Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Safe-Keeper said:
They had obviously figured out that you needed blood to live. But blood circulation is not mentioned, and that's the kicker.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Cleon said:
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."
Click to expand...

This is a fib. I told no such thing.
 
DOC said:
This is a fib. I told no such thing.
Click to expand...

DOC said:
(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.)
Click to expand...

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

joobz said:
examples of scientific fraud
Click to expand...

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?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
{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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...


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)?
 
wahrheit said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".

DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doc, the problem is that 80% of what you post is not fact and the other 20% is misrepresented.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
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".
Click to expand...

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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3121568#post3121568
 
thaiboxerken said:
Doc, the problem is that 80% of what you post is not fact and the other 20% is misrepresented.
Click to expand...

100% of the scientific theory that the first one celled organism (over time) came from non-living chemicals is not fact.
 
DOC said:
You still didn't answer my question -- "Where did I admit "Science" is fraudulent, as you attempted to imply I did in this post.
Click to expand...

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 said:
This is a fib. I told no such thing.
Click to expand...

*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.

DOC said:
(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.)
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

DOC, why do you bother lying about something you just said? Is this a psychological thing?
 
DOC said:
You can't deny...
Click to expand...

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?
 
DOC said:
This is a fib. I told no such thing.
Click to expand...
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".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom