Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[six7s]

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

@ DOC,

Please note that your failure to do so will be inferred as further evidence that

• you are unable to
  

  • 
    explain why you feel able to claim credibility

• you admit that:
  

  • 
    you have less credibility than the pink unicorn in my garden

• you would
  

  rather bitch about "personal attacks" and preach

• you are incapable of being
  

  serious about addressing whether science is getting "closer to God and the Bible"?

• you are simply ignorant and argumentative despite having no valid arguments to address
  
  i.e. you are a troll, wasting the time of those who are genuinely interested in evaluating evidence that there might be some substance to the myths of a deity

 

[six7s]

...So [Andrea Yates] 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

Not only eternal bliss for your loved ones but also infinitely more joy for Yahweh, who just can't embrace enough souls

! ! ! Only 29 days to xmas ! ! !
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
! ! ! It's time to remember that charity begins at home ! ! !

For all fertile christian couples out there, you don't even have to get out of bed to make your saviour and his daddy the happiest deities ever!!

Simply copulate and then take a morning-after pill and your personal gift of love will be winging it's way into the ever loving embrace of your eternally grateful creator!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The chatroom is an independent chatroom not hosted by the JREF, the JREF is not responsible for the content which may include adult themes
​

 

[DOC]

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.

Your reading something in the verse that's not there. Nowhere does it say that God only cares about children who believe in Him. He only states he will punish very severely those who cause those (who believe in Him) to sin. That in no way means He will not punish those who abuse those who do not believe in Him or even those who have never even heard of Christ. If a child never heard of Christ how can he sin against Christ or God.

 

[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.

Taps foot...

 

[DOC]

Well regarding Noah's arc this engineering firm believes the arc would have been structurally sound.

The nautical engineering firm Shearer and Associates wrote regarding the ark that it would have been structurally sound and would have had sufficient stability and buoyancy for the cargo carried. [12]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Noah's_Ark

And here is a website that talks about how Noah's arc was possible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

Also I've heard it said that the atmosphere back then (before the flood) had a "much higher oxygen content" than ours and the food they ate had "much higher nutrients" than ours currently has [some of the tomatoes and cantelopes I've eaten lately taste like cardboard because of lack of nutrients]. These facts contributed to their long life spans. Also I've heard it said that the moon was brighter back then which helped health.

 

[wahrheit]

Taps foot...

Senator, is that you?

Well regarding Noah's arc this engineering firm believes the arc would have been structurally sound.

The nautical engineering firm Shearer and Associates wrote regarding the ark that it would have been structurally sound and would have had sufficient stability and buoyancy for the cargo carried. [12]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Noah's_Ark

Your source for this is conservapedia? Sorry, not acceptable. Besides, the Ark has been discussed before.

And here is a website that talks about how Noah's arc was possible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

Sorry again, but answeringenesis.org also is not a valid source. You may as well continue to quote the bible.

Also I've heard it said that the atmosphere back then (before the flood) had a "much higher oxygen content" than ours and the food they ate had "much higher nutrients" than ours currently has [some of the tomatoes and cantelopes I've eaten lately taste like cardboard because of lack of nutrients].

Do you have any sources for this? I was of the opinion that never before in mankind did we have access to such a variety of splendid food than in modern time. You sound like a vendor on homeshopping TV, trying to sell some algae or stuff.

Also I've heard it said that the moon was brighter back then which helped health.

Who says the moon was brighter back then? And how do you know that this "helps health"?

 

[DOC]

To Wahrheit, well sorry you don't like my sources, but at least I gave sources unlike Unrep. Sinner.

 

[Ladewig]

If a child never heard of Christ how can he sin against Christ or God.

Because original sin occurs at birth.

 

[Taffer]

Also I've heard it said that the atmosphere back then (before the flood) had a "much higher oxygen content" than ours

Evidence?

and the food they ate had "much higher nutrients" than ours currently has

Evidence?

Also I've heard it said that the moon was brighter back then which helped health.

Utterly false.

 

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by DOC


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.

I would think the clear way to state your interpretation would be to say "except ye be converted OR are a little child, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." The "and" leads me to believe that unsaved children are not on heaven's list.

Does your church teach that unsaved children go to heaven?

 

[DOC]

Who says the moon was brighter back then? And how do you know that this "helps health"?

Dr. Carl Baugh said it on his TV show. On this site he describes the preflood atmosphere.

"On day number four, when the sun was created, the energy of the sun upon this hydrogen would have caused a gentle pink coloration in the sky; at sunrise and sunset there would have been a vivid pink coloration; and at midnight there would have been a magenta pink sky. In other words, the sky before the Flood was never totally dark."

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k13.htm

I've once heard someone talk about pink clouds in Alaska so maybe there is something to this pink coloration of the sky.

Anyway, the atmosphere is changing now with global warming. Why can't people believe the atmosphere was different (with higher oxygen content) back then. Also, most of have heard the theory that the continents were one land mass at one time.

 

[Cleon]

Dr. Carl Baugh said it on his TV show. On this site he describes the preflood atmosphere.

Ah, yes, he's the lying creationist who claimed to find human and dinosaur footprints together in Paluxy. Even "Answers in Genesis" thinks he's full of crap.

Of course, his "doctorate" is from the same "school" he is now President of--Pacific International University, an unaccredited school that offers no on-site classes, but will kindly give you a "doctorate" for $3,000.

Good source, DOC.

 

[kmortis]

Ah, yes, he's the lying creationist who claimed to find human and dinosaur footprints together in Paluxy. Even "Answers in Genesis" thinks he's full of crap.

Of course, his "doctorate" is from the same "school" he is now President of--Pacific International University, an unaccredited school that offers no on-site classes, but will kindly give you a "doctorate" for $3,000.

Good source, DOC.

PIU...isn't that also known as "Hollywood Above the Bowling Alley Theological Institute"?

What's next, quotes from Ted Haggard on sexual fidelity?

 

[wollery]

Dr. Carl Baugh said it on his TV show. On this site he describes the preflood atmosphere.

"On day number four, when the sun was created, the energy of the sun upon this hydrogen would have caused a gentle pink coloration in the sky; at sunrise and sunset there would have been a vivid pink coloration; and at midnight there would have been a magenta pink sky. In other words, the sky before the Flood was never totally dark."

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k13.htm

You missed a large part of that section DOC;

A solid crystalline ice composite is proposed by Dr. Carl E. Baugh which was created by God approximately 11 miles up in the stratosphere with the hydrogen atoms being so supercold as to act as a fiber optic superconductive metallic substance. The composite not only permitted heavenly body light to shine through but magnified it as well in color and fiber optically conducted the sun's light all the way around the earth in a pink hue. The metallic properties of this crystalline frozen water composite canopy would then enable it to be held in place by the earth's magnetic field. Such a solid crystalline ice/metallic hydrogen canopy over the earth would have a profound effect on the earth's biology and climates and hence on its geological characteristics which would be quite different from today's characteristics. (Ref. Dr. Carl E. Baugh, 'Panorama of Creation', Creation Publication Services, Ft Worth, Tx, 1992, pp. 46, 51, 56-64)]

Where did this man get his Doctorate? And what subject was it in? I merely ask, because he hasn't got a clue about physics.*

I've once heard someone talk about pink clouds in Alaska so maybe there is something to this pink coloration of the sky.

It's caused by a particular set of inversion layers with a particular Sun angle hitting the right sort of clouds just right. Beautiful to look at, but evidence of nothing more than standard, well understood physical atmospheric phenomena. Nothing to do with supercooled metallic hydrogen.

Anyway, the atmosphere is changing now with global warming. Why can't people believe the atmosphere was different (with higher oxygen content) back then. Also, most of have heard the theory that the continents were one land mass at one time.

Did you really just bring up Pangaea as an argument to support your point of view?





*Okay, so I actually looked it up on google.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well regarding Noah's arc this engineering firm believes the arc would have been structurally sound.

The nautical engineering firm Shearer and Associates wrote regarding the ark that it would have been structurally sound and would have had sufficient stability and buoyancy for the cargo carried. [12]{snip link}

I took the link cited in the Conservipeepee article.
http://www.asknoah.org/html/arkdesign.html

Interesting signature line to the supposed response:

Sincerely,

SHEARER & ASSOC. INC

President

So "SHEARER & ASSOC. INC" is the president of the company? Why do I smell a weasel?

Also the supposed response cites a modern cruise ship and a modern drilling vessel. How the hell are those analagous to a 4,000 year old wooden ship?

And here is a website that talks about how Noah's arc was possible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

I worked all night DOC and I'm tired. How about you cut and paste the portions of that page which counteract my comments?

Also I've heard it said that the atmosphere back then (before the flood) had a "much higher oxygen content" than ours and the food they ate had "much higher nutrients" than ours currently has [some of the tomatoes and cantelopes I've eaten lately taste like cardboard because of lack of nutrients]. These facts contributed to their long life spans. Also I've heard it said that the moon was brighter back then which helped health.

I've heard that if you eat rose petals your farts smell like a bouquet.

How about if you provide some evidences for the supposed higher oxygen content, for the much higher nutrient content and why the moon was brighter and what the hell that has to do with Noah's Flood being real?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

To Wahrheit, well sorry you don't like my sources, but at least I gave sources unlike Unrep. Sinner.

Folks, DOC must be psychic because after 2 days of ignoring my post he just happened to challenge me when I was pressed for time and bandwidth. Of course since I'm supposedly phony as a 3 dollar bill, I'll just slink off after being called out in his mind I guess...

Not.

My bandwidth might be compromised tonight, but, after football tonight, I will gladly provide real, substantive documentation for my questions and answers and not just post links to advocacy sites and idle speculation... that is assuming, as so often happens in Crevo threads, that 5 other people don't do it before I can log back on again.

 

[Hokulele]

Why can't people believe the atmosphere was different (with higher oxygen content) back then.

Pesky beliefs. They trip you up every time.

To answer this question, there is no evidence for this.

 

[Ladewig]

Well regarding Noah's arc this engineering firm believes the arc would have been structurally sound.

The nautical engineering firm Shearer and Associates wrote regarding the ark that it would have been structurally sound and would have had sufficient stability and buoyancy for the cargo carried. [12]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Noah's_Ark

And here is a website that talks about how Noah's arc was possible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

So, DOC, have you ever wondered why no wealthy fundamentalist builds a wooden ark with the same dimensions described in the Bible? The answer is that it would not stay in one piece if floated in the ocean.

------
DOC's post is proof that he doesn't even read the content of the links he posts. The links repeatedly spell the word "ark" correctly, but DOC is still using a "c" in the word.

 

[wahrheit]

To Wahrheit, well sorry you don't like my sources, but at least I gave sources unlike Unrep. Sinner.

DOC, let me try to explain, in my humble words, the problem with your sources and why people here don't accept them.

You have a very religious point of view, and you try to convince people that your point of view is the correct one. However, the sources you used above are exactly this: religious.

Example: You post a link to conservapedia. The name alone of that domain says: Hello, I am biased!

Also, when you scroll down on that page, the first 7 (seven!) so called "References" on that page are, guess what, Genesis. The bible itself.

Don't you see that this is not a valid source? You post stuff here saying "The bible is true!", post a link to conservapedia, call this a "source", when in fact this "source" references the bible again.

Only because someone registered a domain and put up some pages on the interwebs, does not mean that this is an acceptable source.

That would be like a homeopath posting links to his own webpage, and calling these links a source. It simply doesn't work like this, DOC.

 

[DOC]

Good source, DOC.

At least it is a source, unlike everyone else talking about Noah's ark and the ancient atmosphere without sources,