Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[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You're all so out of date.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.

 

[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?