Why do people insist that science offers not enough proof, then go on to offer realms of obviously unproveble gobbldegok as their answer?

    0  Views: 311 Answers: 4 Posted: 9 years ago

    4 Answers

    If scientist have a truly open mind they would study the Bible and not try to disproof it.
    They might learn the truth.

    Professor M. Montiero-Williams, former Boden professor of Sanskrit, spent 42 years studying Eastern books and said in comparing them with the Bible:

    "Pile them, if you will, on the left side of your study table; but place your own Holy Bible on the right side - all by itself, all alone - and with a wide gap between them. For,...three is a gulf between it and the so-called sacred books of the East which severs the one from the other utterly, hopelessly, and forever...a veritable gulf which cannot be bridged over by any science of religious thought."

    Open minded scientists have and do study the bible. Like Galelao. Who was open minded enough to declare that the Bible was wrong about such things as the earth at the center of the universe, with the sun and stars revolving around it, the firament and the pillars of heaven etc.Look where it got him?
    And... the church took 400 years to realise that their apology to him -of a few years ago- was a little overdue!
    Which of THESE minds were closed do you think?
    Headless Man

    The Bible was not wrong, the understanding of it was.
    The only problem with the "scientists" that refuse to follow the evidence wherever it leads because they refuse to allow God in the door, is they disallow good science and scientists that can repeatedly model their findings. Such as: That light speed changes, stretches(as proven through gravity changes. That oil and fossils are easily created in a few years, that cave drawings show humans and dinosaurs depicted together, as recently as a few thousand years (as discovered all over the world).

    Instead, they blindly allow that even though the chimp shares 93% of human genes, and so does yeast, the missing percentages makes all the difference in the world. Because it is GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for one like kind animal to evolve into a DIFFERENT like kind animal.
    They also blindly think that certain time stamp dating processes always remained the same, which in fact we only know of for the past few decades. They also have no idea how much of the original element was involved, or when it started dissipating, yet claim without any provable evidence that it was millions of years ago.

    As far as Noah and the ark, yes it is quite easily believable when you consider that only a few thousand young or baby species would be necessary to keep the animal kingdom alive. And with Jonah, if it had been any other sea creature other than the whale that swallowed him, it wouldn't be believeable. However, since the whale goes to the surface to obtain fresh oxygen every so often, Jonah could have easily survived in the uppper regions of the whale, probably for a longer period than 3 days and nights.

    But instead, the supposed scientists have criminally put together bones and cartoon artist's depictions that falsely display a chimp evolving into a walking man, even though the hip displacements, among other things, are completely fabricated.

    God invented science, so ask Him if you want to know the scientific truths.

    Man is not supposed to have evolved from a chimp but from a common ancestor,So the making up of your skeleton would only have contradicted the evolutionary theory not reinforced it, the reality of which is observable and obvious.
    Jonah? Have a look at the anatomy of a whale..No way!
    Noah's ark can be seen to be impossible, even to a twelve year old and how does your GENETIC IMpossibility jel with obtaining the millions of world species starting when only with a "Few thousand baby species," and who carried syphilis,and also whatever the animal specific diseases are, and all of the other venerial diseases, - bubonic plague?......? The baby animals would be one Two years old? on the landing on Arrat what did they live on while Noa and his Missus replanted the world's vegetation? at least the carnivors could grow up (very hungry), mate and then eat the male? Or did Noah have some meat left in the freezer for them? I suppose that that is how the many spiders that eat their male companions, made it through. How did the duo's of creatures that can only survive for a brief period, unless they are in vital swarms, shoals, colonies, in which they are singularly dependent, manage?
    Did the ,(at that time undiscovered,)koala from the then unknown continrnt of Australia find its own way to the Ark? did he bring his own "cut lunch" of specific eucalipt leaves, -also unknown was the eucalypt tree, some species of which was his only diet.
    With all of vetenary knowledge that now exists, have you ever experianced the difficulty of feeding a baby kangaroo? possum, Wombat, Ant eating Echidna (Live ants only, (WOOPS theres only ONE each for the echidna's year'n'a bit!..s o r r y!) These diets are very specialised and difficult to administer, survival rate very low. What diet and right amount for an African elephant duo and a pair of 'hicmania trogladite'from deep in the limestone caves of Tasmania? How did Noah and co. find the right diet and the time every day for a year and a bit to cater for the feeding needs and feeding peculaiarities of his few thousand of breeding pairs, while contantly cleaning up the monstrous tons of urine and manure.(Ever tried to muck out a stable for SIX horses, twice a day?) Especially while carrying his share of the human specific diseases, lice, crabs... how many of those are there? Oh yes and if..."Every thing that liveth upon the earth" was otherwise dead. Where did the dove find the olive branch? and where DiD the three mile deep, global covering of water (H2O) come from - go to?
    By the way, How was all geological evdence of the vast, world wide silt layers that would have been deposited made to have vanished without trace. It has been diligently searched for by both sides of this argument with no luck. Although I bet someone will have had a go at mocking something up. One can only marvel at the extent and depth of this under three miles deep of water on a planetry scale. Think of the horrendous aftermath of one of our, microscopically insignificant by comparison, recent floods. If you will supply me with reasonably provable answers to the above points ,I will be well on my way to being converted to creationist doctrin.
    I hope you can, I have hundreds more about the same, or even tougher that I would love to have a sensible answer to.
    PS The known species COUNT of today is around thirty million species (known) and as you say "it is genetically impossible for one kind of animal to evolve into a different like kind..." Therefor crammed on to the Ark must have been sixty million beasties of various shapes and sizes. And enough of their incredible varied and often very perishable food-stuffs, gathered and stored. To last the whole journy and well beyond. -I suppose that today we only have the species that survived this horrendous voyage were there more?
    Hey I was only kidding about the 'fridge. It wasn't to be invented for another 4000 years?
    I guess God finally saw the need?

    Genetic mutation along with the loss of genetic information easily allows for only a few like kind animals to eventually present all of the different breeds of like kind animals we see today. Look at how many different breeds of dogs have been created within the past 100 years. Does a poodle look anything like a wolf today?
    Baby animals and eggs don't eat or poop very much, and also allow for many years of reproduction once the waters subsided. The wastes were composted in the bottom of the ark, while the upper level had light vents to allow plant growth to feed the animals. Yes, all of the animals could eat plant foods. Insects did not need the protection of the ark.
    The oceans were mostly underneath the land, and the animals were congregated within a few hundred miles of the ark. The land was mostly flat without mountains and did not require a 3 mile deep flood to cover the earth.
    Ever see the image of the crack through the Atlantic basin that stretches around the earth? The "fountains of the deep" exploded causing the oceans to erupt forcing apart the land forming the continents and eventually the mountains that formed along the edges of the continents.
    I have no idea why you said the sediment layers are not observable when they are all over the world! Mt St Helens created them in a few days, just like the Grand Canyon was created within a few days, and you can see the sediment layers on the walls there.
    What you and most people don't understand is that much of the Bible is written through the spiritual eyes of God. What the Noah experience is describing is the physical separation from the spiritual realm through "waters." Therefore, there are two "versions" of Noah, one spiritual and one physical. The spiritual Noah released the dove, and brought back the olive leaf to inform Noah the spiritual realm had been restored, and there was peace once again (from Gen. chapter 1.) The physical Noah released the raven.
    Read the book, "The Binary Effects of God," and it will open up new horizons for understanding the Bible, and your life.

    What proof and gobbledgook are you speaking of?

    Gobbledegook; like patient explanations of what goes on inside a black hole for instance. That light speed changes, stretches. And that the universe is a mere 16 light years across. That cave drawings show hominids and dinosaurs, depicted together, as recently as a few thousand years ogo? (It was probably a visual for the film of "Crocadile Dundee").
    That oil can be produced in a few weeks in a compost bin, That one can make ones own billion year dated fossils in the back of the garage. That the universe came into being a mere six thousand years ogo, on October the 19 just after lunch. That something as preposterously impossible as 'Noa's Ark" and Jonah living in the digestive juices of a whale really ever could be given even an instant of creedence, except by the volantarily blind. Gobbldegock; denies that about twenty other Hominid species have shared the Earth with Homo Sapiens. That evolutionary changes are a demonstrabel and easily observable fact. That the human genome shows that we share only a minute difference from that of the chimp, proving a common past ancester. Gobbldygook HAS to ignor the fact that Potassium-argon dating, along with other methods has produced a very accurate method of dating and finds that the Hominid had existed here on earth six and seven million years ago. Gobbldegockists Are great at nameing scientists, that are usually unknown , ficticious, or unrecognised to prove that science exists that negates scientific progress. etc. etc.---
    This I know is posed as a question but dosn't really pre-suppose a direct answer. I would like to see your comment on it as a statement However. Because in these pages it happens over and over again.

    Top contributors in Uncategorized category

    Answers: 18066 / Questions: 153
    Karma: 1101K
    Answers: 47274 / Questions: 115
    Karma: 953K
    country bumpkin
    Answers: 11315 / Questions: 160
    Karma: 838K
    Answers: 2379 / Questions: 30
    Karma: 759K
    > Top contributors chart

    Unanswered Questions