Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Fallin

[tdrehfal]

There's so much wrong information here, it may take a while to refute it, but here goes, anyway...

scientists are slow to recognize the new scientific evidence that supports the Bible.

1. Maybe because there isn't any that has been peer-reviewed? Scientists will sit up and take notice the moment that some real science comes up with support for a biblical truth where that conflicts with existing science.

Most outdated information is still in the textbooks of students.

2. Indeed. when I was a lad, I had to read about valves, in spite of the fact that everyone was using those new-fangled transistors back then. However, in the biology field (I assume that this is what you are getting at), the theory of Evolution has only been strengthened with each new find. For example, the dinosaur-to-bird fossil gap only had Archaeopteryx, but now has some beautiful intermediates - dinosaurs with feathers, dinos with wishbones, birds with reptile teeth, etc. Every fossil find that bridges a gap in evolutionary evidence tightens up the theory.

Scientific evidence of God is now incresaing extremely rapidly. Gradual, the scientif world is becoming aware of the many breakthroughs.

3. So I should have seen some, then? Curious. I've not seen a single scientific paper implying any exisitence of a god of any sort. I have, for example, seen some scientific papers (available on the internet) that show evidence that geological strata could not have been laid down by a catastrophic flood, but which then bizarrely conclude that a flood was responsible. It just isn't in the realm of science to prove God.

Let me quote an article and maybe it will give a new perspective.

"The Bible... Scientific Insights...Investigation of the Evidence by Ralph O. Muncaster"

4. That'll be founder and Executive Director of the Institute of Contemporary Christian Faith, would it? Do you think that he might just be a tad biased? And maybe attempting to justify his position, and overlook evidence that inconveniently doesn't fit his agenda? Or that maybe his interpretation is just that, an interpretation, where the conclusion is already established in his mind before he started looking at the evidence?

In this small booklet, he also offers many other refrerences and sources that I just can't list them all.

This is but a small portion of what this booklet has to offer and if you like I will make a separate topic on it listing more facts.

5. Just list ONE 'fact' please. It will be the first fact that real science has encountered, so we can view it as a breakthrough.

Why Science Seems At Odds:

The more the Bible is studied, the more suprising it becomes that people often thin it is in contradiction with science.

6. Not really. If science says that the universe is 13 billion years old, and the bible says 6,000 years, it doesn't seem at all surprising that most people find the two in contradiction.

Yet the idea of scientific rejection has been popular only the last hundred years. Great scientists of the past including Newton, Kepler and Galieo were all avid readers and believers of the Bible.

7. Yes, indeed. Galileo had so much trouble with the church that he probably would have been executed if he hadn't appeared to believe it. It seems that not much has changed in 500 years, sometimes - science vs the Bible Newton wasted most of his time with Alchemy, too, and he was way off line there.

As scientists are slow become aware of the increidible wealth of recent information, a scientif return to the Bible is occurring.

8. The crucial word there is 'incredible' - Strict meaning: 'Unbelievable'. Spot on.

In 1916 Einstein's General Relativity breakthrough contained ample evidence to refute evolution with pure mathematical probability.

9. Your ignorance here is simply staggering. Were you educated at all in science? Where is the relevance of the General Theory of Relativity to evolution? It doesn't touch it. Do you even know how DNA is copied? Do you know the difference between the Special and General Theories of Relativity?

So, see Darwin's Theory is just that, theory. Not fact. Here are a couple of facts though.

Anyone knowledgeable in probability theory and also knowledgeable about the Bible, should understand the supernatural inspiration of the Bible.

Consider:

1. That information in the Bible could NOT have been contrived after scientific knowledge became available. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint-both written hundreds of years BC - exist as evidence.

10. I'm very knowledgeable about probability theory, but fail to see what that has to do with the bible.

2. That the books of the Bible were written by at least 40 authors over 1500 years, yet have consisten integrated information tying them all togeher.

This analysis says different, and that's the very first chapter that's already inconsistent.

Scientific insights are in the Bible that were not known by Science until many centuries later. Man's belief at the time contradicted it. The probability of such insights without God is beyond reason.

11. I can't think of one. Please name just one.

Concealed Codes show incredible, complex models integrating books by different authors in different locations and at different times statistically impossible numerical patternsals emerge with the assistance of high speed computers.

12. This story has been around since the early sixties, but I've never found a source for it, or the methodology used. I've asked several times for the source of this info, yet nobody can provide me with it. Can you quote the original, please?

Even if Moses somehow knew the 10 event creation process merely guessing the correct order would be unlikely (one chance in about 4 billion). Recent discoveries show that life and the existence of earth are statistically impossible without God.

13. Where in the bible does it posit a 10-event creation? I can only see Genesis, which gets it the wrong way around (Plants before the Sun).

Please, if you want to believe in the bible, then do so on the basis of faith. Science is not involved. Leave science out of it.

Regards

Dave

1. Appeal to "I've read every peer-reviewed article that ever existed". I bet you did.

2. Attempting to confuse historical information with outdated information. Didn't buy it. Then makes baseless claims without sources about intermediates.

Where's the link to the peer-reviewed article about the intermediate. And I want that thing radiometrically dated too.

3. Admits that a flood was responsible but could not be responsible at the same time? Nice.

4. Appeal to bias. Too bad every human is biased to some degree. Nice try though.

5. Appeal to "if it's not my view or the view of my peers, it's not real science!"

6. Appeal to non-existant verses of the bible that tell us exactly how old the earth is.

7. Appeal to sympathy for some scientist that got hassed by Christians in the past. We do not argue from sympathy or empathy.

8. Appeal to wordgames.

9. Appeal to "You're ignorant". Admits that relativity has nothing to do with the subject matter, and then asks questions about relativity!

10. Appeal to false knowledge. I'm sure you're really a probability theorist. And you wouldn't attempt to APPLY it to the Bible., so this is

also "Appeal to a scientific experiment that I will never conduct, because God can't exist, because well, he just can't!"

11. Appeal to ignorance of the facts. The Bible says the heavens were stretched out. Why on earth would any man come up with that? Oh wait

Big Bang, stretching of space, hello?

12. Appeal to "Christians have some urban legends, therefore they are all stupid" Yeah, well, everyone has some urban legends.

13. Appeal to wordgames and well, just not reading Genesis.

And by the way, plants don't need "The sun". We have indoor plant lights that can make plants grow. The Bible says there was LIGHT. LIGHT would be fine.

I guess thats what it's photosynthesis and not sun-synthesis.

Edited February 12, 2007 by tdrehfal

[SaturnV]

Dave-After you use a certain number of quotes, or after your post gets past a certain length, the quote tags stop working. It seems to be a quirk with the forum software.

[tdrehfal]

Dave-After you use a certain number of quotes, or after your post gets past a certain length, the quote tags stop working. It seems to be a quirk with the forum software.

Yeah... i CANT even respond to this.. the system is just too messed up for that

mods please help us

Edited February 12, 2007 by tdrehfal

[tdrehfal]

I would say here though that the author here refers to things as "my quotes" when they are simply not my quotes. And I'm certainly not trying

to "debunk science". That's just silly. The scientific method is sound. I simply say however that it does not conflict with Christianity in any way.

The Genesis 1 thing was totally deceptive. Genesis 1 begins with: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". SO? You added

the second verse to prove your point. It does not negate the first verse.

Edited February 12, 2007 by tdrehfal

[Oh Hamburgers!]

ah.. you just gotta love The Onion! It has given me many a chuckle!

[tdrehfal]

ah.. you just gotta love The Onion! It has given me many a chuckle!

Yes, it is pretty funny most of the time!

[Guest Solomon153]

Grace to you,

This is a Posting copied from the Onion. A satirical magazine that often pokes fun at Evangelical Christians.

I'm wondering though, why not post a satirical look at Global Warming there is just as much lack of evidence for that as there is for this Satirical Gravitational theory.

I actually think it's a little silly.

I also actually think it's a little prideful to poke fun at Evangelical Christians as backwater kind of idiots who won't take an honest look at Science and see it the way that We the enlightened educated do.

Peace,

Dave

I am not really meaning to poke fun at anyone. Being that I am a Christian as well, its not as though my intent is to attack our faith. Instead, I thought it was worth pointing out that some of the attacks on science are getting to be absurd. I have to admit, when I first had that article forwarded to me, I actually thought it was legit. That alone would tell us that there is a problem, a war on science if you will, being conducted by some literalist elements in American Christianity.

That said, your comparison to the Global Warming debate is without merit. There are multiple studies, each backed by multiple lines of empiracle evidence, that underlines Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

[Guest Solomon153]

This was the theory that existed before gravity. They would say the apple if dropped falls because it wants to.