Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lothian said:
Do you have amnesia or is repeating something you have had debunked before standard troll behaviour.
Click to expand...

I join BS in thinking the latter.

Forget for a moment that he's spent more time bitching about the content of replies to him of late than actually responding to replies, and look back to my comments about sex and Bdelloid rotifers and Whip-tailed lizards posted in the 3rd, quoted to repost yesterday and still ignored.

Yet he continues to waste time and bandwidth replying to "NON-INFORMATIVE" posts and complaining about the supposed lack of content in the replies to his trolls.

Classic troll behavior - purposeful (no one does it like T'ai Chi) or unintendended because he's simply overwhelmed by there actually being responses to crap he thinks is a worthy contribution to the debate.
 
DOC said:
You shouldn't be, they didn't have microscopes or electron microscopes so it would be impossible to see bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses."
Click to expand...


Individual micro-organisms...yes certainly, but large numbers are easy to see, even if it is only slime.

Not making the correct connection (for a few thousand years) they would be very, very aware of the effect of some micro-organisms.

Often death and most often their children.

Death of a loved child is REALLY easy to spot. They understood that.

Meanwhile, what part of the Arc did Noah put the laboratory to preserve all the nice cultures of anthrax, smallpox, malaria and various plagues etc?

Or were Noah's family incredibly diseased, deformed and debilitated?

Why wasn't it mentioned?

You have to wonder why God missed telling everyone that he made all these tiny, tiny creatures to cause death, disfigurement and debilitation and wanted to keep it a secret.

Because he's a a really evil bastard or that he doesn't exist?

.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
That's why they got the simplified version of creation. The one the illiterate desert wanderers could understand.
Click to expand...

Now we understand the real thrust behind ID, Abrahamic religion and that sick book, the Bible.

Thinking of you as the equivalent to an illiterate desert wanderer that only understands simplified stories explains your posts.

Why do you think many people in the 21st century are not interested in fairy tales designed for simple, illiterate, bronze-age, desert wanderers?

.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Another general derogatory non-informative statement with no example. Any troll who has not read one post of my 1100 posts could say something similar.

I'm going to start numbering these empty non-informative statements. I would estimate in the 11 months I've been on this system there have been at least 100 of these so I start with this one.

EMPTY NON-INFORMATIVE GENERAL STATEMENT WITH NO EXAMPLE # 101
Click to expand...


You mean anyone who has read all of your posts could say something similar.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by DOC
According to this site, it has 14 correlations with reality.

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


Lothian said:
Do you have amnesia or is repeating something you have had debunked...
Click to expand...

You have the right to your opinion but I think there is an amazing correlation between Genesis and what we've learned only in the last 200 years or so. And the author of this website (in question) has a physics degree from the University of Chicago so he's knows a thing or two about science.

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
DOC will have a real problem with Bdelloid rotifers and Whip-tailed lizards since neither species had males. Even more disturbing, the lezzie lizards, while parthenogenetic have been observed engaging in male role play in order to stimulate ovulation.

DOC, if all species were created male and female, why are there parthenogenetic species?

Let me guess.. the Fall..
Click to expand...

If I get time I'll look into it. Your somewhat like Joobz in that you harshly criticize me as a troll and a short time later you come back to the thread and act like nothing has happened. You can't blame me for putting people who act like that at the bottom of my priority list.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
DOC, if all species were created male and female, why are there parthenogenetic species?
Click to expand...

I'll have to look into it further but this certainly shows that the Virgin Birth of Christ is not outside of the realm of scientific possibilities. (Even though I personally don't believe it had anything to do with parthenogenetic qualities)
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
he's knows a thing or two about science.
Click to expand...

Argument from authority...Still no evidence.

Have you run out of new logical fallacies so just keep on repeating the old ones....

...it might work.

.
 
DOC said:
I'll have to look into it further but this certainly shows that the Virgin Birth of Christ is not outside of the realm of scientific possibilities. (Even though I personally don't believe it had anything to do with parthenogenetic qualities)
Click to expand...

1) Conclusively prove that a man fitting the Biblical description of Jesus actually existed. Good luck, that's been endlessly debated with no solid conclusion either way.
2) Show evidence of another case of human parthenogenesis. Then, maybe, I'll be willing to take your fairy tales seriously.
 
DOC said:
If I get time I'll look into it. Your somewhat like Joobz in that you harshly criticize me as a troll and a short time later you come back to the thread and act like nothing has happened. You can't blame me for putting people who act like that at the bottom of my priority list.
Click to expand...
You'll see that my criticism of you follows your behavior, not the other way arround.

Your inability to address my argument has nothing to do with priority.
 
DOC - I have now read about a dozen or so of C Johnson's pages.

He is obviously well educated and I have enjoyed reading his ideas on various topics.

Unfortunately, that is all they are...ideas.

He is desperate to connect his love of science with his love of the Bible and will twist in knots to defend the indefensible, rationalise the irrational and apologise for the reprehensible.

Usually this takes the form of an "idea" which has no supportive evidence either in the real world or in scripture.

As an example, his idea that the world was initially populated by God with two types of people...Ones with souls and ones without souls.

People couldn't tell which was which (Cain went off and married the non-soul people in Nod). Later, God realised he had made a major ****-up and sent the flood to kill all the ones without souls.

Great stuff...Loved reading it...Total nonsense.

He certainly does a much better job of making up stories than the one provided for illiterate desert wanderers that he tries to shoe-horn into science.

Shame really...he is quite a good communicator when he is not mixing bronze-age, goatherd stories with science.

.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
If I get time I'll look into it. Your somewhat like Joobz in that you harshly criticize me as a troll and a short time later you come back to the thread and act like nothing has happened. You can't blame me for putting people who act like that at the bottom of my priority list.
Click to expand...

I do it mainly because I know you'l bitch about my replies rather than respond to them. You have made that the MO of a lot of your "informative" responses. You bitch about the persecution you supposedly are subject to rather than respond to substantive responses to stuff post. Many of your "informative" posts are to the same BS links that have already been sliced, diced, jullianned, served as appetizers and crapped out by those who waste their time reading them.

I finally took this link:
http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html
It's an abortion. First off, if it had any scientific support, why was it posted to mb-soft.com instead of a peer reviewed publication? Why wasn't it even posted to a .edu site? I'll tell you why, because it's full of crap and I'll try and do a point by point (not that there really are that many there) refutation of it if I have time - please note I'm admitting up front any lack of response to it will be due to time, not an inability to rebut it in it's entirety.

Personally I've stopped caring about whether you respond to my posts at this point (since you never do with any actual retorts anyway), I'm post them, as you futilely do, for the lurkers.

DOC said:
I'll have to look into it further but this certainly shows that the Virgin Birth of Christ is not outside of the realm of scientific possibilities. (Even though I personally don't believe it had anything to do with parthenogenetic qualities)
Click to expand...

That's a red herring DOC. You didn't answer why, if God created them male and female, Bdelloid Rotifers and Whip-tailed lizards are all female and the latter engage in lesbian lizard sex in order to stimulate ovulation and reproduction?

How about you answer my specific question rather than try and change the subject... as always.. for the lurkers?
 
How many times are you going to post the URL to that mb-soft genesis5 thing, DOC? 5000 times? Do you think we are total morons and haven't noticed that link before? Do you think we will change our mind if you post it another gazillion times?

You are not merely "putting the info out there", you are spamming.
 
DOC said:
The evidence is the correlations when looking at Genesis and then looking at modern science.

When I read this site I see a amazing correlations. If you don't, well then that's the way it is.

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


You would see amazing correlations between a tuna fish sandwich and Genesis if you thought there was a sliver of a chance someone would be swayed by it.
 
Tanstaafl said:
You would see amazing correlations between a tuna fish sandwich and Genesis if you thought there was a sliver of a chance someone would be swayed by it.
Click to expand...


You would see even more amazing correlations if you did that while stoned.

Or so I've heard . . .

I wonder what type of nonsense DOC would post if he read Genesis while stoned? It would probably be much more entertaining than the crap he has posted so far.
 
DOC said:
The evidence is the correlations when looking at Genesis and then looking at modern science.
Click to expand...
Your ability to understand "modern science" is severely doubted. As such, There is no reason to take this statement as fact.

I base this point upon multiple discussions of science that I've seen you enact over the past few months.

1.) Your inability to understand what is meant by LUA. In other words, your failure to recognize the difference between a single, solitary organism vs. a population of like single organisms.

2.) Your inability to descern between nitric oxide (NO) vs oxygen (O2) in relationship to the question of longeviity and hyperoxic environments.

3.) Your inability to differentiate between effects of hyperoxia on metabolism and the theory of metabolic rate and life span.


I would be willing to forgive these missunderstandings had you demonstrated the willingness to admit error and integrate these facts into your intellectual repertoire. However, you have only demonstrated resistence to learning and a inability to participate honestly in the discussion.

Therefore, I am forced to conclude that your statement is merely the ill informed opinion of a person who is woefully ignorant of science.
 
DOC said:
The evidence is the correlations when looking at Genesis and then looking at modern science.

When I read this site I see a amazing correlations. If you don't, well then that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

I'll try to make it simple for you.

Have a look at these two paragraphs:

Gen. 1:26 - Let us make man in our image.

Modern science says that this happened within the last 2-3 million years. Eventually, societies developed, man developed language, tools, weapons and logic, and has come to dominate over all the earth and its creatures (also mentioned in Gen. 1:26).
Click to expand...

When I read this paragraph I see a amazing correlations. If you don't, well then that's the way it is.

Ainulindale P.18 - Now the children of Iluvatar are Elves and Men, the Firstborn and the Followers.

Modern science says that this happened within the last 2-3 million years. Eventually, societies developed, man developed language, tools, weapons and logic, and has come to dominate over all the earth and its creatures (also mentioned in Ainulindale P.22).
Click to expand...

When I read this paragraph I see a amazing correlations. If you don't, well then that's the way it is.

=========================​

First paragraph is from a fantasy book called The Bible and your C Johnson's quote.
Second paragraph is from a fantasy book called The Silmarillion and the same C Johnson's quote.

I can do this with every quote used by Johnson as The Silmarillion has a very complete (and better written) creation myth.

It can also be done with the tens of thousands of other versions of creation myths from other religions and other novels.



Is one correlation less valid than the other? Why?
Are they both equally valid correlations? Why?
Where is the science?
Where is the evidence you say is there?

.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom