Who's lying now?

[deluxe]

Deluxe, a serious question from me again, in hope you would give me a decent answer for a change.

Why do you think you can interpret the evidence and studies from people who are professionals in those fields, better than they do it, without even thoroughly analysing what they present?

As you have seen I have looked in many things. And I do look to see what they are saying .
The scientists are always dancing around every thing except the proof. They can't sit down and say we have proof.
So it's easy to to see why. It's in their research and their wrings. They are trying to fit their answer to a preconceived idea. and they can't get out of the rut. Now it's pride. They can't face it to tell people , they really don't know.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

We've already told you.

The Indus civilization. The Chinese. The Egyptians (this would actually have been during their second Dynasty.) That was the whole point of my posts, learn to read.

Modern historians rely principally on certain documents in the form of Egyptian king lists or annals. Among these are: the fragmentary Palermo Stone, presenting what are considered to be the first five "dynasties" of Egyptian history; the Turin Papyrus, very fragmentary and giving a list of kings and their reigns from the "Old Kingdom" into the "New Kingdom"; and additional inscriptions in stone, likewise fragmentary. These separate lists and other independent inscriptions have been coordinated in chronological order by means of the writings of Manetho, an Egyptian priest of the third century, B.C.E. His works, dealing with Egyptian history and religion, arrange the reigns of the Egyptian monarchs into 30 dynasties, an arrangement still used by modern Egyptologists. These sources, together with astronomical calculations, based on Egyptian texts dealing with lunar phases and the rising of the Dog Star (Sothis), have been used to produce a chronological table.
Problems of Egyptian chronology. Uncertainties are multiple. The works of Manetho, used to give order to the fragmentary lists and other inscriptions, are preserved only in the writings of later historians, such as Josephus (first century, C.E.), Sextus Julius Africanus (third century, C.E., hence over 500 years from Manetho's time), Eusebius (fourth century, C.E.), and Syncellus (late eighth or early ninth century, C.E.). As stated by W., G. Waddell, their quotations of Manetho's writings are fragmentary and often distorted and hence "it is extremely difficult to reach certainty in regard to what is authentic Manetho and what is spurious or corrupt." After showing that Manetho's source material included some unhistorical traditions and legends that "introduced kings as their heroes, without regard to chronological order," he says: "There were many errors in Manetho's work from the very beginning: all are not due to the perversions of scribes and revisers. Many of the lengths of reigns have been found impossible: in some cases the names and the sequence of kings as given by Manetho have proved untenable in the light of monumental evidence.",Manetho, introduction, pp. vii, xvii, xx, xxi, xxv.
The probability that concurrent reigns rather than successive reigns are responsible for many of Manetho's excessively long periods is shown in the book Studies in Egyptian Chronology, by T., Nicklin (Blackburn, Eng., 1928, p., 39): "The Manethonian Dynasties ., ., . are not lists of rulers over all Egypt, but lists partly of more or less independent princes, partly ., ., . of princely lines from which later sprang rulers over all Egypt." Professor Waddell (pp. 1-9) observes that "perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time; ., ., . thus it was not a succession of kings occupying the throne one after the other, but several kings reigning at the same time in different regions. Hence arose the great total number of years."

Since the Bible points to the year 2370, B.C.E. as the date of the global Flood, Egyptian history must have begun after that date. The problems in Egyptian chronology shown above are doubtless responsible for the figures advanced by modern historians who would run Egyptian history all the way back to the year 3000, B.C.E.
Greater confidence is placed by Egyptologists in the ancient inscriptions themselves. Yet, the carefulness, truthfulness, and moral integrity of the Egyptian scribes are by no means above suspicion.

As Professor J., A. Wilson states: "A warning should be issued about the precise historical value of Egyptian inscriptions. That was a world of ., ., . divine myths and miracles."
,The World History of the Jewish People, 1964, Vol. 1, pp. 280, 281.

50 years old, obviously biased, takes no account of any recent discoveries that confirmed and improve the dates mentioned above (pushing them back even), and mentions only one of the 3 examples I gave. This, ignoring the more obvious point that we know the Great Pyramid was built around 2560 BC. Even if we were to grant you a few extra hundred years (hey, I'm a generous guy), how could their possibly have been enough people on earth to build that and Stonehenge (built a bit earlier, during your flood), and populate every region of every continent except Antarctica?

You, simply put, are wrong. Your ideas are not only laughable, they are impossible.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Deluxe, a serious question from me again, in hope you would give me a decent answer for a change.

Why do you think you can interpret the evidence and studies from people who are professionals in those fields, better than they do it, without even thoroughly analysing what they present?

As you have seen I have looked in many things. And I do look to see what they are saying .
The scientists are always dancing around every thing except the proof. They can't sit down and say we have proof.
So it's easy to to see why. It's in their research and their wrings. They are trying to fit their answer to a preconceived idea. and they can't get out of the rut. Now it's pride. They can't face it to tell people , they really don't know.

Ok... No insult intended, i will try to show as much respect as possible, while trying to be perfectly honest.
To me it looks like you are just trying to find ANYTHING that could discredit the people who discover and talk about things that are going against your belief. You dismiss and straw man all evidence without really going deeper into the subject or even understanding it properly.. you are even ignoring reality. You seem to be the one looking at the facts without looking for the truth but for something that could back up your position!


We showed you that evolution is happening right in front of our eyes, inside our bodies, everywhere around us, it is jumping in your face on every corner.. bacteria evolving to eat synthetic materials, viruses mutating all the time, flowers adapting to grow through concrete, demonstrable evidence from laboratories etc etc.. people here gave you all the evidence you need to see the obvious (the scientists that you make fun of have much much more btw) and you simply ignore it and keep saying that they are lying, that they have nothing, that they can't do science etc.. and at same time you ignore the facts!.

That is also exactly what your sources do, they openly admit that they will never accept any evidence of any sort if it doesn't match the scriptural record, (the Bible).
Some of them make shit up and adjust it the way they need it and treat it as facts without any proof... they talk about things they have no clue about all the time. People (like you) blindly believe it merely because they believe in the same God, not because they are proven to be right about what they say. You admitted it yourself, you fill in the gaps with the argument that God must have done it because you have nothing better than that.

We told you about uncountable demonstrable errors from the pages you quote, errors from ignorance, quote mining and outdated papers (last one you used was like 50 years old) used to misrepresent modern research and history, etc etc.
Nobody is trying to hide your God in the closet. We just want reality to be presented the way it is and not the way somebody would like it to be.. and that is the problem with the pages that you quote, they don't state the facts about the world the way it is, they picture it the way they want it to be.

Some of those people do all they can in order to make it look like everybody else is wrong, even people whose ancestores lived long before the Jews even started writing their book.. when they were living in small huts, those people already had huge cities and a thriving culture and impressive history.
Keep in mind, when we are talking about your sources we are talking about people who are openly rejecting ALL evidence which is not in their favor! Isn't that even more pathetic given that they make no own scientific research and have NO peer reviewed stuff?
Do you even understand how dishonest and disgusting that is?
Basically they are cherry picking what they will accept and what not, and twist and stretch facts as they are pleased.

That is exactly what you seem to be doing too by the way.. so i will try to ask you again.. but if you answer, please answer honestly and explain exactly what you mean. "They are dancing around" and "it's easy to see why" doesn't answer my question properly.. i have no clue what you mean by that, sounds more arrogant than anything and right now i am sorry to put it like that but.. as i said i am trying to be honest..
So...

What exactly makes you think you can do science better than scientists and what makes you able to determine whether or not they are wrong without having any expertise in the fields and studying the subjects in depth?

Would you be able to do the same with rocket science or quantum physics?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here's the money quote:

Since the Bible points to the year 2370 B.C.E. as the date of the global Flood, Egyptian history must have begun after that date.

There's the problem with all of deluxe's sources right there. They start with a belief that "must" be true, and then cherry pick and distort the evidence to come up with the only answer they will ever accept. That's the opposite of what science does, which is start with the evidence and follow wherever it leads. That's why science is always changing and expanding and adjusting when new information comes to light, and religion is forced to stick with its wrong predetermined answers no matter how much contrary evidence exists.

 

[nasher168]

The scientists are always dancing around every thing except the proof. They can't sit down and say we have proof.

Well duh. :roll: Science never, ever has proof of anything.
The germ theory of disease might be wrong, but it probably isn't. Are you about to tell us scientists try to fit the evidence around the preconceived notion that germs exist? Creationism and germ-denialism (which does, shockingly, still exist) are as bad as each other.

 

[deluxe]

Ok... No insult intended, i will try to show as much respect as possible, while trying to be perfectly honest.
To me it looks like you are just trying to find ANYTHING that could discredit the people who discover and talk about things that are going against your belief. You dismiss and straw man all evidence without really going deeper into the subject or even understanding it properly.. you are even ignoring reality. You seem to be the one looking at the facts without looking for the truth but for something that could back up your position!


We showed you that evolution is happening right in front of our eyes, inside our bodies, everywhere around us, it is jumping in your

face on every corner.. bacteria evolving to eat synthetic materials, viruses mutating all the time, flowers adapting to grow through concrete, demonstrable evidence from laboratories etc etc.. people here gave you all the evidence you need to see the obvious (the scientists that you make fun of have much much more btw) and you simply ignore it and keep saying that they are lying, that they have nothing, that they can't do science etc.. and at same time you ignore the facts!.

That is also exactly what your sources do, they openly admit that they will never accept any evidence of any sort if it doesn't match the scriptural record, (the Bible).
Some of them make shit up and adjust it the way they need it and treat it as facts without any proof... they talk about things they have no clue about all the time. People (like you) blindly believe it merely because they believe in the same God, not because they are proven to be right about what they say. You admitted it yourself, you fill in the gaps with the argument that God must have done it because you have nothing better than that.

We told you about uncountable demonstrable errors from the pages you quote, errors from ignorance, quote mining and outdated papers (last one you used was like 50 years old) used to misrepresent modern research and history, etc etc.
Nobody is trying to hide your God in the closet. We just want reality to be presented the way it is and not the way somebody would like it to be.. and that is the problem with the pages that you quote, they don't state the facts about the world the way it is, they picture it the way they want it to be.

Some of those people do all they can in order to make it look like everybody else is wrong, even people whose ancestores lived long before the Jews even started writing their book.. when they were living in small huts, those people already had huge cities and a thriving culture and impressive history.
Keep in mind, when we are talking about your sources we are talking about people who are openly rejecting ALL evidence which is not in their favor! Isn't that even more pathetic given that they make no own scientific research and have NO peer reviewed stuff?
Do you even understand how dishonest and disgusting that is?
Basically they are cherry picking what they will accept and what not, and twist and stretch facts as they are pleased.

That is exactly what you seem to be doing too by the way.. so i will try to ask you again.. but if you answer, please answer honestly and explain exactly what you mean. "They are dancing around" and "it's easy to see why" doesn't answer my question properly.. i have no clue what you mean by that, sounds more arrogant than anything and right now i am sorry to put it like that but.. as i said i am trying to be honest..
So...

What exactly makes you think you can do science better than scientists and what makes you able to determine whether or not they are wrong without having any expertise in the fields and studying the subjects in depth?

Would you be able to do the same with rocket science or quantum physics?

OK... this is a honest statement from you. i respect that.

Now....It's not that I am just looking for anything that will discredit the scientists.It is just there is so much evidence that shows the scientists wrong on the origins of life and 'evolution'. This evidence comes from the scientists themselves.
Supporting the bible and a God was the last place I thought I would be. But I followed the evidence.
the bottom line is that the scientists do not have really any good stories on the origins and how a cell could just happen. It is a machine with many parts that have to be compete for it to work. So they really don't know!
The same with 'evoluiton' it is only assumption that one kind of animal becomes another. There is no evidence that that actually happens. We don't see that today. So are the scientists reading into the fossil record, something that never or could happen. The evidence say that is what they are doing. The interesting part of this is we have to get the evidence from the very scientists that are supporting 'evoluiton'.
So for both of these questions the scientists do not follow the evidence. But then call it a fact. ( that is not being honest with themselves or the public.)
Now the scientists have to break up the origins of life and 'evoluiton' into 2 theories. They say these are 2 different events. But that is not true. They are one and the same event. Creation.
I also have evidence from archeology, historians, and social understanding of humans, and on the science itself. ( fossils etc)

One of the problems with the scientists is that you never know what is true or not. You say some quotes were 50 years old. They were scientists , were they not correct when they made their statements? We were asked to believe them then! We are asked to believe them now, but what will they say 50 years from now?
Yet for the bible it was written thousands of years ago and it still current. Science and the bible are in harmony. And it does not change it's statements.
I have no problem of the scientists doing science. They are really good at that.
It's their interpretations and assumptions you have to watch out for.

I mentioned before that the scientists are looking at a small part of these questions.
people do not need to know any science to believe in a God and be correct. There is so much more to this question.
Look at this like it is a puzzle. The 1,500 piece ones. the scientists represents maybe 20 pieces or so. A few in the sky where everything is the same blue color and maybe some in the grass. Just those pieces do not tell you much about the whole picture. Yet the scientists say they know what the picture is. Then when you question them about the first things of life they, don't know. Or you ask them about other pieces ( 'evoluiton") it is all assumptions. This is after 150 years of study. They do not have proof and some say they may never be able to have proof. So what does that tell you?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

*Facedesk*
Okay -
You say that the Bible and Science are complimentary.

What's the equation that says a man can simply walk on water? That would redefine physics as we know it!
Do you know what would have happened to the Earth if the Sun stopped in the sky for Elijah and Moses those times as deemed by God? The Earth would have been scorched if we weren't all suddenly flung into space by the inertia of traveling 19 miles per second to only suddenly stop.
You know what can be said of ANY of these things you blindly claim? It's not scientific if you just put a band-aid over all of these things and simply said "GOD DID IT SO I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE REPERCUSSIONS OF SUCH ACTIONS THAT WOULD FLAW THE WORK."
People don't pop out of the ground and walk around because somebody tells them to.

The greatest logical flaw here you have is that you pick something up, and take all logical flaws and paste over them with "God Did This so I don't have to explain it" even when you're trying to scientifically explain it. Science isn't cookie-cutter, and you can't just use Miracle-brand duct tape to fix holes in logic.

 

[Laurens]

Deluxe,

There is a huge amount of evidential support for evolution in the fossil record. I shall cite one such example here, but there are many, many instances that I could have chosen from.

390 million years ago the only vertebrates were fish, tetrapods show up in the fossil record about 30 million years after this. These tetrapods show many similarities with modern amphibians, but they also share some characteristics in common with fish (particularly the group known as lobe-finned fish).

Now we can formulate a hypothesis based upon evolutionary theory; If tetrapods evolved from fish, then in rocks between 390 million years old and 360 million years old we should find fossil evidence of this transition. This makes a prediction, that if we look in rocks of the right age we would find fossils that have a mixture of tetrapod and fish characteristics.

This prediction was met by Neil Shubin who decided to look in rocks dated to be around 375 million years old. Ellesmere island happened to have the right age rocks, of the right kind, so he decided to send a team out to look there. What they found was Tiktaalik roseae which has features that it shares in common with both fish and tetrapods.

It has gills, scales, and fins like a fish, yet it's head is flattened like a Salamander with eyes and nostrils on the top of it's head rather than at the sides (as you'd expect from a fish), it also has more robust fins and a neck - a characteristic that fish do not have

This is clearly a transitional fossil, and shows that evolution is a predictive science. In fact the transition from fish to tetrapods is well documented, as shown below:

This is but one example of how the fossil record supports evolution, as I said I could have chosen from a whole plethora of other examples.

By contrast creationism makes no testable predictions, has no way of explaining the existence of Tiktaalik, or the combination of features that it shares with both fish and early tetrapods, or the fact that it was found in rocks matching the predicted date of the transition.

Creationists focus solely on attempting to discredit the evidence provided for evolution, and does nothing to advance its own theory. There are no predictions or experiments formulated by creationists.

Creationism is not science. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I have a couple of questions based on the above:

How can you explain tiktaalik from a creationist standpoint? Is there any legitimate reasons for it not being evidence of an evolutionary transition? How do you explain the fact that tiktaalik was a confirmation of a prediction made based upon evolutionary theory?

Can you provide a similar account of a creationist making and confirming a prediction based upon what you would expect to see if creationism were true?

 

[Snufkin]

Nice post Laurens!

Deluxe:
The theory of evolution is correct regardless of the origin of the cells (which you keep mentioning) - they could have been created by a god, or engineered by aliens.

Just like if there's evidence of gravity, the origin of matter is irrelevant, the theory still works regardless of the origin of matter.

The same with 'evoluiton' it is only assumption that one kind of animal becomes another. There is no evidence that that actually happens. We don't see that today.

We do see evidence of evolution today. Have you ever wondered where 'superbugs' come from? It's because bacteria reproduces quickly, mutates easily and rapidly gains resistance to whatever antibiotics that are being used to destroy it. They didn't use to have resistance to any antibiotics at all - they have acquired that ability.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Thank you for elaborating a bit..
I don't have much to add after the guys raised all my points.. let me sum it up though and add few things that are important to the entire discussion, in my opinion.


- Evolution is only about evolution! It is not about the origin of life, that is what the scientific study of abiogenesis is about, a very young field with many holes but a promising one which is giving great results already and seems to be on the right way... you know that very well but you are pushing the 2 under the same roof all the time. Is that because that makes it easier to attack it? The fact that we don't really know how exactly life came to be, doesn't mean that evolution is less true!

Whether it was God or a sand corn in the sea, or some aliens or whatever it was that made lifeless matter turn into life on the Earth, doesn't really make a difference for evolution, like we said so many times.
Scientists in general don't try to prove the non-existence of a God or Gods, they are looking at the evidence and follow it wherever it leads. If they find God on the way, they will most definitely tell us and be happy to do so!


- Another thing that you kept straw manning for way too long.. Cells are a result of evolution, not the begin of it.
There are still submicroscopic NON-cellular organisms, the unicellular organisms (single cells) are NOT the begin of evolution, we explained you that more than often enough, i did twice (at least) myself without seeing any comments on that from you and i wonder if you simply ignore it or you didn't see it because you have so many people addressing you and asking questions. By the way, those organisms often behave like lifeless matter when it comes to self-reproduction, something that is filling another gap in knowledge between the lifeless and the living.

Anyway, it would be great if you research a bit more before you claim that people think the cell poofed out of nowhere on it's own and already "knew" how to reproduce and survive. (Also try not to look only for creationist pages.. they not only don't have any own studies, but also tend to do all they can to undermine mainstream science, which is why we can't take them for serious.. something that we were telling you for the last ~35 pages)



- Evolution DOES happen today, EVERYWHERE. Another fact that we have been pointing out way too many times.
There are demonstrable examples that you were ignoring all along, however, you can't expect a bacterium to evolve into a flying whale fish over night (although it might be possible, who knows...), neither is it reasonable to expect a crocodile to give birth to a duck or a crocoduck or whatever.. Although even that might be possible!!
But evolution is generally an extremely slow process, especially when it comes to really big changes.
It took BILLIONS of years and radical environmental changes to get from the submicroscopic non-cellular or subcellular RNA (or even pre-RNA) level to the complex multicellular DNA life forms that we see today, you can't really expect to see such things happen instantly.
However, you do claim that God does things instantly, do you have any examples of that happening nowadays? Can you show us some unknown animals poofing out of nowhere for instance? And i mean like.. really show them coming from nothing to existence, not being found somewhere in the jungle or under a rock.


- The geological column is a very reliable source for evidence about evolutionary stages, it will keep revealing more and more transitional stages in the future, that is a promise, you can ignore it all you want and assume that god simply created other life forms once in a while, but unlike evolution science, creation fiction is supported by exactly 0 scientific evidence, more the opposite, science revealed many things that clearly speak against the creationist claims... and misrepresenting of scientific studies and perpetuating of debunked nonsense only shows how desperate creationists are to keep clinging to their baseless assumptions and ancient stories.


- You complain about scientists using (logical) assumptions and predictions but whenever you run out of arguments you resort to "GOD DID IT" without a shred of evidence or healthy logic.
Is that honest or rather extremely hypocritical and ignorant?

Your first post was about how AronRa is lying, you said maybe not on purpose but he is lying nonetheless because he doesn't know what he is talking about because he was brain washed by scientists (or something along those lines), but... you are accusing many people of lying about facts and being misinformed, without yourself being properly informed about those things. At same time you are presenting lies and nonsense from creationists who reject everything that is against their claims, claims without a molecule of evidence, you are presenting them as facts and ignore all arguments against it, often even with statements like "i don't need to know what actually happened but whatever they say is bullshit" or "i don't need to know the details to be able to say that scientists are wrong" or "doesn't take math to do the math".. freely interpreted.


In short, from what i saw so far, you admit that you don't really know what exactly you are talking about, but claim to be right anyway.

Don't you think that from our perspective, your position is in fact.. utterly dishonest both to us and to yourself?

 

[deluxe]

Well duh. :roll: Science never, ever has proof of anything.
The germ theory of disease might be wrong, but it probably isn't. Are you about to tell us scientists try to fit the evidence around the preconceived notion that germs exist? Creationism and germ-denialism (which does, shockingly, still exist) are as bad as each other.

The scientists have learned much on cells and the variety of life we have on the earth. That is good science, by the scientists. No one is saying they don't know anything about this. It's the interpretation of the science that scientists have, that needs evidence and proof.
It is not the science, we are talking about here. It is the interpretation of the science found, that he scientists have no proof for.


The scientists have found precursors to life, on the earth. That is the science. How they came together to create life, that is not known by them . So their theories on how that came about , has no evidence or proof.

The same with 'evoluiton'. There are many bones, and many animals that look similar to one another. The science is the fossils. The interpretation that one came from another, that is what there is no evidence or proof for.

So the theories the scientists have, are assumptions and conjecture.

they have tested these theories out for at least 150 years,and still no evidence or proof.
The reason this is so, is that we don't see that happening now. In real life.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

If you sample the blood of someone with Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and then do the same thing a month later, you will find that the two HIV viruses scarcely resemble each other.

How is that not evolution?

 

[Welshidiot]

So you're saying that God intervened, and "changed the rules" so that lions and other carnivores wouldn't require meat in their diet for the duration of the flood?

God brought the animals to Noah. So yes he intervened.

This is a very interesting admission on your part, and if accepted as true, leads to a very interesting conclusion.
Namely: You're right,...and so are we!

Puzzled, deluxe? I'll explain.....

You've stated earlier in this thread, that we have to look at the way things are now, and reject any origin hypotheses that contradicts what we currently observe.
But now you've told us that sometimes God intervenes, changes the fundamental workings of nature in order to achieve his purpose, and then puts everything back the way it was before he started.

So if we closely examine the historical, geological, fossil, etc records, we won't see God's hand, because God changed the rules, then changed them back.
What we'll see is exactly what we currently see, which is a 4.5 billion year old planet, where life started without any miraculous intervention, and evolved through a process of natural mutation and selection.
We won't see any evidence of a worldwide flood, or the concurrent seismic activity that raised Everest (and the rest of the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau, and the Andes, and every other mountain range with peaks of over 17,000ft), we won't see any evidence that carnivores can miraculously change their diet, because.....God intervened and changed the rules, then changed them back once he'd achieved his purpose.

And it's quite wrong for you to say that the world is littered with evidence of the flood, or creation, or anything else that proves divine intervention, because as you've pointed out.....God intervenes and changes the rules, and then changes them back once he's achieved his purpose, thus leaving no evidence of his intervention.
In fact what YOU should expect to see as a believer in God's power, is a total lack of evidence of his existence, and conversely a lot of evidence for the world being very old, life being a solely natural process, evolution happening, and so on, and so forth,....because, as you've said, God intervenes and changes the rules, then changes them back once he's achieved his purpose, and all that scientists have to work with is the way that things look once God's finished intervening.

Noone should be surprised that creationists can only present scant, shaky evidence at best, after all their God changed the rules of the natural world, worked his purpose using natural mechanisms like seismic activity, deposition rates, the weather, etc, and then changed the rules of the natural world back to what they were before he intervened, thus leaving no trace of his intervention.

So the scientists are right. They observe life, the planet, the universe,...and then report exactly what it appears to show. It isn't their fault that God intervenes, changes the rules, and then changes them back once he's achieved his purpose.
In fact, given that this is the way God operates, then it doesn't matter how long scientists look at life, the planet, and the universe, they're never going to be able to see God's hand in it, because when God changes the rules back to normal after one of his interventions, the effect of doing so removes all traces of his handiwork.

So, deluxe, would you agree that the only way that scientists can get an accurate insight into the workings of life, the planet, the universe, etc, is to study the one and only record of God's actions, the word of the Bible?

 

[australopithecus]

That is good science, by the scientists.

Right so just to confirm:

Good science = Science that doesn't challenge a literal reading of The Bible.
Bad science = Science that does challenge a literal reading of The Bible.

You, Sir or Madam, are laughably inconsistent. It's the same scientific method that evidences both germ theory and evolutionary theory. I quite like cherries you know, care to pick some for me? Maybe afterwards you can explain to me how germs manage to become resistant to antibiotics without evolution.

 

[deluxe]

Okay -
You say that the Bible and Science are complimentary.

What's the equation that says a man can simply walk on water? That would redefine physics as we know it!
Do you know what would have happened to the Earth if the Sun stopped in the sky for Elijah and Moses those times as deemed by God? The Earth would have been scorched if we weren't all suddenly flung into space by the inertia of traveling 19 miles per second to only suddenly stop.
You know what can be said of ANY of these things you blindly claim? It's not scientific if you just put a band-aid over all of these things and simply said "GOD DID IT SO I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE REPERCUSSIONS OF SUCH ACTIONS THAT WOULD FLAW THE WORK."
People don't pop out of the ground and walk around because somebody tells them to.

The greatest logical flaw here you have is that you pick something up, and take all logical flaws and paste over them with "God Did This so I don't have to explain it" even when you're trying to scientifically explain it. Science isn't cookie-cutter, and you can't just use Miracle-brand duct tape to fix holes in logic.

Chris Angel can walk on water. Why not the God's son.

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, one Scriptural account they pointed to was in the book of Joshua. There we read that on one occasion the Israelites were in battle and were defeating their foes, but the approach of night threatened to rob them of total victory. So God, by a great miracle, prolonged the day in order that they could complete their victory. The record says: "Accordingly the sun kept motionless, and the moon did stand still, until the nation could take vengeance on its enemies.",Josh. 10:13.
Does that scripture say that the earth does not revolve around the sun? Or were the inquisitors stretching its application too much? Surely, the Bible writer here did not intend to give a scientific statement about planetary motion. Rather, he tells us what the Israelites saw. They saw the sun stand still in the heavens,whether this was brought about by God interrupting the rotation of the earth or in some other way.
Similarly today, we say that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. Does that mean we do not believe in the revolving of the earth around the sun? Of course not. We are merely describing events as they appear to us.After all God created all of these Laws and has the power to do what he likes with these things.
Chris Angel does many tricks like walking through glass. But he only appears to walk through glass.
It is the same with talking snakes, etc.

 

[Laurens]

Chris Angel can walk on water. Why not the God's son.

So you're saying that it was just an illusion?

You know that Chris Angel can't really walk on water don't you? :lol:

P.S: If you could answer the questions from my previous post that would be nice... (I'm not holding my breath though)

 

[australopithecus]

Chris Angel can walk on water. Why not the God's son.

Because he doesn't walk on water, it's an illusion. He's an illusionist. He pretends to do things. But if you're willing to reduce Jesus to the role of a sub-par magician then I'm in total agreement.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Okay -
You say that the Bible and Science are complimentary.

What's the equation that says a man can simply walk on water? That would redefine physics as we know it!
Do you know what would have happened to the Earth if the Sun stopped in the sky for Elijah and Moses those times as deemed by God? The Earth would have been scorched if we weren't all suddenly flung into space by the inertia of traveling 19 miles per second to only suddenly stop.
You know what can be said of ANY of these things you blindly claim? It's not scientific if you just put a band-aid over all of these things and simply said "GOD DID IT SO I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE REPERCUSSIONS OF SUCH ACTIONS THAT WOULD FLAW THE WORK."
People don't pop out of the ground and walk around because somebody tells them to.

The greatest logical flaw here you have is that you pick something up, and take all logical flaws and paste over them with "God Did This so I don't have to explain it" even when you're trying to scientifically explain it. Science isn't cookie-cutter, and you can't just use Miracle-brand duct tape to fix holes in logic.

Chris Angel can walk on water. Why not the God's son.

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, one Scriptural account they pointed to was in the book of Joshua. There we read that on one occasion the Israelites were in battle and were defeating their foes, but the approach of night threatened to rob them of total victory. So God, by a great miracle, prolonged the day in order that they could complete their victory. The record says: "Accordingly the sun kept motionless, and the moon did stand still, until the nation could take vengeance on its enemies.",Josh. 10:13.
Does that scripture say that the earth does not revolve around the sun? Or were the inquisitors stretching its application too much? Surely, the Bible writer here did not intend to give a scientific statement about planetary motion. Rather, he tells us what the Israelites saw. They saw the sun stand still in the heavens,whether this was brought about by God interrupting the rotation of the earth or in some other way.
Similarly today, we say that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. Does that mean we do not believe in the revolving of the earth around the sun? Of course not. We are merely describing events as they appear to us.After all God created all of these Laws and has the power to do what he likes with these things.
Chris Angel does many tricks like walking through glass. But he only appears to walk through glass.
It is the same with talking snakes, etc.

You just addressed a criticism that wasn't made deluxe, and I think you know it.

It was never asked if the earth revolves around the sun, it was asked what would happen if the earth suddenly stopped roting. You did not answer the question, just like you haven't answered nearly any of our questions. You just change the subject, and beat up a strawman.

How incredibly dishonest. You bring shame to your faith.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Guys, deluxe is just throwing words around with no idea what they mean. She doesn't know what science is, what scientists do, what constitutes facts, evidence, or proof, and she's not got clue one about what evolution is. It is like you're talking engine maintenance with a dog, and pretending that its whining for food contains some sort of information about gaskets.

 

[Snufkin]

they have tested these theories out for at least 150 years,and still no evidence or proof.

You must have missed the last few posts

I agree ImprobableJoe. I'll only observe from now on (my last reply was flat out ignored anyway).
'evidence or proof' indeed.