Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

Speaking of modern science and the bible, there are some who say that the bible predicts nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

Indeed. In addition:

There are some who say the moon landing never happened.

There are some who say Elvis is still alive.

There are some who say the Queen of England is a reptilian alien.

There are some who say there was no writing system before 1200 B.C.



And then there are the rest of us who realize that the above is all a load of bullocks.

Issac Newton, the inventor of Calculus, and the Laws of Gravity (that Einstein credited with making his work possible) didn't seem to think The Book of Revelation (that he wrote 300,000 words on) and the Book of Daniel were a load of bullocks.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

 

[joobz]

DOC, I see you continue to be a hypocrite. Oh well.

 

[Ladewig]

And as far as the children I believe children who haven't reached the age of accountability go to heaven, so any suffering is very short in time compared to eternity and when you think about it Christ was not a stranger to a terrible and painful death.

Do you have any scriptual references to support this belief, or are you one of those Christians that makes stuff up to avoid the more unpleasant ramifications of the Bible.

 

[Cleon]

Issac Newton, the inventor of Calculus,

You've already been corrected on that. Kindly do not repeat false information.

and the Laws of Gravity (that Einstein credited with making his work possible)

That would be the "Atheist Jew" Einstein. You want to be consistent, don't you?

didn't seem to think The Book of Revelation (that he wrote 300,000 words on) and the Book of Daniel were a load of bullocks.

I didn't comment on the Book of Revelation or the Book of Daniel. But it really doesn't matter what Newton thought about it.


Once again, a pathetic appeal to authority, DOC.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And then there are the rest of us who realize that the above is all a load of bullocks.

Semantic moment and slang mixture alert, for you and DOC:

Either a load of bull, or a load of bollocks, the latter being Brit idiom.

We now return you to your original thread.

A bullock is a male ruminant, aka bull. Bollocks are testes.

DR

 

[joobz]

why would I want a wheelbarrow full of testicles?

 

[Foster Zygote]

why would I want a wheelbarrow full of testicles?

I'm glad you asked...

 

[Ducky]

From the Jefferson thread

Originally Posted by DOC
I'm finally starting to see what you're all saying because I've been so busy looking at the big picture and posting my 221 posts in this thread that I made a mistake on that Jay Sekulow thing. I saw that quote about the schoolyard gate and I immediately started to think that I heard Sekulow say that on TV and didn't even notice that it was footnoted to a court case.

Originally Posted by DOC
Ok, I made a mistake by saying "called" the Trinity decision instead of "during" the Trinity decision. But that was my mistake and it doesn't change the fact that hundreds of documents were examined in 10 years and the Supreme Court declared (because of that 10 year examination) "This is a Christian Nation".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74960

Except with regard to both of those admissions, they did not even come close to addressing what was wrong with your interpretation of errors. So no, you did not admit mistakes, you shifted focus to a trivial "mistake" and continued to spew the same crap.

In regards to the Trinity decision, you never answered these posts showing that SCOTUS did *NOT* rule this was a "Christian Nation:"


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2941928#post2941928
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2941428#post2941428
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2915683#post2915683
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2911418#post2911418
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2911539#post2911539
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2915251#post2915251
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2909700#post2909700
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2909854#post2909854
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2909885#post2909885

And those were just my responses. I'm not even going to try to come up with all the posts about Sokeluw you ignored. The Jefferson thread is an example of 49 pages of posts in which you do not ever admit a direct contravening fact to your posts makes your premises invalid.

So no, DOC, you don't admit error, you obfuscate as best as possible and try to give an appearance of admitting error, but you do not in fact admit when your premises are completely incorrect.

 

[Cleon]

Semantic moment and slang mixture alert, for you and DOC:

Either a load of bull, or a load of bollocks, the latter being Brit idiom.

We now return you to your original thread.

A bullock is a male ruminant, aka bull. Bollocks are testes.

DR

I humbly apologize for posting before my morning caffeine.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

And again:

And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth."

Red emphasis mine. Are you really saying that the Bible has a prophecy about God setting off nuclear weapons against 'all those who fought against Jerusalem'? Someone tell the NSA you predict a nuclear terrorist attack on a... Biblical scale.

 

[joobz]

I humbly apologize for posting before my morning caffeine.

I still want to know what I'm supposed to do with all of these testicles!!!!

 

[Cleon]

I still want to know what I'm supposed to do with all of these testicles!!!!

Batter 'em up, deep-fry 'em, and throw a party.

Geez, do I have to think of everything?

 

[Lothian]

I still want to know what I'm supposed to do with all of these testicles!!!!

Testicles are useless without a prick. I am sure Doc will be along shortly to help you out with your problem.

 

[joobz]

Except with regard to both of those admissions, they did not even come close to addressing what was wrong with your interpretation of errors. So no, you did not admit mistakes, you shifted focus to a trivial "mistake" and continued to spew the same crap.

In regards to the Trinity decision, you never answered these posts showing that SCOTUS did *NOT* rule this was a "Christian Nation:"


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2941928#post2941928
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2941428#post2941428
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2915683#post2915683
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2911418#post2911418
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2911539#post2911539
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2915251#post2915251
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2909700#post2909700
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2909854#post2909854
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2909885#post2909885

And those were just my responses. I'm not even going to try to come up with all the posts about Sokeluw you ignored. The Jefferson thread is an example of 49 pages of posts in which you do not ever admit a direct contravening fact to your posts makes your premises invalid.

So no, DOC, you don't admit error, you obfuscate as best as possible and try to give an appearance of admitting error, but you do not in fact admit when your premises are completely incorrect.

That was my thought as well, but I decided to be the bigger man and demonstrate how one admits errors. I did not wish to play semantic games. But in so doing, I find his hypocricy funny considering it is so multifacitated.

1.) DOC questioned my willingness to admit error, even though in past I have demonstrated willingness to adjust statements based upon new evidence.
2.) DOC claims I was attacking the messenger, even though he labeled me a troll in the past (never once apologizing for it)
3.) After apologizing for being in a sense wrong, he still refuses to apologize for his lies about my posts. (His previous attempt at proving me wrong outed his bigger lie)
4.) He touts a loving god who is based upon forgiveness, but has not actually accepted my apology. He even went so far as to suggest that there be a 3 strikes rule.

5.) After all this, he continues to spout the same lies, which are proven lies, the same logical fallicies, which are proven logical fallicies, and continues to ignore the hard questions made before him.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

why would I want a wheelbarrow full of testicles?

Buster Gonad!

 

[slingblade]

Batter 'em up, deep-fry 'em, and throw a party.

Geez, do I have to think of everything?

Apparently not, since you forgot the side of ranch dressing. But it's okay; I'll pick up your slack.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I humbly apologize for posting before my morning caffeine.

Have you considered switching to "a morning Guinness?"

It's not for everyone, and if one has a job during the day, perhaps ill advised, but it's not a bad variation on the theme.

DR

 

[Cleon]

Have you considered switching to "a morning Guinness?"

It's not for everyone, and if one has a job during the day, perhaps ill advised, but it's not a bad variation on the theme.

Worth considering, but somehow I don't think a "morning Guinness" would solve that particular problem.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

So Jesus and/or God are going to use neutron bombs after Jesus returns? Do they really need to do that? Couldn't they just will it to happen without a bomb?

Seeing as to how the almighty God needs to make use of the TV to show everyone in the world something...

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. [...] This would have been impossible at the time of the vision of John.

...Apparently not.

 

[lysdexia]

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.

At Earth's point of view, accretion is spreading forth. So is volcanism/seafloor spreading.