Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
I believe Moses (who is believed to have written Genesis) was closer to God than anyone on planet earth at the time of his existence. And I believe that he was given partial revelation by God into the beginning of the universe in a manner that could convey to the people (of the time) how the universe was created in a way "they could understand" considering they we're illiterate. But Moses didn't have complete revelation. If Moses or any one else had complete revelation then Christ would have never needed to come.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3103981#post3103981
Click to expand...
Yeah, because Jesus really filled in the parts about the Big Bang and the age of the Universe! :rolleyes:

Oh, and to suggest that people of Moses time were illiterate is to further prove your ignorance on the subject of history.
 
joobz said:
DOC, this sentence is completely false. Elevated oxygen (hyperoxia) is likely to DECREASE life spans of humans, not increase it. This is based upon the oxidative stress hypothesis of aging.
Click to expand...

I see the experiment was done on "houseflies". And I wasn't able to get to the site when I hit your link.

And even if elevated oxygen levels is detrimental to humans now, that doesn't mean it wasn't beneficial in some way to humans who lived in the preflood days.
 
wollery said:
Oh, and to suggest that people of Moses time were illiterate is to further prove your ignorance on the subject of history.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that the people who wandered around the desert for 40 years following Moses were literate. And even if some were, I imagine there weren't to many good science books out there in the desert wilderness. (or pens and paper for that matter)
 
DOC said:
Do you have any evidence that the people who wandered around the desert for 40 years following Moses were literate. And even if some were, I imagine there weren't to many good science books out there in the desert wilderness. (or pens and paper for that matter)
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that there were any people who wandered around the desert with Moses for 40 years. Hell, there is no evidence for Moses.

Epic fail.
 
DOC said:
But I have evidence that God and Christianity changes people lives for the better (for example getting people off drugs and other addictions) and I have yet to see any evidence that the Big Bang theory has ever gotten a single person off drugs or substantially improved their life.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Stephen Hawking would be just as satisfied with life if, instead of studying theoretical physics every day, he were to attend church services and worship God all day.

I believe there is a difficulty here in communicating just what is meant by "evidence." There seem to be two definitions that are being used, and perhaps both are valid in different fields. When a scientist talks about evidence, he is referring to some physical, tangible piece of something, such as the gas ratios in amber that were mentioned earlier. When a literary scholar talks about evidence, they talk about the ideas constructed by the author, such as saying that the Wizard of Oz was about the relationship of the city-folk to the country folk.

The Bible, being that it is a book, falls under the category of literary reasoning, but this is complicated by some factors. For one, the book has been held in such authority on the real world that it is seen by some as trumping physical evidence. For another, the book has been interpreted in many different ways, which allows the interpreters to go pretty much any direction that they want to.

When geologists first started looking at geology, their original assumptions in the late 1700's were essentially that the Bible was absolutely true, Noah's flood deposited all of the fossils, and the earth was 4000 years old. As scientists looked at the physical evidence, they found no way to reconcile it with the Biblical evidence. So, they decided to change their interpretations. Many well-respected scientists, such as Alexander Winchell, spent years defending the Bible in his lectures.

The problem is that the first 11 chapters of Genesis just don't jive with what we observe. So, most people now conclude that, while these passages were the best that people knew for a long time, they are not strictly correct because every line of reasoning that is apart from the Biblical text tells a completely different story.

The tower of Babel doesn't explain every language in the world; French, Spanish, English, and hundreds of other languages developed quite independently of any such supernatural cause. We can extrapolate that all language would have formed similarly.

The flood of Noah doesn't provide a root cause for the rainbow (which is a prism formed by the raindrops), nor does it explain how we can have the types of geologic formations that we see. For example, I have seen stream-bed deposits that clearly show a stream going in one direction, and 30 feet on top of that, another stream-bed deposit going another direction, and 30 feet on top of that, another stream-bed deposit. Or, another example, corral reefs can be found stacked in a similar way. A reef can take thousands of years to fully develop; surely, 6 of them can't form atop one another in the space of a year. So, the flood story cannot explain the geologic formations that we observe. (though there is evidence for a flood in the area of Noah, which explains where the story came from)

The origins of humanity can be shown to be through a series of hominid progressions, completely naturalistically, without invoking the dust of the earth or the rib of a man. This has been well discussed in other places.

The idea, generally, is that you have to decide if you want to believe in observable reality, or if you want to believe in the words of the translated Bible. Personally, I find that I am more fulfilled by trusting observable reality.
 
DOC said:
Do you have any evidence that the people who wandered around the desert for 40 years following Moses were literate.
Click to expand...

That's what people were asking you for.

Anyway, I'd have to say if that many people wandered around such a small desert for 40 years because they were lost would have to be a bunch of buffoons. They probably couldn't read. Heck, they probably couldn't communicate with each other with anything but a series of grunts and barks.

Then again, the story is rather absurd and there is no credible evidence that it ever happened.
 
DOC said:
I see the experiment was done on "houseflies". And I wasn't able to get to the site when I hit your link.
Click to expand...
I gave you journal citations. I didn't hotlink them becuase it is just as easy typing in the citation and getting the journal..

BTW, DOC, I have worked in a laboratory that did hyperbaric oxygen therapy for many different diseases. I can tell you for certain that prolonged elevated oxygen levels are toxic to humans. End of story.


DOC said:
And even if elevated oxygen levels is detrimental to humans now, that doesn't mean it wasn't beneficial in some way to humans who lived in the preflood days.
Click to expand...
Why would preflood humans be any different than today? Are you saying we evolved since then?
 
thaiboxerken said:
That's what people were asking you for.

Anyway, I'd have to say if that many people wandered around such a small desert for 40 years because they were lost would have to be a bunch of buffoons. They probably couldn't read. Heck, they probably couldn't communicate with each other with anything but a series of grunts and barks.

Then again, the story is rather absurd and there is no credible evidence that it ever happened.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure those not familiar with the Bible understand the story. The food they ate in these 40 years was provided by God in the form of manna from heaven. According to the story, keeping the sabbath holy was so important that God gave them an extra ration of manna on the day before the sabbath so they wouldn't have to gather this divine food on the Lord's day of rest.
 
DOC said:
For someone who thinks I'm a troll, you certainly spend a lot of time reading and posting in my threads. Personally I think its is hypocritical to publicly call someone a troll and then continue to read and post in their threads.
Click to expand...
Hey, I like trolls. Winding them up is fun.

And what was the exact post number where the argument was debunked.
Click to expand...
Well in that thread you claimed

1 I've heard countless people say they have gotten off drugs through Christianity but
2 have never heard anyone say atheism has gotten them off drugs

(1) was debunked in posts 5,11,14,45,52,54,58,60,66,68,85,90,108,110,113,114,125,126,127,131,133,156,158

(2) was debunked in posts 2,3,9,10,11,12,31,49,58,70,85,90,113,119,135,175


Glad to be of service.
 
Lothian said:
Hey, I like trolls. Winding them up is fun.

Well in that thread you claimed

1 I've heard countless people say they have gotten off drugs through Christianity but
2 have never heard anyone say atheism has gotten them off drugs

(1) was debunked in posts 5,11,14,45,52,54,58,60,66,68,85,90,108,110,113,114,125,126,127,131,133,156,158

(2) was debunked in posts 2,3,9,10,11,12,31,49,58,70,85,90,113,119,135,175


Glad to be of service.
Click to expand...

:mrocks
Much like monkey baby, Lothian, you ROCK!
 
Doc poses an interesting and all too common belief system. Such a person fits the pieces of his puzzle together without realizing 3/4 of those pieces are missing. It all makes sense until you realize you are jumping to absurd conclusions if you only knew what you didn't know.
 
Cleon said:
There is no evidence that there were any people who wandered around the desert with Moses for 40 years. Hell, there is no evidence for Moses.
Click to expand...



The Jewish historian Josephus and the famous Roman historian Tacitus thought there was enough evidence to write about him.

And its funny how a guy who you imply never existed ended up being the 15th most influential person that has ever existed according to the scholarly book "100 - The 100 Most Influential people in history"
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Why would preflood humans be any different than today? Are you saying we evolved since then?
Click to expand...

The people who live up in the Andes Mountains have a different physiology than the people who live at sea level. Eskimos have a different physiology than people who live at the equator. But I don't see any new human species being created in thousands of years.

The people who lived for "hundreds of years" in the preflood era probably had a different physiology than the people of today. That different physical makeup of the humans back then could have been the reason they benefited from any increased oxygen levels that we have some evidence existed back then.

Also the flood could have contaminated the soil with salt water so it is not as fertile today as it was preflood. Some of these things might seem far fetched to some people but they're easier for me to believe than humans (over time) evolving from non-living chemicals. And easier to believe than some strange energy somehow turning into enough matter to make 10 billion trillion stars (aka big bang).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom