual Christian as getting into heaven. Promoting the religion -- evangelizing -- is, at the level of the individual, just a means to that end.

ETA: And DOC's behavior attests to this. He doesn't care whether we believe him or not, only that God sees him evangelizing.

[thaiboxerken]

I’m really having trouble seeing Christianity being primarily about promoting Christianity.

I'm not. It's what's taught to christians by christians, to go out and convert people, spread the word, save people.. etc.



But I don’t agree it’s the goal of the practicing lay Christian.

The goal of practicing lay Christians seems to be to do whatever they want, have fun, and then use the "get out of hell free" card to gain salvation. I'm talking about the goal of Christianity, not christians.

I see the ultimate goal of the individual Christian as getting into heaven. Promoting the religion -- evangelizing -- is, at the level of the individual, just a means to that end.

I somewhat agree, but all it takes to get to heaven as a christian is to ask forgiveness and acceptance from Jesus and nothing else. That's not much of a goal since the means to get there is so easy.


ETA: And DOC's behavior attests to this. He doesn't care whether we believe him or not, only that God sees him evangelizing.

DOC's behavior suggests that he's here to actually convince/convert people and if we won't, then we're worthless people anyway.

[joobz]

I'm not. It's what's taught to christians by christians, to go out and convert people, spread the word, save people.. etc.
I can say that this is not universally true. Many christian groups could care less if others join. But these typically have an ethnicity attached to them. so, it's not like it's any better.





I somewhat agree, but all it takes to get to heaven as a christian is to ask forgiveness and acceptance from Jesus and nothing else. That's not much of a goal since the means to get there is so easy.
Well, you are supposed to MEAN it when you ask for forgiveness. Meaning you are supposed to feel remorse for your actions. Much like the way Voldemort could have repaired his split soul.

having true remorse isn't "easy".



DOC's behavior suggests that he's here to actually convince/convert people and if we won't, then we're worthless people anyway.
that's about the kindest way you could phrase it.

[Ryan O'Dine]

The goal of practicing lay Christians seems to be to do whatever they want, have fun, and then use the "get out of hell free" card to gain salvation. I'm talking about the goal of Christianity, not christians.

I have a cynical view of Christianity, but I think you outclass me here :). In any event, it looks like we’re focusing on two different things -- individual Christians vs. Christianity. Since this is a DOC thread, I’m focused on individuals, but I take your point about Christianity as an organized movement.

DOC's behavior suggests that he's here to actually convince/convert people and if we won't, then we're worthless people anyway.


I’m going to strongly disagree. What evidence is there that DOC is “here to actually convince/convert people” as opposed to “evangelize for the benefit of his own soul”?

And with regard to your debate offer, I'm basically just a messenger of the facts. I'm not an expert on evolution or creation science. I mostly just put the facts out there, what you do with them is up to you. If you think a fact is not accurate, look it up, and tell us you found something different.

My bolding. What kind of person comes to a skeptics’ forum and refuses to debate? Is that the behavior of a person actually trying to convert? Or is it a person performing the empty motions of evangelism to score points for his own salvation?

I’m sure he’d be thrilled if he converted someone. But if he has no interest in talking to us at our level, of trying to understand us and facilitate communication, of even meeting us halfway where possible, then how can anyone claim he’s actually trying to convince anyone of anything?

DOC -- and every other evangelist I’ve seen around here -- exhibits the very essence of the me-centeredness I keep harping on.

[thaiboxerken]

I’m going to strongly disagree. What evidence is there that DOC is “here to actually convince/convert people” as opposed to “evangelize for the benefit of his own soul”?

Since evangelizing is the act of trying to convert people, I don't understand the question. DOC is here to convince people his beliefs are correct, and that act itself is evidence of trying to convert people. The reason he doesn't come up to our level of reasoning and rational debate is not because he's not interested in converting us, it's because he lacks the capacity. He's trying to convert us the only way he knows how, by flooding the forum with lies, deceit and misinformation.

[Cleon]

So does the brownie points you get for evangelizing beat the ones you lose for the whole "bearing false witness" bit?

[drkitten]

Since evangelizing is the act of trying to convert people, I don't understand the question.

Think of it as "going to a Greenpeace protest in order to get into that hot hippy chick's pants." You're protesting, but you're not really protesting. You don't care about Greenpeace, but wow, does she have nice legs....



DOC is here to convince people his beliefs are correct, and that act itself is evidence of trying to convert people.

That's the question. Is he really here to convince us, or is he just here for the Godly green stamps that he gets for going through the motions?

[drkitten]

So does the brownie points you get for evangelizing beat the ones you lose for the whole "bearing false witness" bit?

Oh, don't be silly. If God cared about "bearing false witness," he would have made a rule against it.

[thaiboxerken]

Think of it as "going to a Greenpeace protest in order to get into that hot hippy chick's pants." You're protesting, but you're not really protesting. You don't care about Greenpeace, but wow, does she have nice legs....

That doesn't mean he's not trying to convert people. He's evangelizing, whether or not his intent is sincere or not doesn't matter, he's still doing the act. He's still trying to convince/convert people to Christianity.

[Tanstaafl]

It matters in the context of this conversation, because his intent is exactly what people are trying to figure out.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think it's possible to figure out his actual intent since asking him won't work because of his lack of honesty. We can only judge his actions objectively, his intent is just a guess.

[wahrheit]

The previous two posts

It matters in the context of this conversation, because his intent is exactly what people are trying to figure out.

I don't think it's possible to figure out his actual intent since asking him won't work because of his lack of honesty. We can only judge his actions objectively, his intent is just a guess.

are not far from describing the definition of an internet troll.

Uh, forget it. Seems I'm really Captain Obvious this week.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I don't think it's possible to figure out his actual intent since asking him won't work because of his lack of honesty. We can only judge his actions objectively, his intent is just a guess.

We're guessing at his intent, I agree. But we have two choices here. 1. DOC is honestly trying to convert us out of an altruistic desire to save our souls. 2. DOC is superficially trying to convert us out of a self-serving desire to save his own soul.

If you really believe #1 is more reflective of DOC’s behavior -- that his refusal to engage in a meaningful discussion, his lazy tactic of cutting and pasting from other people’s websites, his repeated use of authorities that have been soundly rejected by his audience, his repeated statements that he doesn’t care what we make of his arguments or authorities --
I mostly just put the facts out there, what you do with them is up to you.
I'm just putting info out there. What you do with it is your business.

and etc., then all I can say is... we're on very different pages.

[Hokulele]

DOC has specifically stated that he posts things for the lurkers. Why he thinks that people reading these threads will agree with his points after seeing every one of them systematically demolished is a bit beyond me.

[schlitt]

Christians who make no attempts to convert people are horrible people.
This sounds like quite a ludicrous statement at first, but I do believe it is true.
Here is why;

If you had knowledge about a planned torture and murder of your neighbor that was going to take place in a couple of hours, and your neighbor was unaware, would you be a horrible person if you did not care, and did not bother to tell them?
I think most would agree, yes, you would be a horrible person.

Christians believe they are in the situation of knowing an impending event.
The event they know is that everyone will suffer eternal torture.
The knowledge they believe they have, is how to avert this horrible event.
Not sharing their knowledge on how to avert this event is the same as the example above, if you do not tell your neighbor.

There are differences on how Christians believe they should go about converting people.
I was taught that living your life as a Christian, and showing kindness to people, would be the best way to convert people. Leading by example.
Other Christians believe they should go out and tell people pro-actively.
With the first example the logic is "God will take care of it, if you do your part", with the second example the onus is on the person to play a more pro-active part, un-assisted by god.

With the example of the neighbor’s impending doom, how much effort would you go to, to inform your neighbor?
Most people would drop everything they were doing and make it their number 1 priority to inform them.
For anyone who believes Christianity, conversion should be pretty high on their priority list.

DISCLAIMER: While I understand why people evangelize, I still find it extremely annoying :)

[Slimething]

Christians who make no attempts to convert people are horrible people.

Christians believe they are in the situation of knowing an impending event.
The event they know is that everyone will suffer eternal torture.


Good point. Conversely, these people worship a torturer so how does that make them good, or at least not horrible?

[schlitt]

Good point. Conversely, these people worship a torturer so how does that make them good, or at least not horrible?

I agree, this is one of the many inconsistencies Christians fail to see IMO.

[Glen.Nogami]

Think of it as "going to a Greenpeace protest in order to get into that hot hippy chick's pants." You're protesting, but you're not really protesting. You don't care about Greenpeace, but wow, does she have nice legs...

Nothing, literally nothing is worth supporting that bunch of banality-spewing, groundless-argument-repeating fear-mongers. Seriously. Here's hoping a Japanese whaling ship harpoons the lot of em.

As for DOC, I think he's got to be a troll. I really can't see any other way. His frequent absences demonstrate that to me, too. Whenever he needs a self esteem boost, he comes back to look at all the people he's infuriated. Honestly, I think it'd be best to just ignore him. The fact that he isn't interested in debate or truth has been amply demonstrated, so why continue to pay attention to him?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Simply citing that Jesus told us that the peacemakers are blessed is not promoting religion. Telling us that the peacemakers are in fact blessed is promoting Christianity.

I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'

[Slimething]

I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'

That's what Brian told me, too! I've been resisting posting that for so long. Glad it's you not me! :p

[Ocelot]

Christians who make no attempts to convert people are horrible people.
This sounds like quite a ludicrous statement at first, but I do believe it is true.
Here is why;

If you had knowledge about a planned torture and murder of your neighbor that was going to take place in a couple of hours, and your neighbor was unaware, would you be a horrible person if you did not care, and did not bother to tell them?
I think most would agree, yes, you would be a horrible person.

Christians believe they are in the situation of knowing an impending event.
The event they know is that everyone will suffer eternal torture.
The knowledge they believe they have, is how to avert this horrible event.
Not sharing their knowledge on how to avert this event is the same as the example above, if you do not tell your neighbor.

Stop! I'm already aware of what christians believe thant you very much. The reason I'm going to hell despite being a nice helpful and considerate person is not because I'm anwae3 of the christian message (in fact being unaware would be an acceptable excuse under some theologies) but because I've actively rejected the message placing logic before faith.

There are differences on how Christians believe they should go about converting people.
I was taught that living your life as a Christian, and showing kindness to people, would be the best way to convert people. Leading by example.
Other Christians believe they should go out and tell people pro-actively.
With the first example the logic is "God will take care of it, if you do your part", with the second example the onus is on the person to play a more pro-active part, un-assisted by god.

With the example of the neighbor’s impending doom, how much effort would you go to, to inform your neighbor?
Most people would drop everything they were doing and make it their number 1 priority to inform them.
For anyone who believes Christianity, conversion should be pretty high on their priority list.

DISCLAIMER: While I understand why people evangelize, I still find it extremely annoying :)

Lets make the analogy a little closer. My neighbour come round my house and tells me I'm going to be tortured at some unspecified point in the future and all I have to do to avoid it is give him one tenth of my wealth and one 7th of my days.

"Are you sure?" I ask him.

"Oh yes," he replies "the radio in my head told me."

"Oh well thanks and everything but I think I'll pass"

Next week: knock! knock!

"Hi again just thought I'd remind you that you're going to be tortured at some specified point in the future"

"Thanks again but no thanks"

Next week: knock! knock!

"It's me again. I just..."

"Look go away and don't come back! I'm sick of your crazy talk"

Next Week: knock! knock!

"Hi Neighbour... Ouch! what did you do that for?"

[dacium2007]

All of this crap shows great examples of cherry picking. They go looking for something in the bible once we already know it. You don't for example see them claiming the bible can tell us something we don't know about science.

[DOC]

Good point. Conversely, these people worship a torturer so how does that make them good, or at least not horrible?

Well, hey everyone I've been busy lately. I can see "attack the messenger" is in full mode...

With regard to this post, God is not a torturer. God made physical and spiritual laws. God made the law of Gravity since the Bible says there is nothing that God has not made. If you violate a physical law you will have to pay a price. For example, If you walk off the Empire State building you will have to pay the price of death because of the Law of Gravity. God did not torture you. You caused your own death by violating a physical law.

There is also a price to be paid for violations of spiritual laws (just like physical laws). Billy Graham says these spiritual laws are not to punish us, but they are actually in our own best interest. And I believe in society's best interest also. But if you choose to violate a spiritual law (just like the Empire State Building example) a price has to be paid. God did not torture you. You brought it upon yourself by violating laws that are in place for our own best interest and society's best interest.

[H3LL]

There is also a price to be paid for violations of spiritual laws (just like physical laws). Billy Graham says these spiritual laws are not to punish us, but they are actually in our own best interest. And I believe in society's best interest also. But if you choose to violate a spiritual law (just like the Empire State Building example) a price has to be paid.



What's the "price to be paid" for being a lying, liar then?

.

[Lothian]

God is not a torturer... the Bible says there is nothing that God has not made. So God made Necrotizing fasciitis . What is that paying the price for ?

[wollery]

Well, hey everyone I've been busy lately. I can see "attack the messenger" is in full mode...Nice way to ignore all of the posts that actually blow your arguments out of the water.

With regard to this post, God is not a torturer. God made physical and spiritual laws. God made the law of Gravity since the Bible says there is nothing that God has not made. If you violate a physical law you will have to pay a price. For example, If you walk off the Empire State building you will have to pay the price of death because of the Law of Gravity. God did not torture you. You caused your own death by violating a physical law.

There is also a price to be paid for violations of spiritual laws (just like physical laws). Billy Graham says these spiritual laws are not to punish us, but they are actually in our own best interest. And I believe in society's best interest also. But if you choose to violate a spiritual law (just like the Empire State Building example) a price has to be paid. God did not torture you. You brought it upon yourself by violating laws that are in place for our own best interest and society's best interest.False analogy. That gravity exists is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't totally insane, so walking off the Empire State building would be the act of someone clearly not in their right mind. Spiritual laws, on the other hand depend not only on the religion that you consider, but also which sect of that religion. For instance, Roman Catholics consider any form of birth control as a mortal sin, Protestants do not. So does using birth control constitute a "walk off the Empire State building" or not? I'm confused, and I haven't even looked outside of Christianity, let alone done any more than scratch the surface of the different "spiritual laws".

[Safe-Keeper]

With regard to this post, God is not a torturer. God made physical and spiritual laws. God made the law of Gravity since the Bible says there is nothing that God has not made. If you violate a physical law you will have to pay a price. For example, If you walk off the Empire State building you will have to pay the price of death because of the Law of Gravity. God did not torture you. You caused your own death by violating a physical law.How on Earth do I violate the law of gravity by falling?

As for the 'you chose it yourself'-logic... if we are to go by this logic, no one in the world uses torture as a tool. If I try to flee North Korea and get beaten up for it, it's not North Korean grunts or Kim Jong-il who are at fault - I brought it upon myself for violating their laws. If I am found in possession of heroine in the People's Republic, it's not the Red Army henchmen, Hu Jintao or the People's Republic that puts a bullet in my neck - it's myself, because I broke China's law. I committ Suicide by Chinese Dictatorship:rolleyes:.

Shut down Amnesty International, torture and execution without fair trial doesn't exist.