Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Checking out that page that DOC's been spamming us with lately again this morning, it's just too long for to address point by point right now. I disagree with H3LL's rhetorical device, but I agree with his conclusions on the supposed correllation between science and the Bible. Maybe if DOC deems to actually address a confrontation rather than bitch about it or ignore it and spam again, I'll spend the time digging further into his link.

For now, I present to you though... how nutty the author of that page is.
http://www.mb-soft.com/public/

Oh boy...
http://mb-soft.com/public/publicme.html

And check out this gem:
http://mb-soft.com/citation.html
 
Hokulele said:
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.
Click to expand...

Empty Non-informative derogatory post #103 and counting.
 
Last edited:
kmortis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Conclusively prove that a one celled or a multi-celled living organism evolved over time from non living chemicals.
 
DOC said:
Conclusively prove that a one celled or a multi-celled living organism evolved over time from non living chemicals.
Click to expand...

Lame-ass argument from incredulity in favour of unsubstantiated woo #1,157 and counting
 
DOC said:
People also imply the very religious Isaac Newton was nutty by saying he did alchemy experiments.
Click to expand...

Lame-ass argument from incredulity (with added (yet, of course, misguided) appeal to authority) in favour of unsubstantiated woo #1,158 and counting
 
DOC said:
People also imply the very religious Isaac Newton was nutty by saying he did alchemy experiments.
Click to expand...
And he was nutty for doing those experiments. Luckily, he also provided much good. So, I'm with you that calling someone crazy becuase of crazy things they do isn't the best way to discredit everything they do.

Rustum Roy is a wack job when it comes to homeopathy and sex healing, but has made real valuable contributions to material science.
 
DOC said:
Conclusively prove that a one celled or a multi-celled living organism evolved over time from non living chemicals.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. Non-living chemicals aren't asking you to hate or kill other human beings and give them at least 10% of your gross to boot.
 
DOC said:
Conclusively prove that a one celled or a multi-celled living organism evolved over time from non living chemicals.
Click to expand...
You are not qualified to make such a statement because of your demonstrated inability to understand scientific theory.

joobz said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by DOC
People also imply the very religious Isaac Newton was nutty by saying he did alchemy experiments.


six7s said:
Lame-ass argument from incredulity...
Click to expand...

Why is my post above an argument from incredulity?
 
DOC said:
People also imply the very religious Isaac Newton was nutty by saying he did alchemy experiments.
Click to expand...
Carl Sagan said:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Sagan already blew this particular terrible argument out of the water years ago.
 
I laugh at DOC as well. That's because I can laugh at a person who succeeds so well in making himself look silly.
 
DOC said:
Why is my post above an argument from incredulity?
Click to expand...

Only you can answer that question DOC

--------

ETA: the simple fact that your question above is also posed from a stance of incredulity might provide a clue
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
Checking out that page that DOC's been spamming us with lately again this morning, it's just too long for to address point by point right now. I disagree with H3LL's rhetorical device, but I agree with his conclusions on the supposed correllation between science and the Bible. Maybe if DOC deems to actually address a confrontation rather than bitch about it or ignore it and spam again, I'll spend the time digging further into his link.

For now, I present to you though... how nutty the author of that page is.
http://www.mb-soft.com/public/

Oh boy...
http://mb-soft.com/public/publicme.html

And check out this gem:
http://mb-soft.com/citation.html
Click to expand...

Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:58:41 -0800 (PST)
From: "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Who else has the initials John Colter? And what's in the midst of BELIEVE?
To: Public1@mb-soft.com

Educational resources already show your claims against
free neutròns (beams and watter reactors) and the twin
paradòx (smaller length and trip) wrong.

Your mileage-improvement for car engines merely is a
description of a rocket tank, such as nitromethane.
Now research the disadvantages of a rocket over, say,
a jet engine or a regular ICE.

Roads are supposed to be black or dark to stop glare;
otherwise, drivers would be dead more often. If one
made them white to stop global warming—which doesn't
stop the hundred-or-so runaway coal mine or coal seam
fires in the world—then all windscreens would need to
be tinted, and shielded. And what of walkers? Maybe
they could pave the roads with limestone with sideways
roughness to match the sidewalks' albedo; it would
also absorb some CO2. However, I think the black goop
in roads is there for the same reason as the black
dust in tyres: stretchiness. They would tear and
crumbel otherwise.

You are wrong how you believe your God—either
God—doesn't want your inventions implicated in more
death or killing. Your NT Gospel even calls for the
laying down of one's life, or promotes the loss of
life over the keep. And of course your OT which you
shrug off is full of God's murder and wrath over
indeserved standards and practises.

shootdowns (Someone talkd about your site here.):
http://google.com/search?q=Is-Science-getting-closer-to.

doins (the end of your hoax-worship):
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast-food.

-Aut
 
DOC said:
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

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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I said I'd recheck the article. The 2007 World Book does say in its article on Tacitus that he is one of the world's greatest historians.
 
Tut!

People shouldn't attack the poster.

They should attack his arguments...although he hasn't shown any.
They should attack his evidence...although he hasn't got any.
They should attack his answers...although he hasn't given any.
They should attack his reasoning...although he doesn't have any.

Never mind...Carry on...

.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by DOC
Conclusively prove that a one celled or a multi-celled living organism evolved over time from non living chemicals.


joobz said:
You are not qualified to make such a statement because of your demonstrated inability to understand scientific theory.
Click to expand...

Well then conclusively prove it to those in the thread who are qualified. You'll probably win the Nobel Prize if you do.
 
DOC, is this yours?



Go away, read about logical fallacies and then come back when you have read and understood.

We're available for questions should you have any.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom