SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE

[Justin Adams]

I am sorry Enoch, but you seem to have lost the plot. 'God Breathed' means absolutely nothing. Sorry to say, your nitpicking claims are rather baseless and sometimes even juvenile. I do not have to explain myself to you. God 'inspires' the whole universe.
By Him we live and breath and have our being.
For you to say otherwise is to put Yahweh in a box of your own making. I suggest you do not do that anymore please.

[Enoch2021]

9 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

I am sorry Enoch, but you seem to have lost the plot.

Really?

 

Quote

'God Breathed' means absolutely nothing.

So you're saying that this passage...

(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

... means Absolutely Nothing ??  I'm Speechless.

 

Quote

Sorry to say, your nitpicking claims are rather baseless and sometimes even juvenile.

You're "Sorry to Say", after your last statement??  

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x3).

 

Quote

I do not have to explain myself to you.

You surely don't.

 

Quote

God 'inspires' the whole universe.

But NOT His WORD, according to you.

 

Quote

For you to say otherwise is to put Yahweh in a box of your own making.

Me??  You just said "otherwise".  (SEE Above)

 

Quote

I suggest you do not do that anymore please.

 

regards

[Justin Adams]

9 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

I will leave you with this information.

Saul's scripture collection and what he studied in the Sanhedrin was a lot thicker than yours is. What he considered 'scripture' you would disavow as being 'uninspired' (a Roman thought). This is a great computer comparison age we live in. So many of the words and complete phrases in 'your' scriptures were sourced from other than your collection. Check it out.

Have a great day!

[one.opinion]

On 12/20/2017 at 11:16 PM, Tristen said:

This reference pushed back the range of vertebrate evolution from ~470mya to around 500mya. http://www.nature.com/articles/383810a0

I'm curious where you derived the numbers since the article does not include them. The article is much more concerned with the anatomical features of the fossils rather than dates. The closest thing I see to dates is a mention that the fossils are Late Cambrian, instead of Ordovician. This is hardly a significant stretch considering the two proposed time periods are immediately adjacent to one another. Even if the dates you are proposing are accurate, that is a little over a 6% difference. Again, not a significant stretch.

I'll ask for your comments here before moving on to the next.

[Enoch2021]

On 12/22/2017 at 11:43 AM, Justin Adams said:

I will leave you with this information.

Saul's scripture collection and what he studied in the Sanhedrin was a lot thicker than yours is.

This is Irrelevant Anyways but...You sure about that?  Post the # of Scriptural Documents from Paul's collection...?

 

Quote

What he considered 'scripture' you would disavow as being 'uninspired' (a Roman thought).

 What on Earth??  How in the World can you make such an Irrelevant, Nonsensical Claim??

SUPPORT...?

 

Quote

This is a great computer comparison age we live in. So many of the words and complete phrases in 'your' scriptures were sourced from other than your collection. 

What in the World are you talking about?

 

regards

[Tristen]

20 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'm curious where you derived the numbers since the article does not include them. The article is much more concerned with the anatomical features of the fossils rather than dates. The closest thing I see to dates is a mention that the fossils are Late Cambrian, instead of Ordovician. This is hardly a significant stretch considering the two proposed time periods are immediately adjacent to one another. Even if the dates you are proposing are accurate, that is a little over a 6% difference. Again, not a significant stretch.

I'll ask for your comments here before moving on to the next.

“I'm curious where you derived the numbers since the article does not include them. The article is much more concerned with the anatomical features of the fossils rather than dates. The closest thing I see to dates is a mention that the fossils are Late Cambrian, instead of Ordovician”

Middle Ordovician is ~460-470mya. This paper was one of the first to push vertebrates into back into the Cambrian.

 

“This is hardly a significant stretch considering the two proposed time periods are immediately adjacent to one another.”

This exemplifies the danger of using abstract, subjective classifications to make conclusions, rather than the absolute figures. You take tens-of-millions-of-years, and pretend the time is “hardly significant” because the Periods (each 40 millions years) are next to each other. You could have just said they are both in the same Era – so they might as well be considered the same time. But stay away from Epochs and Ages, because that would place several stages between them – and that doesn't help at all; especially when some ages are less than a million years.

This is why I encouraged consideration of real numbers in an above post. Because if you're not looking at the real numbers, you can adopt this hand-wavy dismissal strategy giving the false impression they are not really that far apart.

 

“Even if the dates you are proposing are accurate, that is a little over a 6% difference. Again, not a significant stretch.”

This is a deceptive use of math. Percentages can only be determined to be “significant” or not when related to the real numbers. That “6%” represents tens-of-millions-of-years. If you don't think that is a “significant” amount of time, then you have drunk the proverbial cool-aid.

Nevertheless, I provided an example of a range extension exceeding a billion years. And another example where the discrepancy is so large, it has been left a “geological mystery” since the late 1960s. My argument doesn't fall because you required “bone-related” examples – which are less striking than the examples I already provided.

 

[Justin Adams]

10 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

What in the World are you talking about?

Using logical textural analytical programs, it has been observed that the 'forbidden books' of our so-called bible were quoted extensively in the apostles' letters and epistles - and Yeshua did as well.
Thus the 'modern roman offshoot' church is sadly deficient both in historical understanding and its so-called 'reformed doctrine'.

I'll not give chapter and verse to facilitate an argument - those that dare, can study for themselves. It is all public domain.

If you do not ask the question - how will you ever search for an answer?

[Enoch2021]

5 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Using logical textural analytical programs

Yes, I heard about these.  I can't wait for the day I go up against one of'em, I'm gonna PUMMEL IT!! 

 

Quote

it has been observed that the 'forbidden books' of our so-called bible were quoted extensively in the apostles' letters and epistles - and Yeshua did as well.

1.  Our "So-Called" Bible, eh?  Which is that, specifically...?

2.  Forbidden Books??  Like which ones...? The Secret Knowledge, eh? 

3.  So God quoted from these Forbidden Books?  Please, a 'For Instance' ...?

 

Quote

Thus the 'modern roman offshoot' church is sadly deficient both in historical understanding and its so-called 'reformed doctrine'.

What specifically is the 'modern roman offshoot' church...?

What specifically is this "Reformed Doctrine"...?

 

Quote

I'll not give chapter and verse to facilitate an argument - those that dare, can study for themselves. It is all public domain.

Shocking!  You claim it exists, but you won't SUPPORT it. 

So it's ONLY 1 Chapter and Verse?

 

Quote

If you do not ask the question - how will you ever search for an answer?

I'm asking the Questions...I always have.

Ready when you are.

 

regards

[MorningGlory]

On 12/22/2017 at 10:56 AM, Enoch2021 said:

Not orders , a Call to SUPPORT your Claims.  Since you won't, your claims are Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacies.

 

Again, it's not "Mine" and it's not a "Theory". 

 

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x5)

 

regards

Flat earth theory is one of the most ludicrous CTs out there.  If you do indeed have education in physics how on Earth could you buy into such a ridiculous idea?  Why do you drag this tired CT into every thread?  Btw, repeating the phase Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy over and over won't convince anyone of anything.

[Justin Adams]

Ah. It is a 'bot. MG said it - same response to everything.

A talking semi-conductor logic bus, with limited repertoire.