Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[DOC]

On your User CP there is a function to call up all subscribed threads. When I do so, one of your wastes of bandwidth is invariably on the first page. I check it out and comment if feel in the mood.

See what I mean about being a phony, one minute you say my threads are a waste of bandwidth, the next minute you say you check it out and comment if your in the mood.

It's also quite humorous referring to me as a phony. I am one of the original 200 forum members, have attended 3 TAMs and TAA2 and have met a number of forumites in real life. I have had more posts lost when the database crashed than you have posted the entire time you've been here.

Being an original member doesn't always mean something. Judas was one of the original 12 apostles and Benedict Arnold was one of the original American patriots.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, if his naming certain dead people who believed in Jesus, hasn’t convinced you I don’t know what will.

This is either a funny post or a really pathetic one. I guess it depends if you're sincere or not.

 

[Lothian]

This is either a funny post or a really pathetic one. I guess it depends if you're sincere or not.

Would adding have helped ?

 

[wollery]

Anybody who makes a post like this and continues to keep coming into my threads and post, is phonier than a three dollar bill. Your continued presence and the continued presence of those who refer to me as a troll does more to destroy your arguments than anything I could every say. Every time you and others post in my threads it smashes your arguments to pieces that much more. If you and others really believed what you said, you wouldn't waste one second in my threads. Thus 3 dollar bill.

Yeah, 'cause pointing out that someone is posting crap really destroys the arguments that show he's posting crap.

 

[joobz]

See what I mean about being a phony, one minute you say my threads are a waste of bandwidth, the next minute you say you check it out and comment if your in the mood.

DOC, it is posts like this that highlight your complete lack of honesty and make everyone believe you are a Troll. You complain becuase others are off topic, but you have several very good questions and points that you have failed to address. Each of these points have been directly in line with the theme of the thread.

Here are just three of them.

I'm sure it's been pointed out previously in this thread, but in case it hasn't is DOC aware that selective mis-readings of the quaran can come up with as many scientfic "predictions" as his selective mis-readings of the bible?

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

Using his logic does this mean i should convert to islam?

So your "loving" god would command the president to kill, maim and deform millions of people because their leader is bad? What a guy!

I was contemplating the meaning of this thread, and I can't help but be astounded by the arrogance it takes to assume that science has anything to do with the bible.

When you consider the centuries of effort, developing instrumentation, making observations, coming up with explanations, having these explanations confirmed, refuted, going back developing new instrumentation, making whole new observations, and having these critiqued for accuracy, logic and reproducibility. This painstaking process has involved countless people, the giants we know, but their work required the basis of little steps that came before and during. All of this effort translated into technologies that have improved the lives of millions of people. Improvements in food production, medical care, travel, communication, new materials which are cheaper to produce, the current development of sustainable technologies. All of these stemming from that same level of effort, care and determination that bore the scientific principles that make all of this possible.
To have this body of work marginalized by saying it is merely approaching the truth of god is beyond an insult. It’s a form of careless, thoughtless arrogance that only comes from a view of assumed superiority. If the bible does contain these truths, we were they written so criptically? Why would it be encoded in enigmas instead of clearing stating truth? I’m certain that the common response is that “we weren’t ready for the truth, couldn’t understand it, or that we are still too simple to understand what the bible is really saying.” However, none of these satisfy the question of, Why couldn’t god explain it simply? There is no evidence to suggest that we are any “smarter” now than 2000+ years ago. So, if we could handle these understandings, so could we have handled them 2000 years ago.
No, the bible has nothing to do with science. These attempts at bridging the gap has nothing to do with god (whether he is or isn’t). It has all to do with fundamentalist people pretending that they know something more than those who live in the rational world. It reeks of the exact same type of feigning that is done by mystics and psychics. It’s an act and a con. It’s offensive and self serving.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, if his naming certain dead people who believed in Jesus, hasn’t convinced you I don’t know what will.

Sheesh, Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins (both of whom I respect), who are alive, believe in Jesus, but they don't espouse any of the crazy crap that DOC does, so he'll have to do many levels better than quote mining or applealing to authority.

See what I mean about being a phony, one minute you say my threads are a waste of bandwidth, the next minute you say you check it out and comment if your in the mood.

Look stupid, I have cable and check out "Keeping up with the Kardashians" on E! if I'm in the mood. That doesn't mean that the show isn't a waste of bandwidth... just as your threads are. I just check all things out to see if they're entertaining.

I also find it interesting that of all the responses showing how bogus your claims are, you always focus on those which question your integrity or sanity. I'm not psychologist but it speaks volumes that you ignore rebuttals and debunking of your BS claims only to whine about people questioning your integrity or sanity when one of the hallmarks of a troll or mentally ill person is a myopic focus on comments in response to his integrity or sanity.

Being an original member doesn't always mean something. Judas was one of the original 12 apostles and Benedict Arnold was one of the original American patriots.

And Greek philosophers overestimated the value of Gedankenubungens, Newton wanted to transmogriphy (sic?) lead into gold via alchemy and Darwin didn't know anything about DNA. So what? How does that effect the fact that I've been around this forum since the beginning and have a larger number of people that know my posts aren't BS and have actually met me in person than think your posts are full of BS and haven't met you in person?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yeah, 'cause pointing out that someone is posting crap really destroys the arguments that show he's posting crap.

Hey now! You think pointing out that DOC is a troll or mentally ill is crap?

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Being an original member doesn't always mean something. Judas was one of the original 12 apostles and Benedict Arnold was one of the original American patriots.

Well, regarding Judas, why isn't he revered by Christians? He's the one who made the whole sacrifice thing possible. Without him, no Christianity.

 

[Taffer]

Furthermore, it is clear in the gospel of judas that he was only doing what jesus wished. He was not the bad guy made out to be by the few gospels which were allowed into the NT.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Would adding have helped ?

I think so, since Poe's law seems to be working so rampantly in the forum. Parodying a believer, or even agreeing sarcastically with one is hard to distinguish from sincere woo. There are those in the forum that would've posted what you said sincerely and believing it to be good logic.

 

[Slimething]

Well, regarding Judas, why isn't he revered by Christians? He's the one who made the whole sacrifice thing possible. Without him, no Christianity.

Lost in the mists of time is an alternate telling of the myth. As the last Holy Grail of wine was being quaffed, the waiter arrives with the check. At this point, Jesus absents himself to be closer to his Father, who doesn't have enough money, either. As Fate would have it, the bill ends up in front of Judas, who's also broke. The waiter is exceedingly alarmed as Judas is the last to leave, screaming "Where the [rules 8 and 10] am I going to get thirty pieces of silver?"

 

[Mashuna]

This is either a funny post or a really pathetic one. I guess it depends if you're sincere or not.

Would adding have helped ?

There's only one guaranteed way to show that you're joking, and that's to wear a duck on your head. You should try it sometime, Lothian.

 

[wollery]

Well, regarding Judas, why isn't he revered by Christians? He's the one who made the whole sacrifice thing possible. Without him, no Christianity.

At the very least it's superfluous!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Let's see how close science is getting to the Bible when it comes to a literal interpretation of Noah's Flood.

Q. Has science shown a wooden ship can be built to the supposed dimensions of the Ark?
A. No. Not even anedotes about Chinese dragon ships come close and the largest wooden ships, still significantly smaller than the Ark have proven unseaworthy.

Q. Has science shown the surface of the Earth to be the result of the Flood?
A. No. The geological ages, eras and eons are well understood. Dispirate mountain ranges such as the Himilayas, Andes and Grand Tetons exhibit very diferrent ages, effects of erosion and the Himilayas are even growing is the Indian plate continues to push into Asia.

Q. Has science shown that two of every unclean animal were taken on the Ark.
A. No. Forget for a moment the debate over kinds/species/etc. regarding how many animals were taken on the Ark, there is no indication of a genetic bottleneck 4,000 years ago in any species, genus or family.

Q. Does that apply to humans too?
A. Yes. Mitochondrial Eve lived well over 100,000 years before the Flood was supposed to have occured. Ditto genetic Adam.

Q. Has science found that the presence of fossils in certain strata matches the Flood or geological time and evolution?
A. Geological time and evolution. Morris' "hydrological sorting" is inane and the "mobility" argument is even worse. Dinosaurs are never found in Ordovician strata and rabbits are never found in the Permian. Even more problematic for the Flood is that pollen is never found in strata older than the Cretaceous and YECs have no explanation as to why.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
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.

Mathew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

And also

Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Let's see how close science is getting to the Bible when it comes to a literal interpretation of Noah's Flood.

Q. Has science shown a wooden ship can be built to the supposed dimensions of the Ark?
A. No. Not even anedotes about Chinese dragon ships come close and the largest wooden ships, still significantly smaller than the Ark have proven unseaworthy.

Q. Has science shown the surface of the Earth to be the result of the Flood?
A. No. The geological ages, eras and eons are well understood. Dispirate mountain ranges such as the Himilayas, Andes and Grand Tetons exhibit very diferrent ages, effects of erosion and the Himilayas are even growing is the Indian plate continues to push into Asia.

Q. Has science shown that two of every unclean animal were taken on the Ark.
A. No. Forget for a moment the debate over kinds/species/etc. regarding how many animals were taken on the Ark, there is no indication of a genetic bottleneck 4,000 years ago in any species, genus or family.

Q. Does that apply to humans too?
A. Yes. Mitochondrial Eve lived well over 100,000 years before the Flood was supposed to have occured. Ditto genetic Adam.

Q. Has science found that the presence of fossils in certain strata matches the Flood or geological time and evolution?
A. Geological time and evolution. Morris' "hydrological sorting" is inane and the "mobility" argument is even worse. Dinosaurs are never found in Ordovician strata and rabbits are never found in the Permian. Even more problematic for the Flood is that pollen is never found in strata older than the Cretaceous and YECs have no explanation as to why.

DOC, it's been 4 hours since you posted your response above, and yet you ignored mine. Why is that? Would you rather bitch about "personal attacks" and preach or are you serious about addressing whether science is getting "closer to God and the Bible"? I have asked four broad and general questions about a literal interpretation of Noah's Flood. Are you willing to address those or will you ignore them just like you did my evidence that I am not a "phony"?

 

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC
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.


Mathew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

And also

Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

Why did you stop the quote there?
the next passage clearly states who god is concerned about:
matthew 18:6

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.


God is only interested in children who believe in him. It is clear that if it meant ANY child, the bible would say ANY child. As it stands, only the little ones who believe in god matter.

Now, will you actually answer the questions related to the thread that US has posted?

 

[articulett]

Well, if his naming certain dead people who believed in Jesus, hasn’t convinced you I don’t know what will.

He could try Sam Harris' 6 steps to believing--

In support of this noble enterprise, every religion has created a black market for irrationality, where people of like minds can trade transparently bad reasons in support of their religious beliefs, without the threat of criticism. You, too, can enter this economy of false knowledge and self-deception. The following method has worked for billions, and it will work for you:

How to Believe in God
Six Easy Steps

1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of “faith.”
6. Return to 2.


Science may not be getting closer to the bible, but it has boiled peoples' propensity to believe such thing down into 6 basic steps. Of course, mentioning dead believers isn't mentioned, but I'm sure it's part of the expanded (less basic) 12-steps for ensuring the brainwashing sticks.

 

[articulett]

Why did you stop the quote there?
the next passage clearly states who god is concerned about:
matthew 18:6

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.


God is only interested in children who believe in him. It is clear that if it meant ANY child, the bible would say ANY child. As it stands, only the little ones who believe in god matter.

Now, will you actually answer the questions related to the thread that US has posted?

Andrea Yates used that quote to determine that she was going to hell, and that she might caused her beloved children the same fate for not disciplining them right. So she ensured their eternal salvation by drowning them all before they reached the age where they might "stumble" into Satan's clutches. But what is a few minutes of such suffering, when it's followed by guaranteed eternal bliss, for your loved ones. And why not risk it, if you probably were going to hell anyhow for being a bad mom-- what mother wouldn't do everything to spare her children such a fate?

Faith makes me ill.

 

[joobz]

Andrea Yates used that quote to determine that she was going to hell, and that she might caused her beloved children the same fate for not disciplining them right. So she ensured their eternal salvation by drowning them all before they reached the age where they might "stumble" into Satan's clutches. But what is a few minutes of such suffering, when it's followed by guaranteed eternal bliss, for your loved ones. And why not risk it, if you probably were going to hell anyhow for being a bad mom-- what mother wouldn't do everything to spare her children such a fate?

Faith makes me ill.

makes me wonder what the real motive was for DOC omitting that quote. Considering ALL of his support came from that passage, why leave out the one line?

It leaves only a couple of options:
1.) It was an honest error (unlikely, since DOC has proven to be dishonest)
2.) He knows that the passage contradicts his argument, and hoped people wouldn't double check his references.
3.) He knows of the Andrea Yates issue and tried to distance himself from such a horrific act that highlights one of the major failings of christianity.