ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal
-
http://www.scienceinthebible.net/
Cal posted this in another forum. I am going to look through some of this and just post comments, or anything I find that is interesting. Feel free to add whatever you want.
I guess I will start with the note to parents section.
The children will learn to discern in a modern confusing world. The children will learn to recognize the nonsense and be able to discern nonsensical and technical jargon from the meaningful important substance necessary for the development and achievement in a dangerous, confusing world that is threatening to people of faith.
I guess this world is a confusing place to the author? All that nonsensical and technical jargon... blasphemy. If it goes toward disproving god or religion, or its necessity, all worthless. Hopefully his faith is strong enough to get through this confusing ass world...
"The students who were noted to be the best achievers and rose to the top were most always those students who were strictly disciplined and fortunate to have come from faith based families."
I don't see how this is true. Of course there is no source or reference, that would be asking to much. Also, who knows what is considered to be a 'faith based' family. In vague terms I probably did. I had to do PSR and get a first communion. But I haven't been to church in years. My parents had to do the church thing, but don't now. To claim that every top student came from a faith based family is absurd.
Before we begin parents, there are some very important things about some harmful elements and areas of essential knowledge that you as parents of faith may already know and should know about. This has to do with craft you should to encourage your children to be able to recognize, to know the harmful effects thereof and to stay clearly away from. Be sure your kids know this, as the internet is loaded with all kinds of stuff like this.
Yes, avoid any source that may question your faith.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that knowledge or predictions can be gotten from spherically shape objects or crystal balls. These objects have absolutely no scientific value and have absolutely nothing at all to do with Godly things or the Bible.
Lol. That is pretty funny. There is a little section pointing out the things that aren't godly or scientific. Like members of this site would actually need to be told about dousing sticks and other things like that.
Know that Astronomy (a science) and Astrology (a craft) are two different words.
Well done.
I really love the way he can combine the words "godly" and "technical" so much.
This dude is all about science, but then uses passages from the Bible to prove what he says. I feel like there is a disconnect in his logic there.
The children of faith will learn to recognize non-sense, unfounded speculations and sloppy science, especially the arrogant and aggressive attacks of non-believers aimed at the weakening of the faith of Believers.
I agree. If it is disproving or attacking your faith, it is nonsense and sloppy science. Well done!
From the about the authour page
With the intense levels of cosmic radiation beyond our solar system and galaxy, there is NO WAY possible that a living organism with the complexity of the human DNA molecule could survive the journey through the hostile deep space of the cosmos and fall into the Earth's atmosphere at meteoric velocities
I don't think anyone is saying that is how they got there
It is my desire to see believers, people of faith, get clearly away from the so-called "Young Earth" ideas, the teachings thereof and the so-call Young Earth philosophies. Evidence clearly shows that the Young Earth theory arises chiefly from those who claim to be experts in the science of the age of the Earth and the beginning of mankind, and at the same time the experts grossly misinterpret the Bible or they lack knowledge thereof. People of faith who shy away from the sciences may be equally responsible for the arising of the so-called Young Earth philosophies.
He doesn't think the Earth is 6,000 years old, which is good. But apparently he is combining science and the bible in the right way, but the young earth guys aren't. How you can say one is incorrect and then say the other is correct is beyond me.
on the big bang
The thought that all the mass of the universe was once assembled at one single point and then suddenly overcame its gravitational grip, expanding out into the universe, is an intimidation to sound minds. This is especially so when it is being taught by non-believers who are in front of the classrooms filled with faithful young innocent, bright and potentially creative minds.
For how sure he is in his faith, he seems very worried that others of faith can easily be swayed by this crazy scientific theories...
The section on Noahs ark is great too.
I didnt know Noah started the Ark on his 500th birthday and completed it on his 600th. Also Noah didnt round up EVERY ANIMAL SPECIES ON EARTH. Instead they came on their own. Also the door was shut by god!
I also like the way he points up some things in the Bible, and uses science to say some interpretations are wrong or whatever. Then he uses his method of science to show what the RIGHT interpretation is.
Also all of the water that was used to flood the earth was in a water vapor canopy above the Earth. This canopy blocked cosmic radiation and allowed people to live for hundreds of years. This give proves this by.... using the bible. People werent said to have lived as long after Noah, and there is no mention of stars and the heavens until after the ark story (because the water vapor canopy blocked them).
This site is crazy. This guy flashes his PhD and uses some moderately scientific words, to give people more support in their beliefs. I dont see anything being proved here. I dont see any damning scientific evidence. You cant prove religion with the bible. It is circular logic. Anyone that actually really does believe everything this guy says must actually need this site to shield and protect themselves from that crazy confusing modern world.
-
Luckily, we have shows like this one coming:
I cant wait to watch this series.
In the interview here http://www.space.com/24243-cosmos-tv-series-neil-degrasse-tyson.html notice how the writer/producer said one of the reasons for bringing this show back was due to us coming out of a period of intense antagonism to science.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
-
Luckily, we have shows like this one coming:
I cant wait to watch this series.
In the interview here http://www.space.com/24243-cosmos-tv-series-neil-degrasse-tyson.html notice how the writer/producer said one of the reasons for bringing this show back was due to us coming out of a period of intense antagonism to science.
Luckily, we have shows like this one coming:
I cant wait to watch this series.
In the interview here http://www.space.com/24243-cosmos-tv-series-neil-degrasse-tyson.html notice how the writer/producer said one of the reasons for bringing this show back was due to us coming out of a period of intense antagonism to science.
looks more like a "lets worship Niel Degasse" (sp?) festival.....
incredible images of the universe and NO mention of an intellegent designer....
just more of what we come to expect from an angry kid like you - easily enamored by imagery like a forlorn gamer stuck in an endless video game
-
Why would a science show talk about an "intelligent designer"?
-
Lol now I am angry and just a fall gamer, lol. You realize that was a trailer right?
Neil DeGraaae Tyson is great
What scientific merit is there to intelligent design?
-
Why would a science show talk about an "intelligent designer"?
Why would a science show talk about an "intelligent designer"?
why not? Stephen Hawking even attempts to from his book "Theory of Everything"
Lol now I am angry and just a fall gamer, lol. You realize that was a trailer right?
Neil DeGraaae Tyson is great
What scientific merit is there to intelligent design?
I would just let that statement rest on its own merit and marvel at its total ignorance.....
-
Tell me then. I am interested in hearing the best scientific case for god making everything in 6 days. What peer reviewed articles are there of this that provide irrefutable evidence for intelligent design. What scientific case can be made that outweighs evolution?
-
-
Arrogant too.....
I am completely ok with leaving that one alone.....you scientist priests proudly claim as fairy stories
while expecting the world to believe in your evolution faith that is as empty as the unobserved "billions of years ago" assumptions....
I would point out to you to look at the "observable " proof of things like say, air or water.... or the ever expanding growth of the universe...
you tell me then, from where did they come - how did it start?
humility is a good thing too sometimes - but lost on you
-
LOL Diehard
-
Arguments from ignorance
Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.[126]
In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge Jones wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas trial which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two-model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.[127]
-
Crap. I have the munchies and some chores...but I lol'd, and now I have to watch that
woody video again later. LOL !
Diehard nailed it !
-
We have left over evidence for evolution. We watch it happen in real time in bacteria and viruses. We can see it over generations in some animals.
You are really going to equate faith in a man in the sky making everything in a week to "faith" in the scientific and peer reviewed evidence and experiments over decades that have lead us to the scientific theory of evolution? That is mind-boggling.
-
Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.
Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.
What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?
Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...
-
Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.
Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.
What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?
Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...
Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.
Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.
What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?
Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...
I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all.
-
Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.
Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.
What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?
Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...
I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all.
I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all.
How old is your book with the tooth fairy origin story though? That is the difference between a religion and a cult
-
Give it a few years. and I think I will be rolling in that naive Retard money.
-
like I said, arrogant.....
and ad hominems aside, I answered honestly dude....
-
I answered honestly as well.
I am just waiting for whatever evidence you can come up with.
I just want to people actually try to support their beliefs.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login