Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Science And The Bible

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default Science And The Bible

    I love this story. I'll give you the much abbreviated version. You can read the detailed version here --

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-...ul-predictions

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...ields-part-one

    Back in the mid 80's a physicist name Russell Humphrey's entered an informal contest with other scientists around the world. The goal was to predict the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. The actual strength of the magnetic fields of these two bodies would be discoverd by Voyager 2 in the near future.

    The scientists had to plug in two main variables to predict the magnetic fields of these two planets. One, they had to plug in the variable of what the planet was made of at its initial point of existence. The second variable the scientists had to plug in was how old the solar system was.

    Scientists from around the world began making their predictions. They plugged in all kinds of stuff, mainly gases or metals, for the substance of the two planets, and of course, being almost unanimously evolutionists, they plugged in millions and billions of years for the age of the solar system.

    Humphreys plugged in water as the substance of the two planets, and he plugged in an age of 6,000 years.

    Voyager, as we all know, ultimately reached the two planets and transmitted back the data.

    All the other scientists' predictions were not only off, but they were off by orders of magnitude.

    Humphrey's predictions were a bulls eye. In other words, his predictions of the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune were right on the money.

    Up until that time it was an accepted protocol that predictions were one of the very best tools for determining a scientific dictum.

    This all changed with Humphrey's predictions. In short, Humphrey's predictions rocked certain sectors, and the relative scientific literature actually began to print and assert that, even though predictions IN THE PAST were considered one of the best tools for establishing scientific dicta, they were now no longer considered to be as important as they used to be.

    In other words, when the prediction doesn't fit the dogma, throw it out.

    And they still call themselves scientists!
    Last edited by Adelphos; 04-28-2010 at 03:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    A little more info on the above...

    I just learned by watching a program entitled "The Planets" on one of the science channels that the above mentioned flight by Voyager can only be possible, given our current technology, about every 175 years.

    With current technology, or at least the technology that existed in the mid 70's, rocket power in and of itself could only propel the spacecraft as far as Jupiter. In other words, Voyager could have never even gotten close to Uranus and Neptune under normal circumstances.

    But in the mid 70's something occurred that only occurs about every 175 years, to wit, all four planets - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune - were on the same side of the sun in relative proximity orbits.

    By hitting the orbit of Jupiter at just the right angle, Voyager was able to use the motion of Jupiter to slingshot itself onwards to Saturn, and then, by hitting the orbit of Saturn at just the right angle, Voyager was able to use the motion of Saturn to slingshot itself further onward to Uranus, and then once again, by using the motion of Uranus, Voyager was able to slingshot towards Neptune.

    Although we didn't even have our Commodore 64's at that time, yet NASA made a CD ROM that they placed on Voyager, the CD showing our position in the solar system, as well as containing a selection of images from our planet.

    In addition to transmitting back the data on the magnetic fields of these planets, Voyager also revealed that the "Red Spot" on Jupiter was a storm that was three or four times the size of Earth, and with winds many hundres of miles an hour. Voyager also revealed that Io, one of Jupiter's moons, was extremely geologically active, its volcanoes far hotter than anything on Earth. Because Io is so active, and because it actually brushes up against the magnetic field of Jupiter, it creates countless numbers of storms.

    I think this just might have been the spot that Captain Kirk exiled Khan and his people to. James T. Kirk told Starfleet, of course, that he deposited Khan and his clan on a planet outside of our solar system, as Starfleet would have been incensed if Khan and his people were allowed to live so close to Earth. But this is more than likely where Kirk actually dumped them, that is, on Io.

    Saturn's rings, Voyager discovered, contains many tiny little moons called "Shepherds", and that the rings themselves were very much interrelated to Saturn's magnetic field.

    Yet another discovery was the fact that while Jupiter was very hot and composed of certain gases, yet Uranus was very cold and composed of an almost entirely different set of gases. That should have been a hint to them concerning many of their theories right there.

    In fact, the diversity of the various planets and moons within our very solar system tells a much different story to those who view the evidence through a different lense than those who are so committed to a theory that, instead of dumping the theory when it gets falsified time and time and time again, they instead modify the theory to fit the evidence.

    And then once again, when Voyager got to Neptune, yet another kind of planet was revealed. Unlike cold, bland Uranus, Neptune was teeming with activity. It had its own dark spot, and white clouds floating around its skies. Moreover, Neptune was revealed to have the strongest winds of all. The conventional scientific model had predicted that Neptune would have slower winds. Instead, the winds of Neptune were measured at thousands of miles per hour. Katrina would not even be a breeze compared to the normal activity on Neptune. Neptune, it was discovered, also had its own ring, or at least partial ring. Moreover, one of Neptune's moons, Tritan, was in a retrograde orbit. Once again, the theories had to be modified to fit the dogma, as opposed to dumping the dogma and just letting the evidence speak for itself.

    The overriding factor that needs to retained, however, is that the magnetic fields of the planets in our solar system, including Earth, contain the keys to really understanding much of the dynamics of each planet.

    This one-off occurrence and concentration on the magnetic fields is a primary reason why scientists around the world were so keyed into this mission, as it was an opportunity that comes only in multiple generations. One of the top scientists even joked about it, saying, "The last time this happened Thomas Jefferson was President, and he blew it."

    Voyager is still transmitting, by the way. It was stated that by 2015 Voyager will be about 12 billion miles further from the sun than we are, possibly even reaching up to and beyond the boundaries of our own solar system.

    Of course, the contest relative to the predictions concerning the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune was not mentioned or even hinted at in the television program.

    So at the end of the day, I guess the Lord was right when he revealed the reason that he didn't want the Tower of Babel to be built!

    Which is to say, mankind can accomplish almost anything he sets his mind to, but there is nothing that man is better at than deceiving his own self. Nothing at all.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 05-16-2010 at 01:18 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Good stuff! Thanks for posting.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    Good stuff! Thanks for posting.
    You're welcome. Glad somebody appreciated it!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5

    Thumbs up Reality Check

    The Bible actually teaches that the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

    http://www.yahsword.com/content/three-world-ages

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zadok View Post
    The Bible actually teaches that the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

    http://www.yahsword.com/content/three-world-ages
    Thanks for the link, but I'm still waiting for the evidence, scriptural or otherwise, that teaches that "the earth is much older than 6,000 years."

    It certainly wasn't anywhere in the article you linked to.

    Nor does Jesus Christ, the Creator, agree --

    "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Jesus Christ, Mark 10:6

    If you check the context, you'll see that Jesus was referring to Adam and Eve.

    And by the way, you are SERIOUSLY in the wrong place to be basing a study on Strong's. The people here, even those who may disagree with me, are far more accomplished in Hebrew and Greek than to use Strong's number for ANY type of foundation.

    Moreover, the material in the paper you linked to is quite, shall we say, immature. Here's a few links that show a great deal more knowledge on the issue than that which is contained in your link --

    Last edited by Adelphos; 05-22-2010 at 07:45 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Thanks for the link, but I'm still waiting for the evidence, scriptural or otherwise, that teaches that "the earth is much older than 6,000 years."

    It certainly wasn't anywhere in the article you linked to.

    Nor does Jesus Christ, the Creator, agree --

    "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Jesus Christ, Mark 10:6

    If you check the context, you'll see that Jesus was referring to Adam and Eve.

    And by the way, you are SERIOUSLY in the wrong place to be basing a study on Strong's. The people here, even those who may disagree with me, are far more accomplished in Hebrew and Greek than to use Strong's number for ANY type of foundation.

    Moreover, the material in the paper you linked to is quite, shall we say, immature. Here's a few links that show a great deal more knowledge on the issue than that which is contained in your link --

    Kindly point out the errors in the Strong's references, since they are obviously incorrect and underneath your obvious superior "wisdom". We'll be waiting for your scholarly response, so that we may all learn.


    As well, please explain the following:

    Romans 9:10-13
    10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
    11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
    12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
    13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated

    If there was not an age before this one, why does God hate Esau before he was born in the flesh?

    While you're chewing on that, please explain how it is that Satan was created good, but is obviously already bad in the garden of Eden.

    -----
    Your response brings this scripture to mind:

    1 Corinthians 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised , hath God chosen , yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are :
    Last edited by zadok; 05-22-2010 at 10:34 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    No, I'm not going to explain the obvious inferiority of Strong's. That fact that you don't know that Strong's is inferior says all there is to say on the matter.

    Secondly, I will be happy to respond to an actual exhibition as soon as you can present one. Thus far all you have done is made an assertion and then sprinkled a verse or two onto it as if that actually explains your argument. Thus far you have not presented a coherent argument even in the slightest detail.

    Thus, if you want to continue this, exegete Mark 10:6. You can deal with it in the Greek or the English, take your pick --

    "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6
    "ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεός." Mark 10:6

    Notice I said EXEGETE, which means I did NOT say EISEGETE. I trust you know the difference.

    Before I will speak with you further on this issue, you will do two things:

    1. You will kindly EXEGETE this passage, i.e., Mark 10:6.

    2. You will demonstrate that you are familiar with the arguments which have already thoroughly refuted your position as I gave you in the link in the previous post.

    Until you demonstrate that you have at least a BASIC understanding of the matter, which you not only haven't done, but have instead demonstrated that you are quite unfamiliar with the reams of material that has already refuted your very shallow postion, then I will not waste my time.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    No, I'm not going to explain the obvious inferiority of Strong's. That fact that you don't know that Strong's is inferior says all there is to say on the matter.

    Secondly, I will be happy to respond to an actual exhibition as soon as you can present one. Thus far all you have done is made an assertion and then sprinkled a verse or two onto it as if that actually explains your argument. Thus far you have not presented a coherent argument even in the slightest detail.

    Thus, if you want to continue this, exegete Mark 10:6. You can deal with it in the Greek or the English, take your pick --

    "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6
    "ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεός." Mark 10:6

    Notice I said EXEGETE, which means I did NOT say EISEGETE. I trust you know the difference.

    Before I will speak with you further on this issue, you will do two things:

    1. You will kindly EXEGETE this passage, i.e., Mark 10:6.

    2. You will demonstrate that you are familiar with the arguments which have already thoroughly refuted your position as I gave you in the link in the previous post.

    Until you demonstrate that you have at least a BASIC understanding of the matter, which you not only haven't done, but have instead demonstrated that you are quite unfamiliar with the reams of material that has already refuted your very shallow postion, then I will not waste my time.
    Thank you for your typical and predictable response. We were wondering how long it would take you to fold.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    In other words, you not only don't know about Strong's, but you also don't know the difference between "exegete" and "eisegete".

    Then again, Mark 10:6 has been an immovable rock for all who have stuck to sound exegesis on this passage.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 05-23-2010 at 12:39 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •