Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[DOC]

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?

Joobz uses his alleged personal experiences in some lab as support for his argument and nobody says anything, but I bring in a well written article that quotes 2 time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling and a Cambridge biochemist and I get complaints.

 

[DOC]

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

As a matter of fact, I have. I even quoted them in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633&highlight=Tacitus

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.

Do you have any source for this statement. I know there is a article on Tacitus in the World Book Encyclopedia and from memory it called him one of the world's great historians. I'll have to recheck it next week.

And Josephus wrote one historical work of 7 volumes and another of 21 volumes. Sounds like a person who took history pretty seriously to me.

 

[joobz]

Joobz uses his alleged personal experiences in some lab as support for his argument and nobody says anything, but I bring in a well written article that quotes 2 time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling and a Cambridge biochemist and I get complaints.

Nice job, troll.
I gave you two journal articles which describe my point. a quick pubmed search would pull up at least a dozen more.
I gave you a mechnistic reason why what you said was a bunch of crap. Do you dare to actually refute my argument?

Just becuase you are too daft too understand what I was talking about doesn't make it any less accurate.

You are either left with admitting you are wrong or continue to prove yourself a clueless, dishonest troll. Which will it be?

 

[Cleon]

As a matter of fact, I have. I even quoted them in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633&highlight=Tacitus

You took quotations from websites that agree with your position. That's not "reading" Josephus and Tacitus.

Do you have any source for this statement. I know there is a article on Tacitus in the World Book Encyclopedia and from memory it called him one of the world's great historians. I'll have to recheck it next week.

World Book Encyclopedia? You're joking, right?

Please tell me you're joking.

And Josephus wrote one historical work of 7 volumes and another of 21 volumes. Sounds like a person who took history pretty seriously to me.

...So no, you haven't read Josephus. Thanks for confirming.

 

[wollery]

Joobz uses his alleged personal experiences in some lab as support for his argument and nobody says anything, but I bring in a well written article that quotes 2 time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling and a Cambridge biochemist and I get complaints.

I'm afraid that scouring all of your posts in this thread, and the links you give, has turned up no reference at all to Linus Pauling, so if you could please repost that link, since I either missed it, or didn't recognize it.

Thank you.

 

[joobz]

I'm afraid that scouring all of your posts in this thread, and the links you give, has turned up no reference at all to Linus Pauling, so if you could please repost that link, since I either missed it, or didn't recognize it.

Thank you.

DOC's refering to the article on nitric oxide and dieting. I am still waiting to hear about why he thinks this is relevant to hyperoxia.

 

[kmortis]

Here. Get to work. And don't come back until they're all good and read.

Josephus's History of the Destruction of Jersulem.

and

Tacitus's The Histories (Vol I&II)

'Cause that was hard to do.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I won't even dignify your post...

And yet you did by quoting and replying to it. I'm slightly more convinced that your confuson between a "forum" and a "thread" is based on ignorance and unfamiliarity than on any sort of purposeful effort on your part.

You're a rare breed DOC. You're a troll who engages in all sorts of trolling activities, but you seem utterly oblivious to that fact. I'm going to place you in an echelon of 2 - you and Tai Chi.

Either you're a master at what you're doing here or you utterly convinced of the idiocy you post and I have to give you kudos for keeping it just crazy enough to have me doubt while sane enough to still leave me wondering.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I won't even dignify your post with a comment except to say I guess the people (including yourself) who are responsible for the 70,000 hits to my 12 threads just like to enter the threads of trolls and morons.

So you are admitting that you are one or the other? That's a breath of fresh air.

 

[six7s]

I won't even dignify your post with a comment except to say I guess the people (including yourself) who are responsible for the 70,000 hits to my 12 threads just like to enter the threads of trolls and morons

Don't play the 'Poor Me' card DOC, it won't score you any points

You routinely post utter crap

Utter crap is the enemy of rational, critical thinking

Consider for one moment that many, many of the "70,000 hits to [your] 12 threads" result in replies that debunk the utter crap that you copy and paste

Consider also, that in those "70,000 hits to [your] 12 threads", you have so far obviously and resolutely failed to convince anyone that your woo has any credibility whatsoever

You're a rare breed DOC. You're a troll who engages in all sorts of trolling activities, but you seem utterly oblivious to that fact. I'm going to place you in an echelon of 2 - you and Tai Chi

:shudder: the thought of trolls breeding

So you are admitting that you are one or the other? That's a breath of fresh air.

I see no reason to think that DOC will ever admit anything that undermines his fundamental stance. That stinks.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've considered several responses to DOC's argument from numbers (which he doesn't seem to realize, given the responses he's gotten is actually a bad thing) and the one that seems most appropriate is that he lives in a location and/or alternate reality where there are no automobiles since he's clearly unfamiliar with the car wreck vouerism phenomena.

DOC seems to be confusing the rubbernecking for an 8 car pile up with people thinking he's making some sort of valid - or cogent for that matter - argument.

But what do I know, he's declared me to be as phony as a $3 bill so my opinion should be ignored by people who have known my on-line persona since 2001, met me in person and chatted with me in PalTalk and IRC... DOC has had 70,000 hits on his 12 threads...

 

[joobz]

I've considered several responses to DOC's argument from numbers (which he doesn't seem to realize, given the responses he's gotten is actually a bad thing) and the one that seems most appropriate is that he lives in a location and/or alternate reality where there are no automobiles since he's clearly unfamiliar with the car wreck vouerism phenomena.

DOC seems to be confusing the rubbernecking for an 8 car pile up with people thinking he's making some sort of valid - or cogent for that matter - argument.

But what do I know, he's declared me to be as phony as a $3 bill so my opinion should be ignored by people who have known my on-line persona since 2001, met me in person and chatted with me in PalTalk and IRC... DOC has had 70,000 hits on his 12 threads...

Don't worry UnrepentantS. No one here actually listens to his attack of your character. It is an obvious attempt to avoid actually having to address your arguments. I have much respect for you and your posts.

It is much like his "joobz uses his alleged personal experiences" argument. He completely ignored the actual substance of my post, but simply focused on the fact that I mentioned my personal experience with the subject. It was easier for him to ignore facts and attempt to undermine my reputation. If I believed anyone actually was swayed by his tactics, I would worry. As it stands, I'm happy to let my posts speak for themselves.

 

[DOC]

In addition to all the info presented in this website

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

about the correlations of Genesis and Science, I was wondering why did Moses say God made woman out of the side of Adam. That would seem like something totally ridiculous. Why not just say God made man and woman at the same time.

Well once again there is another correlation with modern science. The first living one celled organism which we talked about in detail in this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

was neither male or female. Somewhere along the line according to science one gender had to come out of the side of the first gender that existed. Where did Moses get all this info.

Other correlations between Moses' Genesis and modern science were listed here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3103981#post3103981

 

[H3LL]

In addition to all the info presented in this website

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

about the correlations of Genesis and Science....

Great website. I liked the huge amount of citations, references and presentation of evidence. The extensive bibliography was particularly impressive. [/sarcasm]

You really haven't a clue, have you.

That page is linking to itself and has an extensive bibliography that only has one book, the Bible. It is not scientific in any way, shape or form.

Why would you think that a long page of someone pulling stories out of their arse and pretending they are true has any value whatsoever?

Has that post earned you some more Heaven Points?

.

 

[H3LL]

I was wondering why did Moses say God made woman out of the side of Adam. That would seem like something totally ridiculous. Why not just say God made man and woman at the same time.

Are you trying to be funny?

Exactly those two different stories are in Genesis.

Both together in Genesis 1.
Rib story in Genesis 2.

.

 

[wollery]

In addition to all the info presented in this website

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

about the correlations of Genesis and Science,

Reposting debunked webpages doesn't make them any less inaccurate.

I was wondering why did Moses say God made woman out of the side of Adam. That would seem like something totally ridiculous. Why not just say God made man and woman at the same time.

Because he wanted to show how subservient women were to men?

Well once again there is another correlation with modern science. The first living one celled organism which we talked about in detail in this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

was neither male or female. Somewhere along the line according to science one gender had to come out of the side of the first gender that existed. Where did Moses get all this info.

No. That presupposes that the "neither male nor female" one celled organism was, ummm, male. Which makes no sense. Male and female evolved at the same time. Having one sex precede the other is about as illogical as it's possible to get.

Other correlations between Moses' Genesis and modern science were listed here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3103981#post3103981

And thoroughly debunked just a few posts later.

 

[six7s]

I was wondering why did Moses say God made woman out of the side of Adam

Maybe because the authors of your favourite piece of fiction purposely portrayed the Moses character as a total schmuck as a sort of litmus test:

• If a faither will swallow that crap, they'll swallow anything

That would seem like something totally ridiculous.

Yep... for once I agree

 

[DOC]

That presupposes that the "neither male nor female" one celled organism was, ummm, male. Which makes no sense. Male and female evolved at the same time. Having one sex precede the other is about as illogical as it's possible to get.

Do you have any scientific evidence or reference for any of this?

 

[DOC]

Here is a site by 2 PHD's that says evolutionary biologists have serious problems with regard to the origin of male and female.


Evolutionary Theories on Gender and Sexual Reproduction

Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

"The evolution of sex (and its accompanying reproductive capability) is not a favorite topic of discussion in most evolutionary circles, because no matter how many theories evolutionists conjure up (and there are several), they still must surmount the enormous hurdle of explaining the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male necessary to begin the process. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:

‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]"

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

 

[wahrheit]

Here is a site by 2 PHD's that says evolutionary biologists have serious problems with regard to the origin of male and female.

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

Reproduced by Permission from TJ, www.AnswersInGenesis.org

*yawn*, DOC, this is really getting boring.