[Locked] Is Scientist really proving the Bible to be wrong?

^ this.

Pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Seriously I have nothing else to add.

Here, let me show you something:

the unknown wrote...

The First Day

the unknown wrote...

The Second Day

the unknown wrote...

The Third Day

the unknown wrote...

The Fourth Day

the unknown wrote...

The Fifth Day

the unknown wrote...

The Sixth Day

the unknown wrote...

The Seventh Day

[b]Now, lets take a look at the Earth's Geologic Time Scale.

I hope you didn't think you were going to get away with saying this load of nonsense without getting it thoroughly shoved up your ass.

You are scientifically illiterate, as evident by what I just quotedve. In science, a theoy is the strongest point an explanation can get to. Theories are based off of facts, and often they share the same name.

Gravity is a law, a fact, AND a theory. The FACT of gravity is that things gravitate towards eachother. the LAW of gravitation is a mathematical equation Newton came up with, and the THEORY of Gravity is WHY all these things are true, and WHY they happen.



That's not a fucking theory. And it migth still be a planet, there's no scientific consensus on that.



*facepalm* WHAT scientist, WHERE? Everyone who operates in the field of biology have to use the theory of evolution, and the fact of evolution, in all of their work. Evolution is a fact, and a theory. change over time in the allellic frequency of organisms is an observed FACT. The Theory, of the same name, explains this fact. Oh, and by the way, what do YOU think Evolution is? Because I'm almost sure you don't have the slightest clue.



No it's not. At least not by a good amount of scientists. the vast majority of cosmologists accept the Big Bang as the best explanation of all the given evidence. And if there ARE other ideas as to explaining the evidence, none of them are as good as the Big Bang, which is WHY it remains prominant.



No it isn't.



No it's not.



So, after that paragraph of textual defecation, I'd like to point out that not only have you made plenty of unsubstantiated monumental claims/lies about how 'science is disproving (blank)' But you ALSO showed how you don't understand what a fact is in science, and you don't understand what a Theory is in science. Finish high school before you start talking about how you think you know science in ANY way at all.

Edit: I'm seriously not understanding why I keep getting MINUS rep, for good, well thought out, and factually correct posts. It confounds me.

Neither do I, everything in Science is theory, as it is the study of how the universe operates and we can only build upon what we have logically concluded as right.



As stated Science is made up of theories, I'm sure everyone can agree on this. It is not mostly theoretical, it is entirely theoretical. People do forget that, people do treat them as facts; but why do you think that is? I believe it's because they have been shown evidence as to their existence and methods. Scientific theories that are accredited and generally held to be true to a degree require extensive experimental research and then solid evidence as to their plausibility.



And indeed you should, for your question was originally quite redundant. Science is simply the study of how the universe operates. If Science leads us to the belief that God exists, then so be it. But the way in which God allows the universe to operate would still be studied, and it would still be called Science.



Pluto is still considered a planet, some random guy decided that the "Dwarf" planet classification needed to be created to differentiate big planets from small planets. Smaller planets are now considered "Dwarf Planets", instead of simply "Planets". I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation at hand...



You mean challenged right? Yes, theories are challenged all of the time, which, in and of itself, leads us to a better understanding of Science. We cast away the old and bring in the new, more complex and logical theories. To be widely accepted or regarded with respect, they must have an extensive amount of experimental research and evidence behind them.



The burden of proof is on you my friend, a quick Google search returned nothing on any recent challenges to the Geologic time-scale.

---

Virtually every widely accepted scientific theory is the product of thousands of years of research done by human beings. What you need to understand is that Science is simply the understanding of how the universe operates. That the universe is guided by a supernatural, all-powerful force is but another general theory. So far, I have not seen much evidence as to it's plausibility.

Yeah I would agree that science and religion are at this point essentially opposites
My only point in bringing that up was to show their early origins were the same.

No, science did move because of religion
I think I said this before but most 16th century scientists looked for the ways god controlled the world
I even have some quotes from people like Descartes and Newton concerning their belief in searching for god's laws in an earlier post, too lazy to go look for it.
So the main motivation for science was essentially to find god's rules and return power to human hands, like god made it to be, or so they said.
Of course, its different now, science following darwin and even a few decades before would clash with religion incessantly and still does, although like I also said before scientists have found ways to integrate both, as shown by the religious nature of most scientists. Well, the famous ones anyways

...Wow. So no, you don't understand what a scientific theory is. Good to know.

For future reference:

Scientific Theory - a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
Good job on downgrading a scientific Theory to a colloquial definition of the word. Science doesn't use theory like lay people do, so you're simply, and utterly, wrong. And if you still don't think you're in the wrong here, one of your little creationist webshites answersingenesis.org put the whole "Such and such is just a theory" argument in the section called "Arguments creationists need to stop using" section for this exact reason. And if you STILL don’t believe me? Let’s talk about Cell Theory a moment.

Do you think Cells are †˜just a theory’ and †˜not a fact’? Because Cell Theory IS a thing you know.



I find it hilarious that none of those websites are science websites, but forums and blogs simply talking about the subjects. You didn't put up a single link to a single actual scientific article backing up your claims. However, seeing as I like shoving people's sources down their throats if they're unreliable, I'd like to point out a few things.
1. The first link you gave me was to a forum, if you honestly think a forum is any source for a scientific claim you're up shit creek without a paddle. Not only that, but it was a religiously BIASED forum, on a religiously BIASED webshite. If you think that in any way provides honest answers, and scientific data that backs up any claims, you're simply dead wrong.

2. The second link you gave me, Durango Bill? You OBVIOUSLY DIDN’T EVEN READ THE ARTICLE. I went to the website, unless you didn’t think I’d do that, and it was to an article literally entitled “Durango Bill’s Denying of the Deniers of Global Warming” And the subtitle was “The Great Global Warming Swindle”(which, in case you don’t know, is the name of a movie) Is Itself a Fraud and a Swindle. You don’t even have the the time to READ your own sources? Because this one just made you look like a Class A Idiot. Seriously, I don’t think you could have failed any harder than that.

3. the third article you gave me was an opinion piece by…surprise surprise, Ann Coulter, the blonde constitutionally illiterate lawyer from Fox News. Not only does she spend the entire article ranting about how liberals won’t defend evolution, but laugh at people who deny it, but she never, not once, provides a link to a single source that debunks evolution, she simply keeps writing down her opinion on the matter. And opinions in science, don’t count for shit, without data to back it up.
4. And the last article you gave me on the Geologic Time Scale was yet again, simply a news article that was doing nothing more than reporting that there would be a meet up of people who claim to have empirical evidence against evolution, and the geologic time scale(claiming the time scale is closer to 10,000) and to paraphrase the article, they’re being secret about their meeting because the mainstream scientific community rejects their evidence due to philosophical bias. That’s right, “It’s a conspiracy!” And I can tell you right now I know of several Christian biologists who would fight tooth and nail against this load of claptrap they’ve presented, which I ONLY know about because the article was nice enough to at least link me to abstracts of their topics, all of which are practically refuted a thousand times loads of garbage, including “Carbon dating doesn’t work!” Or “Evolution goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics!” or even “Soft tissue dinosaur bones found! Can’t possibly be millions of years old!” All of these, if you BOTHERED to do some research and think a little bit, have been debunked by all of mainstream science, and are not considered even remotely accurate.



You don't get science from newspapers, and the fact that you think one does shows that you have no idea how to be a skeptic, nor have any idea how to evaluate the veracity of anything.



I don't think everything I know now will always be the same, and that's not at all what I said. However you're still wrong about what a theory is, and evolution, as well as global warming, and the geologic time scale are all facts. You can deny it all day, but your opinion, or the opinion of forum goers in other websites, or bloggers, do NOT matter in this regard. If you want to argue a scientific principal, you need to understand what a peer reviewed paper is, and why that's the only acceptable document that can be used to counter a scientific claim

Here’s some actual scientific sources. And yes, you’ll have to do more than a google search for some of them.

abiogensis - Blackmond, D.G. (2010). The Origin of Biological Homochirality. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2(5):a002147.

Fact of climate change -“The Effect of Diumal Correction on Satellite Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature” Carl A. Mars and Frank J. Wentz, Science 8/11/2005

The REASON Carbon Dating is known to work in the first place – “Age determinations by radio-carbon content checks with samples of known age” J.R. Arnold and W.F. Libby, Science, Dec 3rd 1949 Volume 110
The FACT of Evolution - Freeman, S and JC Herron. 2007. Evolutionary Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall
Also see : Synthetic Genomics. 2007. Synthetic Genomics. Accessed 10 November 2007, Stward, RC. 1977. Industrial and non-industrial melanism in the peppered moth Biston betularia (L.). Ecological Entomology. 2:231-243, Kettlewell, H. B. D. 1973. The evolution of melanism: the study of a recurring necessity; with special reference to industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Clarendon Press, Abzhanov, A, WP Juo, C Hartmann, BR Grant, PR Grant, and CJ Tabin. 2006. The calmodulin pathway and evolution of elongated beak morphology in Darwin's finches. Nature. 442:563-567

Just want to share some facts that I've learned.

1. The Bible tells the shape of world is a sphere many scientist and other geologist thought that the world is flat.

2. The world floats. in the scriptures it says that our world floats which literally it really floats in galaxy right?

3. just heard of these but. I've heard that there was a group of christian scientist that were killed during the past times because they want to prove that god is real but they where killed by the roman catholic church.

4. The bible isn't complete some page is gone. There was a verse that says something about a verse in the bible that when you search for it you can't find it.

5. Giving 20% of your money isn't the way of new Christians it was abolish by the bible itself the 20% was ordered by god from the Gentiles because the Gentiles was a poor people back then that they need to give 20% of there money. in a verse in the bible you can read that the bible abolished this by saying something like new Christians should only give what their heart feels.

5. The bible says many false prophets will rise and say the lords name and many will be fooled and lured by them. many priest today became priest to get money from your pockets.

6. The bible says it will be forgotten. there's a verse in revelation or apocalypses says that. close the book no one shall no the scripture and people will destroy their own and run and many beings will say that god is here or I am god and many people will be fooled by it. then end of the world.

Just sharing no need to believe me or bash me.

6.

You don't want me bashing you, so instead, I'll just bash these so-called 'facts'.



No it doesn't. In fact in many places it implies flatness, and in one place it calls it a circle...which...isn't a sphere.



2 things. 1. There's a verse that says the world stands on pillars, but nobody's arguing the bible's consistent.
And 2. The world doesn't float. It's stuck in a gravitational pull of the sun, and is continuously 'falling'.



No, that's not right. But, there IS a case of there used to be something called "Gnostic Faith" which, after the Nicean Creed adopted Paul's definition of faith, which implied one does NOT know that god exists, but believes without having empirical evidence,in which case the Gnostics were labeled heretics.



No, there's not 'missing' pages of the bible. The bible isn't one book that a bunch of people collaborated to write, and people have been tearing out pages. the bible is what happened after a bunch of men took a vote to see which stories they liked best to be put in the bible. There's nothing missing, just books that were ommitted, like when Jesus was said to have befriended dragons as a baby.



Firstly, it's not 20%, it's 10%, and the 10% IS optional in churches, you're simply pressurred by the church to give the tithe anyhow, because it supports the faith.



Many false prophets huh? That's one of the most generic predictions in the bible, and it's a very clever way of getting people to not listen to people the church doesn't want them to listen to.



There's no 'apocolypses' book...but whatever. I'll go ahead and grant that the bible says it will be forgotten in the end times...but to be honest, it also predicts a 6 headed beast, and all manner of exrtremely strange things. Most of the church consideres Revelations the ramblings of a man who might have been off his rocker.



Since I'm not reading yesterday's paper, I just decided you were being doubly fail.

Global warming is a myth. Although the world does get hot, it is not what they claim for it to be.[/quote]

I see, so you have a source that shows why mine is wrong? I've been following the stories too. Global warming is a fact, and it's also a fact that one of the driving forces for he world getting warmer is man made CO2. These are facts. That's the scientific consensus, and it matches all the data.



If by stories you mean scientific peer reviewed articles on the matter...then yes. I already showed you one, do you really need more? The scientific consensus is that global warming is an observed fact.



...Are you literally going to tell me...that if I take a scraping from the inside of my mouth, and put the results under a microscope, and observe my skin cells, that those...aren't a fact? Do you see what you've done to yourself? You've become a blathering buffoon that won't even admit cells are a fact, because Cell Theory is a thing.

Theories ARE as complicated as I wrote them out to be, because in science, things aren't so simple as "I think this is right, so there's my theory." That's not how science works, and if you think it is, you're dead. Fucking. Wrong.



And they were wrong. This is an observable fact. Cells exist.



What the fuck? What's that have to do with anything? We know what colors are, and yeah, part of it has to do with perception, hence color blind people.



...Do I think...a scientist...will agree...with what they're claiming? YES, otherwise why the FUCK would they be claiming it?

By the way, don't you have any actual rebuttals to my points? Look up. I outed all 4 of your sources as either opinion articles, bias websites, a non informative invalidated article, or, as was the case with your second source, which YOU listed as being on YOUR side when it came to global warming, when it was in actuality going AGAINST your claim. Also, do you understand what peer review is?Do you understand the importance of the peer review process?

It seems all you can say is the same claims that aren't backed up by any valid data. Either present some actual data that go with your claims that:

A. Global warming is a yth
B. Evolution is 'just a theory' that's being disproven
C. The Geologic time scale is being disproven

Because you haven't succeeded in backing up ANY of those claims, you simply say they're the case. Have you not considered you might be completely wrong on all of them? I severely doubt it. I gave you several peer reviewed articles and textbooks backing up my claims that you're wrong, and all you can give me is your opinion on what is true.

Oh, and despite what you think to be the case, a scientific theory is a highly respected place of honor that is based, completely, on on observed facts. So no, people aren't getting confused whe nthey talk about science in factual terms, because science is nothing BUT facts.

If you don't think this is true, please define what you beieve a fact is, and why science doesn't have them.

There's no 'apocolypses' book...but whatever. I'll go ahead and grant that the bible says it will be forgotten in the end times...but to be honest, it also predicts a 6 headed beast, and all manner of exrtremely strange things. Most of the church consideres Revelations the ramblings of a man who might have been off his rocker.

Did you know that the six headed beast with a woman riding to is referring to? You don't have to believe me but. the six headed beast and the woman symbolizes countries. six mighty country bowing to a country with a girls name in Latin. I'm sorry saying that what I written was facts It's only what I hear watching TV here first of all I don't even read the bible lol that's a fact.

LOL. You seriously can't be serious. The fact that you don't even know the definition of a scientific theory is pretty laughable when you're trying to disprove theories the scientific community widely agrees on, like evolution and global warming. So what if one person is trying to disprove them? It doesn't mean anything at all in the grand scale. For every source you post disproving those theories, there's thousands out there saying the complete opposite.

Also, global warming is not "yesterday's news" at all. Reading only anti-global warming sites does not count. Same with Evolution. Those theories are never going away. If someone doesn't "believe" in evolution, you have no right to call themselves a scientist. In addition, you gotta love how people who are trying to disprove those theories can't never come up with a better explanations.

Charles Darwin said "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Science is revealing how complex life is; how does this support evolution?

Because every single organ can be explained in step by step processes. The ONLY attempts at finding "Things that could not have evolved step by step" have been refuted, and quite frankly, laughed out of court.

Also, be aware that Evolution wasn't Darwin's idea. Natural Selection is. Evolution was already n observed fact far before Darwin made The Origin of Species. The problem was EXPLAINING what was observed.

The fact of evolution is as follows - As populations reproduce, alellic frequency in genteics change.

That's it. That's the fact. The Thoery, by the same name, EXPLAINS that fact, using a number of different employed tested and true observations, including Genetic Drift, and Atural Selection.

I never said it was you idiot. Yet again you're conflating the issue. I've given you waht the FACT of evolution is, and I've already explained to you that the Theory of Evolution EXPLAINS the FACT of evolution. Or are you incapable of understanding this extremely basic concept?



Theories...based completely ON facts. So you're wrong.



...No...it's not a guess. Despite your insistant need to label a scientific theory as guess, it's not a guess. It's the best explanation given that is made to fit all the evidence given. there's no 'cobjecture' there's hypothesis', testing, experiimentation, and confirmation, that forms the Theory.



...Ok, you've stopped arguing with me. you're simply talking nonsense now. Despite the fact that you accept theories are backed up by evidence, despite the fact that you consistantly IGNORE what I told you a scientific theory is, despite the fact that new information doesn't cause theories to be wrong, but more accurate...you insist on arguing a point you've lost all footing on.

Fact is, Theories are based heavily on facts, they're backed up by facts, and they wouldn't be Theories if they weren't full of completely factual data. You can deny science until the cows come home, but you're wrong.



Since you seem to think youtube is a good source for information...sure. How about you watch these videos, and shut the fuck up about climate change completely? And don't stop watching until you watch all of them either, otherwise you'l just show your complete unwillingness to view an opposing view to your own.


























Now...any arguments?

Ok, noting the lack of arguments concerning science and religion,
Ill start on this new topic concerning global warming.
The USNOAA published a study showing global warming, as we call it, has come about, by at least 33% due to water vapor.
In addition, a look at the graph if carbon emissions will show that ppo actually fluctuates every few years.
Scientists also note that the climate has changed drastically millions of times over the course of this history, for example the ice age 18000 years ago.


Youtube videos
Yeah, that's real empirical unbiased proof alright

Firstly, I don't want to hear about 'yeah that's empirical unbiased research' from someone who didn't bother showing ANY sources whatsoever.

In any case, the reason I used youtube videos was because the_unknown repeatedly refuses to show sources for his information, and when he did, I informed him that none of them were empirical research, all were opinion pieces and newspaper articles, and one went AGAINST his assertions that "global warming is a myth". After explaining the importance of peer review, he then asserted NASA disproved global warming somehow, and showed me a youtube video as his source.

In response, I angrily posted several youtube videos that not only go completely against his baseless assertion, but all of which are informative, AND sourced in their information.

If giving the standard of peer reviewed papers is too much for people, I'll show them why they're idiots, every day.

And lastly, concerning your assertion that 33% of warming is due to 'water vapr' see video 2 othat I posted, as it goes over this, and concerning your assertion that 'climate change happens all the time, like the Ice Age' See video...I believe 5, entitled "Climate Change - Isn't it natural?" which covers that point too. It's also gone over in the 8th one as well.

Obviously you didn't bother watching the videos, and I understand why, as I said before, youtube is not an objective source of information, but at least knowing that there's already objections to your assertions, and addressing them instead of simply reasserting them, would be far more beneficial to conversation.

Edit: Seriously, I keep getting -repped and nobody seems to be able to tell me why. It's confusing as all hell.

Quote:
4. The bible isn't complete some page is gone. There was a verse that says something about a verse in the bible that when you search for it you can't find it.


No, there's not 'missing' pages of the bible. The bible isn't one book that a bunch of people collaborated to write, and people have been tearing out pages. the bible is what happened after a bunch of men took a vote to see which stories they liked best to be put in the bible. There's nothing missing, just books that were ommitted, like when Jesus was said to have befriended dragons as a baby.

LOL I can prove that there is really a verse that pinpoints a verse that you can't find in the bible I'm just too lazy to read the whole bible. plus voting? lol is this some kind of theory of people that you watch in discovery channel? like the big bang theory? like a freak accident made the world lol. so the voting is like "hey Paul I think Moses story is great let's put it in the bible. lol .

Oh. one thing the bible says do not practice sorcery or witchcraft. but I my sisters sees ghost, my cousin saw a Tikbalang in his province and my aunt practices fortune telling reading palm,using cards and tarots.I sometimes see what will happen in the future and I practice fortune telling too but I only know how to use cards.