Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Originally Posted by Cleon

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*

[DOC]

Originally Posted by 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...

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/crea...0/i2/fraud.asp

[wahrheit]

Originally Posted by 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*

You might add

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

to that list.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by DOC

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/crea...0/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]

Originally Posted by DOC

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/crea...0/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]

Originally Posted by DOC

(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]

Originally Posted by DOC

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/crea...0/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.

Quote:

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Taffer

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]

Originally Posted by DOC

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/crea...0/i2/fraud.asp

Oh oh fun! Let me play. Let's not forget these 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]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

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]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by DOC

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

Well DOC - What do you call it then?

Morris said:

Quote:

Such a list confirms that the Scriptures are scientifically credible

I'll take the first one I looked at and see how it does:

Quote:

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^WP:

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] 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

Worldwide English: They have lost the word of god too. No Leviticus.

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]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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]

Originally Posted by joobz

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.

Originally Posted by joobz

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]

Originally Posted by wahrheit

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]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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]

Originally Posted by DOC

This is a fib. I told no such thing.

Originally Posted by DOC

(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}

Originally Posted by joobz

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]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

{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]

Originally Posted by DOC

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]

Originally Posted by wahrheit

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]

Originally Posted by DOC

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".

Originally Posted by DOC

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]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

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.p...68#post3121568

[DOC]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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]

Originally Posted by DOC

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]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

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

Well thanks for clearing that up.

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

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.p...68#post3121568

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by DOC

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.

Originally Posted by DOC

(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]

Originally Posted by DOC

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]

Originally Posted by DOC

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".