Surprise: The Bible is scientifically ahead of secular scientists!

http://www.bible.ca/b-science-evidences.htm ^ | Uknown | Whoever ( atheismforum@yahoo.com )is

[OneVike]

Few people might be aware of this: There are passages in the Bible that coincide with scientific principles that weren't discovered by scientists until hundreds of years after the Bible had been written. Here are some examples:

[mrjesse]

The bottom line is that you have acknowledged that apparent position (light direction) and absolute position (gravity direction) can be different. That was my point.

I have always not only acknowledged Stellar Aberration and Light Time Correction, but have expounded at length on them. The problem is that the sum of both phenomena together isn't even 21 arcseconds (There are 3600 arcseconds in a degree) and you are claiming 2.1 degrees for the sun and I guess 102 degrees for Pluto!

You can go on an calling me dishonest for saying something that you admit is true,

That's a lie! I never admitted that it was true that the gravity and light of sun were separated 2.1 degrees. And I never called you dishonest for claiming that the gravity and light were displaced by 20 arcseconds.

I'm calling you dishonest because you claimed that the light and gravity of the sun were 2.1 degrees displaced from eachother, at the same time, as measured at the same spot by an observer on the earth, then when you realized that you were wrong, you refuse to admit that you were wrong, but instead went on to say more and more strange stuff to try and cover up what you said.

but I tire of repeating myself. Don't you 'Christians' have a phrase, "casting your pearls before swine"?

The problem is I thought you were an honest smart fellow to start off with, and heretofore you have implied that all along and have yet to claim any kinship with swine. If you'd started out saying "Oh yeah I'm a lier just so ya know" then I'd quite likely have gone away long long ago.

I have better uses of my time than trying to explain extremely simply concepts to someone who simply refuses to understand them.

If they are so simple, then how come you won't answer the question I've proposed about Pluto? Either Pluto's gravitational angle and optical angle are displaced by about 102 degrees or not! I've already clearly defined that it's for an observer on earth and everything else for the question to be unambiguous.

Since you have stated that gravity direction and light direction are two different things which is all you were disagreeing with me about in the first place,

Wrong! We were not just disagreeing with you about in the first place -- we were disagreeing about whether or not the sun's gravity pull angle was 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical angle due to the fact that the earth turns 2.1 degrees in 1AU's light time travel.

I don't see the point in trying to explain anything further to you. You were obviously wrong as you now admit and I was right.

I was not obviously wrong - if so show me at least a single thing I said that was wrong! And I do not admit to any such thing. It's easy to say to someone "Oh you're wrong" but it's completely meaningless if you can't show that they were indeed wrong!

Because you haven't been honest, from now on I will simply consider you target practice : )

Again, saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so! It doesn't even demonstrate it so! But if you found a single thing I said that was wrong, then by all means show it!

So why not just tell me whether Pluto will be displaced 102 degrees or not! By the way, hypothetical question - are you big enough to admit it if you find out that you had been wrong?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[MHGinTN]

I see you've met the self-proclaimed great. Bwahahahaha.

Even when he's caught posting false things regarding the Bible, he proclaims himself to be the superior source. You must be careful not to tread on this massive ego, he will call you everything but human. Bwaahhahahahahaha

I love it when pompous idiots spew their condescension and ignorance in the same breath. les petite grande never disappoints.

[MHGinTN]

BTW, Moderator, if what this Le Grande character is posting isn’t ‘making it personal, neither is my expose on the dolt. On the other hand ...

[mrjesse]

I see you've met the self-proclaimed great. Bwahahahaha.

Even when he's caught posting false things regarding the Bible, he proclaims himself to be the superior source. You must be careful not to tread on this massive ego, he will call you everything but human. Bwaahhahahahahaha

I love it when pompous idiots spew their condescension and ignorance in the same breath. les petite grande never disappoints.

Indeed, this conversation with LeGrande has been the most amazing lesson I've ever learned. I'm not sure if I'm studying the outworking of Atheism or the outworking of Liberalism. In any case, what I'm seeing is not Honor and Accountability. I didn't realize that people would work so hard to support a wrong idea - especially in the face of contrary evidence.

Is this why science in the classroom is in such shambles?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Because you haven't been honest, from now on I will simply consider you target practice : )

Are you implying that I'm a low-hanging fruit-cake?

[ultra wide grin]

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Are you implying that I'm a low-hanging fruit-cake?

Just like Durian. : )

[mrjesse]

Just like Durian. : )

Alright, alright, I guess I asked for that... :-)

But seriously, what about Pluto? I'm sure you can be big enough, muster enough honor and accountability, publicly humiliate at least one of us, and find it in your heart to answer! Really, what'll it hurt?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Religion Moderator]

All of you - knock it off.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

[mrjesse]

All of you - knock it off.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

My apologies, all around.

LeGrande, thanks for being a good sport. I enjoyed the conversation and learned a lot of new things and refreshed a lot of things about which I was previously vague. It caused me to examine and think about how the solar system works more then ever before and it's truly amazing. Thank you!

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Just as material lies harm our society, little lies make it work.

What is the dividing line between a material lie and a little lie? I'll bet the difference is that you can't get away with a material lie, but you can get away with a little lie.

Aren't lies always told to get one out of a bind or when the truth would bring some misery?

So if a large enough body of people all wanted to say the same lie to get out of a bind or some misery, then they could all say it and get away with it, even if it was a material lie!

-Jesse

[ConservChristian]

Just in case you are not familiar with the details, here is how science works.

You sound strangely like a "scientific fundamentalist." Again, you are correct in "perfect theory" but unfortunately the "theories" that you speak of are not presented as theories or are they open for dissent or are the measures of fact that supports them. They are presented as fact merely because the "scientific community" agrees that they are. That's how they are "sold." Is the "scientific community" an observable fact? You would think so considering how often it is presented as the "authority" on scientific fact we are supposed to swallow whole. Do you remember the chart we used to look at in grade school on man's evolution from the ape? How much of that chart was fact? Not too damn much of it, but boy it sure is a great selling tool! Science is NOT only science. The dissemination of science is filled with agenda and branding just like everything else the world is trying to sell us. Your puritanical view is naive.

[Coyoteman]

You sound strangely like a "scientific fundamentalist."

Thank you. I try.

Again, you are correct in "perfect theory" but unfortunately the "theories" that you speak of are not presented as theories or are they open for dissent or are the measures of fact that supports them. They are presented as fact merely because the "scientific community" agrees that they are. That's how they are "sold."/i>

Theories, such as the Theory of Evolution, not presented as theories? What do you think they are presented as then? Of course they are presented as theories. I think your objection is more that they are presented at all.

All theories are open to dissent, but the problem you are facing is that your dissent is actually religious belief, not scientific evidence. You have no science to back your dissent. As such, it is rightly ignored by science.

Theories are the current best explanations for a series of observations (facts). They must accommodate all known facts, and not be contradicted by any significant facts. They also must successfully make predictions. The theory of evolution does all of these things. It is presented as a theory, not a fact, but a scientific theory is not something that was just arbitrarily cooked up. It has successfully emerged from a number of competing hypotheses by virtue of its explanatory power and its predictive power. That is the case with the Theory of Evolution. There is no competing theory, nor are there any significant hypotheses seeking to explain the same set of facts.

Is the "scientific community" an observable fact? You would think so considering how often it is presented as the "authority" on scientific fact we are supposed to swallow whole.

It sounds from that statement that you have a problem with science in general.

Do you remember the chart we used to look at in grade school on man's evolution from the ape? How much of that chart was fact? Not too damn much of it, but boy it sure is a great selling tool!

Actually that chart was just fine as far as it went. It was not designed to be a perfect summation of each individual step in the evolution of humans, but rather a general schematic. As such, it works just fine.

Science is NOT only science. The dissemination of science is filled with agenda and branding just like everything else the world is trying to sell us. Your puritanical view is naive.

From your comments I gather that your problem with science is that it contradicts some of your religious beliefs, and that it refuses to accept your beliefs as evidence.

Get used to it. Since the Enlightenment we are not required to kowtow to religious authority any longer, and many choose not to do so. You can't put Humpty back together again.

[ConservChristian]

All theories are open to dissent, but the problem you are facing is that your dissent is actually religious belief, not scientific evidence. You have no science to back your dissent. As such, it is rightly ignored by science.

I'm not making a "scientific dissent." I'm making the point that scientific theories can very easily become religious in nature because pro-active "believers" create an environment where competing theories are not allowed to exist. Case in point, if you disagree that Global Warming is a man made crisis and is more likely part of the earth's continual warming and cooling cycles your voice is surpressed. If you want to study or discuss the possibility of the latter you will be blackballed by the GW movement. Similar to those old favorites like the coming ice age and global famine purveyors of my youth. If you have the gall to look at DNA and suggest that wow, this is pretty sophisticated stuff, what are the chances that it came from nothing? Hmmm? You do admit that science has a bit of a problem even coming up with theories about how it all started, right? Cause and effect? Something from nothing? Was the big bang when all the nothing came together and exploded?

I love the wonders of science. I think everyone should ponder the unfathomable magnificence of the universe that the Hubbell telescope has revealed to us, as well as the mind boggling explorations into the inner universe represented by things like the Human Genome project. And I DO NOT believe science should consider any religious belief. But why there is a scientific bias against seeing or even considering any evidence of "design" or intelligence in the fabric of the material universe is baffling to me. We can come up with entire theory systems from a few bone we've dug up out of the ground, but we look at DNA and the best explanation we can give is "given enough time DNA will just happen."

[Cvengr]

Maybe you are placing your faith more in physical images of your liking, than receiving what He is providing for you through faith in Him, ergo, you might be asking the wrong question in order to understand His meaning which He is providing for you.

[Cvengr]

All theories are open to dissent, but the problem you are facing is that your dissent is actually religious belief, not scientific evidence. You have no science to back your dissent. As such, it is rightly ignored by science.

Of course without that belief, one must consistently use whatever evidence which is available independent of creation to verify the separation of science from creation. Exactly what material evidence have you found independent of creation to verify your findings?

[Coyoteman]

Of course without that belief, one must consistently use whatever evidence which is available independent of creation to verify the separation of science from creation. Exactly what material evidence have you found independent of creation to verify your findings?

All of it.

[metmom]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning..... There was a beginning supported by the Big Bang Theory and Einstein’s equations and Hubble’s observations. *********************************************************** Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void,... Supported by the solar nebula theory and the proto earth. *********************************************************** Gen 1:20 ”Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, Scientists say that life arose in the seas. *********************************************************** Gen 1:24 ”Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind... Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, “Shaped from clay [origin of life]” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515522/posts Scientists have concluded that clay was necessary for the formation of life. *********************************************************** Eccles 1:6 Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns. Scripture describes the circulating system of winds. *********************************************************** Eccles 1:7 All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again. The Bible also describes the water cycle. *********************************************************** Lev 17:10 - 12 `And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. `For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ “Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, `No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’ Blood is necessary for life. The life is in the blood. *********************************************************** Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. Job 9 5, 8 ”It is God who removes the mountains, they know not how, When He overturns them in His anger; 8. Who alone stretches out the heavens And tramples down the waves of the sea; Expansion of the universe. *********************************************************** Col 1: 15- 17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. All things are being held together; gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism.

[metmom]

The fact that we're bigger, taller, and have longer life spans than 2,000 years ago must be completely ignored if we're to believe your statement.

Ignoring the effects of better nutrition and improved medical care that is responsible for those improvements, is being intellectually dishonest and by no means supports evolution.

[metmom]

. They start with a preordained conclusion, and proceed to stretch, distort, and misrepresent scientific evidence, as well as fabricate the most amazing nonsense, to validate their a priori conclusions.

As with the naturalistic view of the universe that *scientists* and evos have.

Besides, the evidence is the evidence. It's not inherently *scientific* or *nonscientific*, it's what it is; both sides use the same fossils and rocks. What the difference is is in the interpretation of that evidence.

[metmom]

The problem with creation and the biblical timeline is that it doesn't correspond to anything we can observe.

The problem with the evos is that they try to insist that every creationist believes that the earth is a certain age old and that the Flood must have happened in a certain year when there's not one verse of Scripture that makes any statement about the age of the earth.