Still waiting on those 51 facts.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Signature in the cell
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by The Barbarian View PostScience 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?
Originally posted by The Barbarian View PostShe's brought up faked quotes before. How about showing us the scientists and these 51 facts with a checkable source?
Then we'll talk.
Comment
-
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?
Scientists do have things to say about the bible all the time.
Do you deny that?
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?
Comment
-
[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.
Originally posted by The Barbarian View PostThe scientific literature.
Originally posted by The Barbarian View PostFortunately scientists can do more than science.
Originally posted by The Barbarian View PostPointing out your unfortunate conflation of science and scientists.
Originally posted by The Barbarian View PostBarbarian observes:
She's brought up faked quotes before. How about showing us the scientists and these 51 facts with a checkable source?
Originally posted by The Barbarian View PostThen we'll talk.
Originally posted by The Barbarian View PostYou cited it. If you now want to concede that you don't know if it's true or not, you're off the hook.
Comment
-
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.
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.
Barbarian observes:
Pointing out your unfortunate conflation of science and scientists.
I made no such conflation.
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stuu View Post...[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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by serpentdove View PostGod did it (Ge 1:1). If he did not, will Dawkins kindly tell us where he got his matter?
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveDodo007 View Post"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.
Originally posted by DaveDodo007 View Post"...[W]hy should anybody accept it, after all God needed dust to create Adam..."
Originally posted by DaveDodo007 View Post"...[A]nd he needed Adam's rib to create Eve..."
Originally posted by DaveDodo007 View Post"So to give your God the ability to create the universe out of nothing is not even consistent with your own book."False premise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jeffblue101 View Posti 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by serpentdove View PostGod did it (Ge 1:1). If he did not, will Dawkins kindly tell us where he got his matter?
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by serpentdove View PostNo, you wouldn't (Lk 16:31).
Do you have the list of 51 things that the bible got right that science got wrong yet?
Stuart
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Barbarian View PostStill waiting on those 51 facts.
I bet that's one of them. Fifty to go.
Stuart
Comment
-
Originally posted by voltaire View PostThe 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?
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by serpentdove View PostAd 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?
Did God say he needed a previously created rib to create Eve?
False premise.
Comment
Comment