Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean that some of these things might seem far fetched to some people but they're easier for you because you are a gullible idiot ?


Do NOT change people's quotes. Period.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady




Edited: because I had amended DOC's quote in line with my suggestion above and suggested that was what he meant.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Hey, I like trolls.
Click to expand...

Then its illogical to speak of someone you think is a troll in a negative rude manner like you have done.

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
Click to expand...

Its impossible to debunk 1 and 2 because I "have" heard countless people say they have gotten off drugs through Christianity. That's a fact.

And "at the time" I made that thread I had "never heard" anyone say atheism had gotten them off drugs. That too is a fact.
 
DOC said:
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"
Click to expand...

A book which also include Lao Tzu another legendary possibly mythical character. Do you ahve difficulty believing that it is not necessary to exist for a character to have influence. I find the stories of King Arthur or Robin Hood to have been influential but that doesn't meant hat they were real people.

Moses may or may not have been real. However one thing is pretty certain. No-one wandered the desert being fed by food that fell from the sky. That would be ridiculous.
 
Originally Posted by DOC
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"


Lothian said:
Not half as funny as you referencing a book which puts Islam and science above christianity
Click to expand...


Well then that just proves that the author of the book was not biased towards Christianity when he puts Jesus, Paul, and Moses, in the top 15.
 
DOC said:
Also the flood could have contaminated the soil with salt water so it is not as fertile today as it was preflood.
Click to expand...

This is a testable theory. Let me take a sample of soil from arable land and test it for the pressence of Sodium Chloride (sea salt)

You'd have me believe that elevated levels of sea salt from the flood are still today decreasing the fertility of the soil.

Agricultural science has investigated the effects of various amounts of various salts in soil to increase fertility so we should already know the optimal level but if we go by your interpretation of the Bible this could be a real breakthrough that could feed the starving in Africa.

What do you reckon?

Will you fund this research?
 
DOC said:
The Jewish historian Josephus and the famous Roman historian Tacitus thought there was enough evidence to write about him.
Click to expand...

You've never actually read Josephus or Tacitus, have you?

They weren't particularly interested in historical evidence. They wrote what was "common knowledge" at the time, and didn't spend much time looking for actual historical evidence of what they wrote. In fact, in both cases their writings are considered largely suspect when it comes to Biblical issues, as the Catholic Church had a Stalinesque habit of modifying historical works in their possession to fit the Church/Party line.

(On a side note, Josephus was a bit of a "Benedict Arnold" of his day. He fought with the Jews for the liberation of Palestine, then turned and sided with the Romans.)

Actual evidence for Moses and the Exodus story ranges between "jack" and "squat." There is zero archaeological evidence for the story, nor is there any historical written evidence at the time (contrary to your assertion, yes there were plenty of written languages at the time, as I aptly demonstrated earlier in this thread). Even within the Jewish community, very few outside the ultra-Orthodox Biblical literalists think the story is anything but a parable, including prominent Conservative rabbis.


DOC, you're going to have to better than "so-and-so thought so" as a basis for your arguments. It seems to be a common staple with you, and it's lame. Really lame.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Describe what you mean by different phyisiology. changes in amount of RBC content in the blood is not the same kind of changes I'm talking about. In any event, is there any significant difference in life spans to these people? I'll give you a hint (not really).
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
DOC, your complete lack of understanding of biology is showing through.


DOC said:
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).
Click to expand...
DOC, you made a claim that increased oxygen levels extend peoples life spans. I KNOW this to be patently false and called you on it. I've worked in the area of hyperoxia/hypoxia. Your attempts at dodging this point won't work. Hyperoxia does not Extend lifespans.

You now are giving other half-hearted arguments to justify the bible. You have a conclusion and are making up stories to fit that conclusion.
 
Cleon said:
You've never actually read Josephus or Tacitus, have you?

They weren't particularly interested in historical evidence. They wrote what was "common knowledge" at the time, and didn't spend much time looking for actual historical evidence of what they wrote. In fact, in both cases their writings are considered largely suspect when it comes to Biblical issues, as the Catholic Church had a Stalinesque habit of modifying historical works in their possession to fit the Church/Party line.

(On a side note, Josephus was a bit of a "Benedict Arnold" of his day. He fought with the Jews for the liberation of Palestine, then turned and sided with the Romans.)

Actual evidence for Moses and the Exodus story ranges between "jack" and "squat." There is zero archaeological evidence for the story, nor is there any historical written evidence at the time (contrary to your assertion, yes there were plenty of written languages at the time, as I aptly demonstrated earlier in this thread). Even within the Jewish community, very few outside the ultra-Orthodox Biblical literalists think the story is anything but a parable, including prominent Conservative rabbis.


DOC, you're going to have to better than "so-and-so thought so" as a basis for your arguments. It seems to be a common staple with you, and it's lame. Really lame.
Click to expand...

Just to build on what Cleon is saying, if you actually start to get into ancient history as a serious hobby (as there are few that can take it up as a profession), the first thing you learn is that while there are written texts describing this period or that, they are of wildly varing quality. In terms of accuracy, depth of description, or what have you, they are a good starting point, but they need to be backed by harder evidence.

For example, try finding archelogical evidence for the events described by Lineaus (or Livineaus...I can't remember his name, but it began with an "L" and he wrote about the Roman Regal period) about the Roman Kings. He only wrote about seven kings reigning over ~250 years. I'll leave the math on that to the user.

Basically, it's all well and good that Tactius and Joseph wrote about Moses. When, in realtion to when Moses "lived" were they writing? If it's more than a generation or two, it's best to treat it as them writing down a commonly held myth, as the concept of history as a scholary persuit is a recent (read: within the last 100 years) invention.

This same issue arrises with Biblical criticism as well. The "historical" authors weren't worried about being accurate, but rather to lay the ground work for a theological basis.
 
Oh come now Cleon and kmo! You can't expect someone who takes D. James Kenndy and Jay Sekulow as fonts of TRVTH to think that perhaps historical sources might not be entirely 100% accurate when compared to paleontological and archeological evidence. Testimony is worth 1000 pot shards and 100 bone fragments.

Actually, at this point in the Flood/Exodus discussion - it's been what, 3 days or so now - I'm surprised he hasn't cited Ron Wyatt.

I think a more interesting thread would be "Is DOC getting closer to admitting his sources are bogus, that his assertions are foundationless and that he really is, despite his protestations, little more than a troll?"
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
Oh come now Cleon and kmo! You can't expect someone who takes D. James Kenndy and Jay Sekulow as fonts of TRVTH to think that perhaps historical sources might not be entirely 100% accurate when compared to paleontological and archeological evidence. Testimony is worth 1000 pot shards and 100 bone fragments.

Actually, at this point in the Flood/Exodus discussion - it's been what, 3 days or so now - I'm surprised he hasn't cited Ron Wyatt.

I think a more interesting thread would be "Is DOC getting closer to admitting his sources are bogus, that his assertions are foundationless and that he really is, despite his protestations, little more than a troll?"
Click to expand...

I, um, was, uh..."posting for the lurker". Yeah, that's it.
 
kmortis said:
For example, try finding archelogical evidence for the events described by Lineaus (or Livineaus...I can't remember his name, but it began with an "L" and he wrote about the Roman Regal period) about the Roman Kings. He only wrote about seven kings reigning over ~250 years. I'll leave the math on that to the user.
Click to expand...

Titus Livius AKA Livy. 59 BCE-17CE.
 
Given the validity and accuracy of DOC's sources so far, I wonder how long it'll be before he brings Velikovsky into the discussion?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Isn't Sitchin a bit more ammenable to a Biblical literalist?
Click to expand...

Well, the one thing that you can give to DOC is that he's not an inerrant literalist. He's already admitted that he doesn't agree that the world is only 4-6 thousand years old.

This is not to say that he's not a nutter. Just he's not THAT kind of nutter.
 
DOC said:
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"
Click to expand...

to write about stories about him, rather. You should watch Nickelodeon's All Grown Up's "Izzy or Isn't He?" episode.
 
joobz said:
DOC, you made a claim that increased oxygen levels extend peoples life spans. I KNOW this to be patently false and called you on it. I've worked in the area of hyperoxia/hypoxia. Your attempts at dodging this point won't work. Hyperoxia does not Extend lifespans.
Click to expand...

According to this author Nitric Oxide (Nitrogen and Oxygen) is effected when people have a reduced caloric diet (the only known way to increase lifespan). And also, if the people preflood had food with much higher nutrients they would certainly have a reduced caloric diet because of the higher nutrients in their food.

And its also a possibility that increased oxygen in the blood would make the heart not have to work as hard.

The article also talks about how animals don't appear to age in the wild.

From the article entitled:

Can Nitric Oxide Increase Lifespan?
This vital molecule plays a key role in caloric
restriction, the only known way to increase lifespan
By Will Block

http://www.life-enhancement.com/article_template.asp?ID=1162
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom