Signature in the cell

[The Barbarian]

Still waiting on those 51 facts.

[voltaire]

Science doesn't have anything to say about God or the supernatural. You've been had on that idea.

Who is this guy named Science? Does he have a last name? Why are you interested in this fellow anyway? Scientists do have things to say about the bible all the time. Do you deny that?

She's brought up faked quotes before. How about showing us the scientists and these 51 facts with a checkable source?

Then we'll talk.

Why don't you ask her to show you? She produced the quote from adrian rogers, not me. He got it from W.A. Criswell. Not sure where he got it from. The last two people are dead. She is the only left who might know. Go ask her.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Science doesn't have anything to say about God or the supernatural. You've been had on that idea.

Who is this guy named Science?

The scientific literature.

Scientists do have things to say about the bible all the time.

Fortunately scientists can do more than science.

Do you deny that?

Pointing out your unfortunate conflation of science and scientists.

Barbarian observes:
She's brought up faked quotes before. How about showing us the scientists and these 51 facts with a checkable source?

Then we'll talk.

Why don't you ask her to show you?

You cited it. If you now want to concede that you don't know if it's true or not, you're off the hook.

[voltaire]

[QUOTE=The Barbarian;2824959]Barbarian observes:
Science doesn't have anything to say about God or the supernatural. You've been had on that idea.

The scientific literature.

You said science; not scientific literature. Scientists make claims about the bible all the time.

Fortunately scientists can do more than science.

Scientists can do more than print scientific literature you mean. That's right. They make unfounded statements about the bible.

Pointing out your unfortunate conflation of science and scientists.

I made no such conflation. I said scientists. You talked about this fellow names science whom you later clariified to be pieces of glossy paper.

Barbarian observes:
She's brought up faked quotes before. How about showing us the scientists and these 51 facts with a checkable source?

Why should I? I quoted her; not the original source.

Then we'll talk.

Talk about what? I repeated what a poster said. You can't talk to a person who repeats what a poster said? You are quite weird.

You cited it. If you now want to concede that you don't know if it's true or not, you're off the hook.

I did not cite the original source. I cited serpentdove. If you want to know whether it's true or not, I suggest you try to find the original source.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian obsrves:
Science doesn't have anything to say about God or the supernatural. You've been had on that idea.

Barbarian, on being asked who science is:
The scientific literature.

You said science; not scientific literature.

That's where it is.

Scientists make claims about the bible all the time.

Barbarian observes:
Fortunately scientists can do more than science.

Scientists can do more than print scientific literature you mean.

I mean that they don't always talk about science. Sometimes they talk about other things.

That's right. They make unfounded statements about the bible.

Some do. Just as some creationists make unfounded statements about the Bible.

Barbarian observes:
Pointing out your unfortunate conflation of science and scientists.

I made no such conflation.

You sure did. Science is one thing. But scientists can talk about more than science.

Barbarian observes:
She's brought up faked quotes before. How about showing us the scientists and these 51 facts with a checkable source?

Why should I? I quoted her; not the original source.

You cited it. I'm calling you on that. If you want to say that you don't have any evidence for the claim, that would be fine.

Barbarian observes:
You cited it. If you now want to concede that you don't know if it's true or not, you're off the hook.

If you want to know whether it's true or not, I suggest you try to find the original source.

You cited it, up to you to support it. Or admit you don't have any reason to believe it. And I think you've just done that.

[serpentdove]

...[Y]ou had nothing more to say than Dawkins or Stein on the question How did life start? And in fact, Dawkins knows what kind of event "must have happened" while you don't seem to know even that.

God did it (Ge 1:1). If he did not, will Dawkins kindly tell us where he got his matter?

[DaveDodo007]

God did it (Ge 1:1). If he did not, will Dawkins kindly tell us where he got his matter?

That's just an assertion from bronze age goat herders why should anybody accept it, after all God needed dust to create Adam and he needed Adam's rib to create Eve. So to give your God the ability to create the universe out of nothing is not even consistent with your own book.

[serpentdove]

"That's just an assertion from bronze age goat herders..."

Ad hominem. What do you have against bronze age goat herders? It is likely that they were smarter than you.

See:

How Long Did it Take Adam to Name the Animals? by Ken Ham

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution? by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"...[W]hy should anybody accept it, after all God needed dust to create Adam..."

Did God say he needed dust to create Adam?

"...[A]nd he needed Adam's rib to create Eve..."

Did God say he needed a previously created rib to create Eve?

"So to give your God the ability to create the universe out of nothing is not even consistent with your own book."

False premise.

[DaveDodo007]

i encourage everyone,who wants to learn more about the origin of life by naturalistic means, to read Stephen Meyer's signature in the cell. Even if you are a die-hard evolutionist you will learn more about the difficulties with OOL and how the information theory relates to the DNA molecule.

Just to set the record straight I wasn't calling you an ignoramus in my other post I was referring to Stephen Meyers and his ignorance of biology hence part of my sentence that said 'there are enough problems with physics to be going on with.' Sorry for any confusion.

[serpentdove]

I would be impressed if the bible said “Wash you hands before eating because disease can be caused by things too small for you to see”.

No, you wouldn't (Lk 16:31).

[Stuu]

God did it (Ge 1:1). If he did not, will Dawkins kindly tell us where he got his matter?

Sorry, what did you god do? EXACTLY?

Dawkins's opinion on this is that religion teaches you to be happy with not knowing, which is exactly the characteristic you are displaying here.

Christianity: a prideful celebration of ignorance.

Stuart

[Stuu]

No, you wouldn't (Lk 16:31).

It looks like you won't be testing that question, though doesn't it. Scripture contains nothing that should surprise anyone living today, or at least anyone who has kept up with the discoveries of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Do you have the list of 51 things that the bible got right that science got wrong yet?

Stuart

[Stuu]

Still waiting on those 51 facts.

Genesis 1:2 says the earth was "without form", and we know today that the earth formed by the accretion of dust and gas, so we see that Moses knew about the supernova that produced the heavy elements that went into orbit around our new sun that began planetary accretion, long before unreliable scientists discovered it. How could he possibly have known all that cosmology?!

I bet that's one of them. Fifty to go.

Stuart

[Stuu]

The supposed facts of science regarding the bible were indeed wrong at one time. How can you be sure that the supposed facts of science regarding the bible today are not wrong? Serpentdove brought this quote up because anti-theists say believing the bible is ridiculous and it's believers are idiots for it. The reason it is said the bible is ridiculous and believers are idiots is because science has supposedly shown the bible to be scientifically wrong. If science was wrong about the bible in the past, why should we believe it isn't wrong about the bible today?

Firstly, the philosophy of science says that all conclusions are permanently provisional on new contradictory evidence coming to light. On the other hand, the philosophy of most religions is that their holy books, which contradict one another, are divinely-inspired truth. So science wins that argument before a fact is even considered: science permanently acknowledges it could be wrong. However, when people are unwell, they tend to place their trust in science by going to the doctor, not in scripture-based treatment at the temple.

Secondly, you have to cherry-pick to get a list of biblical claims where an ancient writer has guessed modern science correctly. The same is true with ancient philosophy: Democritus guessed right about atoms but Ptolemy guessed wrong on how vision works.

Thirdly, if you think science is unreliable, then you are really being hypocritical to use it as the yard-stick by which to judge the supposed foreknowledge of scripture. Following this argument, it could be that scripture is completely wrong about everything.

Fourthly, we are still waiting for even one valid example of this. We were promised 51.

Stuart

[DaveDodo007]

Ad hominem. What do you have against bronze age goat herders? It is likely that they were smarter than you.

See:

How Long Did it Take Adam to Name the Animals? by Ken Ham

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution? by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Not an ad hom at all as it is a simple fact that knowledge has increase over the approx 3,000 years since the Torah was written. I/we stand on the shoulders of giants and the goat herders were people of there time and couldn't be expected to know any different but that is no excuse for Ken Ham who is wilfully ignorant. As for entropy it is still increasing across the universe, just because there are a few pockets where the reverse is true doesn't change the overall picture.

Did God say he needed dust to create Adam?

So you are saying God is a showman then, just a magician and no better than a circus act?

Did God say he needed a previously created rib to create Eve?

See above.

False premise.

The challenge still stands until you explain why such 'stage' props were necessary.