Jump to content
IGNORED

SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE


KiwiChristian

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

This is based on scientific understanding... this is why the God popped animals into existence gets thrown out of courts and this is why evolution is taught in science classes.

Re the dna mapping doesn't add to evolution being true isn't the case... and those doing the work in this scientific field including the head of the genome project disagree with you. Lots of lectures to read if you're open minded or interested.

What evidence is there that God created them in the garden of Eden? Is this where we have carnivorous dinosaurs grazing vegetation next to Adam and eve before mans sins turned the vegetative eating carnivores into meat eaters? Evidence for this or the bible being evidence for the bible again? 

Can you honestly say you'd not already decided evolution is wrong as per your faith then went looking to debunk or you approached all evidence objectively without bias? If you could be objective then you'd appreciate the overwhelming evidence and if you think it's not overwhelming or the best model of origins then you've been reading in the wrong places.   One could believe anything on faith...religious or otherwise... faith isnt a pathway to truth I've realised.. faith is what we need in the absence of evidence. Objectively looking at evidence and critical thinking is the only best way to believe the most amount of correct things as possible. This isn't easy for some to do... I've extended family who are quite fundamentalist... indoctrination is very powerful and hard if not impossible to free up after a lifetime of investment.

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  135
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  4,165
  • Content Per Day:  1.22
  • Reputation:   3,062
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 7/14/2017 at 11:35 AM, 1to3 said:

 

On 6/25/2017 at 11:49 PM, KiwiChristian said:

9. Spherical Earth.

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22. "..when he set a compass upon the face of the depth." Proverbs 8:27.

Circle 2329 = Compass 2329 in Hebrew is "Khoog" = to describe a circle, or circuit, meaning the horizon which is circular.

Thank you for bring up your post topic, with biblical references,

But the above quote does not confirm the earth is a round ball sphere  . It mention "circle" and "face".

That could also be interpreted like a round plate surface.  If the plate has a face it has a different side and back to it.

Just saying...

Having now listened to many different arguments for round earth verses flat earth

I am not 1oo-% convinced one particular way than the other as both flat earth and round earth theories have their logic, physics and mathematics to support their claim. And that BTW does not make me stupid, it makes me open to see ALL facts available,tried and tested before coming to one specific conclusion in either direction.

There is a Christian by the name of Bill Schnoebellen who actually gives bible verses that support the flat earth theory.

You can check out the verses bill Schnoebellen gives from the bible.

I personally don't know anymore what to believe,because the more I hear from what the government s are doing, and  worldly propaganda being thrown around, it leaves me questioning things.

The possibility of a flat faced earth does not seem impossible. The bible does say over the earth , the firmaments, there is a dome.

Anyhow... that's all I will say about it. But for sure I agree with you that the Holy Bible reveals so much and that only confirms in the beginning was the WORD and the WORD became flesh John ch1

 

 

Also I just found another you tube  vedio: christian preacher  Dean Odle: "the bible does say flat earth"

by pastor Dean Odle

1 Samuel 2:8

"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's and on them He has set the world."

Another you tube interview bringing into suspect NASA:

Look and google for: " We  did'nt land on the Moon. Former NASA scientist admits

Game over for NASA

 

 

 

 

Edited just now by 1to3

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1to3... indeed the bible seems to indicate a flat earth. This isn't validated scientifically of course.. only those who attempt to valid with ludicrous notions not substantiated... but must be true at all costs because the bible asserts it. Btw to believe flat earth you'll need to throw out the sun is a burning sphere of hydrogen.. gravity... and a whole can of worms more..also you need to demonstrably demonstrate the curved earth shadow on a non full moon isn't the earth and a whole host of other things. The earth stands on pillars.. what do the pillars stand on?  The former has been scientically validated for a spherical earth... the flat earth not. Other threads here have been taken over with this non debate.. catch up on those maybe so we can avoid it again here? Also research yourself...lots of info on the net from all nations.. sources..uni lectures etc. Do this objectively and you should have no issue throwing out flat earth.  Good luck. 

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  897
  • Topics Per Day:  0.19
  • Content Count:  9,621
  • Content Per Day:  2.03
  • Reputation:   5,821
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/07/2011
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well that rules "Einstein's gr" out...

"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, not as a force, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."

 

So Netwonian 'gravity' Rules the Roost.  BUT...

That then opens up another 'Can of Worms', because the 'scientific community' follows Einstein 'gravity' not Newtonian...

 
"...Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.

 

You have, what they call in the industry, A ....  "Paradox".

 

regards

 

It doesn't rule out Einstein at all.

It is that very curved space time pressing back against  curved mass (shaped by curved space time btw) that produces this push of war that we call gravity.

It's a kind of 4 dimensional buoyancy / displacement.

Relativity explains what gravity does .

Im talking about what gravity is .  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  897
  • Topics Per Day:  0.19
  • Content Count:  9,621
  • Content Per Day:  2.03
  • Reputation:   5,821
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/07/2011
  • Status:  Offline

also:

mass displacing space

space pushing back against mass

plus motion

equals the inertial effect that  produces orbital paths / shapes / forms (within certain parameters).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Let us not forget johnd..Einstein's equations where 1st proven correct for the missing arc predictions of where mercury would be where Newtonian failed. Easily Googled if interested. What a brilliant intellect... despite 100 years on still can't be falsified. I'd love to see the flat earth equations that surpass this?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

11 hours ago, JohnD said:

It doesn't rule out Einstein at all.  

Yes, it does.  You said 'gravity' was "A Force"; Einstein's "gravity" is NOT "A Force".   simple

 

Quote

It is that very curved space time pressing back against  curved mass (shaped by curved space time btw) that produces this push of war that we call gravity.

It's a kind of 4 dimensional buoyancy / displacement.

Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania.

btw, 'Space-Time' was "Debunked" by Quantum Mechanics 6 ways from Sunday.  (SEE: Non-Locality and every single Delayed Choice Experiment ever conducted) 

 

Quote

Relativity explains what gravity does

Im talking about what gravity is .

Well "Relativity" is allegedly a Scientific Theory but... 

"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a LAW DESCRIBES WHAT NATURE DOES under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A THEORY EXPLAINS HOW NATURE WORKS..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science." http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process) and Identify The CAUSE; e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED.
 
"Scientific Laws": "describe" ---The What/IS (The How/Why and "CAUSE" is N/A). They are based SOLELY on OBSERVATIONS of 'Natural Laws'. Often expressed mathematically. e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Quote

 

mass displacing space

space pushing back against mass

plus motion

equals the inertial effect that  produces orbital paths / shapes / forms (within certain parameters).

 

Please...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?

b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENTS that validates your claim...?

c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in each TEST...?

d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

15 hours ago, Kevinb said:

indeed the bible seems to indicate a flat earth.

It's 'a bit' more than "Seems".

 

Quote

This isn't validated scientifically of course

Yes and Neither is the "Spinning-Ball".  WHY??  Well because The Scientific Method only adjudicates How/Why -- Cause and Effect questions.  The SHAPE of something is a "What/Is" question. 

It's tantamount to asking:

How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False?

And your appeal Unequivocally Demonstrates that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie. 

 

Quote

Other threads here have been taken over with this non debate.. catch up on those maybe so we can avoid it again here?

Especially your thread where the "Spinning Ball" was summarily PUMMELED into the Incoherent Oblivion.  Thanks, btw.  thumbsup.gif

 

Quote

Einstein's equations where 1st proven correct

2 - 7 = -5 is "Proven"; However: 2 Apples - 7 Apples = -5 Apples.  Can you show us -5 Apples ?? :blink:

Mathematics isn't "Science".  duh

 

Quote

missing arc predictions

Huh?? :huh:

Please Define:

1. "Scientific Prediction"...?

2. "POST"- diction...?

3. Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Carnival Tent "Prediction"...?

Now Juxtapose the Characteristics of your "arc Prediction" trainwreck and place it in the appropriate category above...?

 

Quote

...despite 100 years on still can't be falsified

It was NEVER "Scientifically Validated" to begin with.  It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider... much less attempt, to disprove Complete Augments from Ignorance Fallacy; of which, evolution and einstein et al are Card Carrying Members of.

 

Thanks Again! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

On 7/14/2017 at 6:21 PM, Kevinb said:

This is based on scientific understanding... this is why the God popped animals into existence gets thrown out of courts and this is why evolution is taught in science classes.

Re the dna mapping doesn't add to evolution being true isn't the case... and those doing the work in this scientific field including the head of the genome project disagree with you. Lots of lectures to read if you're open minded or interested.

What evidence is there that God created them in the garden of Eden? Is this where we have carnivorous dinosaurs grazing vegetation next to Adam and eve before mans sins turned the vegetative eating carnivores into meat eaters? Evidence for this or the bible being evidence for the bible again? 

Can you honestly say you'd not already decided evolution is wrong as per your faith then went looking to debunk or you approached all evidence objectively without bias? If you could be objective then you'd appreciate the overwhelming evidence and if you think it's not overwhelming or the best model of origins then you've been reading in the wrong places.   One could believe anything on faith...religious or otherwise... faith isnt a pathway to truth I've realised.. faith is what we need in the absence of evidence. Objectively looking at evidence and critical thinking is the only best way to believe the most amount of correct things as possible. This isn't easy for some to do... I've extended family who are quite fundamentalist... indoctrination is very powerful and hard if not impossible to free up after a lifetime of investment.

I see you mention the courts and the science classes. Normally I find people start to appeal to other's knowledge when their own starts to run out. Why defend evolution if you fail to have the know-how to do so and therefore refer to the current education system or the courts. Honestly I was open minded whether the creation story is symbolic but as I looked into it I see a lack of actual evidence for evolution. EVERY organism should have a fossil trail leading back to the last universal common ancestor of all life. Every organism fails to show this, yet evolutionists feel they have the intellectual high ground.  It appears more like the sheep embraced Darwinism too early.  Yet the sheep remain sheep, it takes guts to admit the evidence is failing evolution and move against the crowd.

Regarding DNA mapping, my point is that we never observe new unique genes that improve organisms appearing in nature. The process is theoretical, actual observance is that most often when active genes are duplicated they damage an organism, as in the case with Down's Syndrome.  In some cases there is no damage yet we do not see new functions appear in the duplicated gene ....ever. No matter how many generations of e-coli we observe. So the theory of evolution lacks any evidence for the outworking of that theory. ie its just an interesting theory without fossil or DNA support.

My evidence lies in the Cambrian Explosion, nearly every phyla appeared spontaneously, and as we uncover the terrestrial highlands regions of the Cambrian we should find an even greater variety  because that is the area that would most likely match todays fauna/flora. This region has been neglected owing to the remoteness of the region, and the depth of the fossil record. 

Edited by ARGOSY
  • Loved it! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

The phlya all appearing at once is an old standing debunk... which has been addressed here.  You think there's no credible evidence for evolution? You've been reading in the wrong places argosy. What time period do you precisely mean re Cambrian..ie how long? 

What you assert just isn't the case...evolution gives rise to new genes and breaks links to old ones. Which still remain.. its been likened to deleted files on a hard drive.. info has been found but the link cut...humans still have the genes for yokes.. still have genes for making vit c..its just overwhelming.

  1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of 
     
    • increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
    • increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
    • novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
    • novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

    If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place. 
     
  2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
    • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
    • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
    • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
    The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (athttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references. 
     
  3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000). 
     
  4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

Links:

Max, Edward E., 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness 

Musgrave, Ian, 2001. The Period gene of Drosophila.http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr01.html

References:

  1. Adami et al., 2000. (see below)
  2. Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
  3. Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942.http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf
  4. Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
  5. Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
  6. Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels.Science 289: 1490.
  7. Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
  8. Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
  9. Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
  10. Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins.Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
  11. Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of theEscherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B.Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
  12. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
  13. Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799.http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
  14. Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments.http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2002/Feb02/r022802b.html

Further Reading:

Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463(technical) 

Hillis, D. M., J. J. Bull, M. E. White, M. R. Badgett, and I. J. Molineux. 1992. Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny. Science 255: 589-92. (technical)

Honestly you may as well go after discrediting the germ theory of disease as well. 

The question is did a God guide evolution or not. Since there is no evidence of guiding I must remain.... not. 

Else the alternative really is just faith assertion ignoring overwhelming evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...