Dawkins Admits that they are working on it.

[Avatar]

yeah, I made YOU this morning and the rest of the universe, and I made you think that you had created the world when it was really I. ;P

Other than the timeframe, you're actually both correct.

 

[BrainHertz]

[bible]Psalm 104:3[/bible]

I'm not sure, but I'll take a stab at it ---

It's basically talking about buoyancy:

1. Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters = Archimede's Principle.
2. Who maketh the clouds his chariot = shows that the air has weight and mass - since clouds weigh less than the amount of air supporting them.
3. Who walketh upon the wings of the wind = the science of aerodynamics.

--- not bad, eh?

Well, thanks for responding, but... not exactly convincing. What are the chambers again?

 

[IzzyPop]

I wasn't posting those verses to "show where everything comes from." I posted them to show you that I know how the universe is expanding.

The universe may not be expanding. Time could be slowing down.

 

[AV1611VET]

I made it.... yesterday actually.

I just made it look like I made it a long time ago..... and then within that framework, I made it look like I made it a REALLY long time ago.

Regardless.... it was me. And now you know.

Are there any other questions, or can we finally put this one to bed?

That's Omphalism, and Omphalism is deceptive. God gave us Genesis so we wouldn't be confused by Omphalism.

 

[AV1611VET]

The universe may not be expanding. Time could be slowing down.

Well, you "scientists" make up your minds which it is.

In the meantime, I'll go with what God said; since He's already made up His.

 

[Avatar]

The universe may not be expanding. Time could be slowing down.

Cool link, thanks!

 

[JBJoe]

Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters = Archimede's Principle.

Eh, no. That doesn't say anything about displacing water, only laying beams in the water.

Who maketh the clouds his chariot = shows that the air has weight and mass - since clouds weigh less than the amount of air supporting them.

Uh, no. A chariot is something that a person takes a ride in. It is not light. Your symbolism is wholly messed up.

Who walketh upon the wings of the wind = the science of aerodynamics.--- not bad, eh?

Actually, pretty bad. That phrase says a lot of things that conflicts with aerodynamics.

This is why your curtain argument isn't particularly convincing. If verse 2 could have been used to predict expanding space time, then verse 3 should similarly be predictive of something, so what is it? If you don't know until you discover it independently, then you're just making the data fit the result.

 

[FishFace]

Well then, keep asking the same "usless" question, and we'll keep giving you the same "useless" answer.

Ah, you understand why we always ignore you then! Because while you're giving us the same useless answers, physicists are working on getting useful ones.

 

[FishFace]

[bible]Psalm 104:3[/bible]

I'm not sure, but I'll take a stab at it ---

It's basically talking about buoyancy:

1. Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters = Archimede's Principle.
2. Who maketh the clouds his chariot = shows that the air has weight and mass - since clouds weigh less than the amount of air supporting them.
3. Who walketh upon the wings of the wind = the science of aerodynamics.

--- not bad, eh?

Now, did anyone have this interpretation before the respective discoveries? Actually, the first one is pretty much moot since Archimedes was an Ancient Greek. Still, here's my interpretation:

Laying the beams of his chambers in the waters refers to creating land in the water, or perhaps the foundations of heaven.
Making the clouds a chariot is a common enough theme in old myths - God "lives" in the sky, or the heavens, rather than on earth.
Walking on the wings of the wind means he can fly.

Now, if you were actually a biblical literalist then you would think that God actually put wood in the sea to make his house, he would have a chariot made from water vapour, and that he would wander about on a giant bird made of air.
But you, AV, are a literalist only when it suits.

 

[FishFace]

That's Omphalism, and Omphalism is deceptive. God gave us Genesis so we wouldn't be confused by Omphalism.

No - when Ioinc created the universe, I created Genesis, just to mess with your head.

 

[Morcova]

Woe to Us!

Your Prophet needs help.

LOL

Sorry, your the ones who elevate men to gods not us.

And gasp imagine that... when scientist say they are working on a theory... they are actually working on it!!

 

[Morcova]

Go and cry, but look on the sunny side, you are not in hell yet.

Christianity, a religion of fear and hatred.

 

[Morcova]

Well have you seen his website? He has a love in with Hitchens and others and they choose a diabolical Title called the "Four Horse Men of the Apocolypse."

Silly troll doesn't even know his bible. There's zero that diabolical about the four horsemen, they were all angels of god.

 

[Morcova]

I do ---

[bible]Job 26:7[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 104:2[/bible]
[bible]Isaiah 40:22[/bible]
[bible]Isaiah 44:24[/bible]
[bible]Zechariah 12:1[/bible]

It's funny when you realize some christians have so little respects for their own holy books that they quote mine them.

 

[AV1611VET]

[bible]Psalm 104:2-3[/bible]

This is why your curtain argument isn't particularly convincing. If verse 2 could have been used to predict expanding space time, then verse 3 should similarly be predictive of something, so what is it?

Verse 2 is not a prophecy --- it is a statement of fact --- as is verse 3.

If you don't know until you discover it independently, then you're just making the data fit the result.

This is where [true] science and Scripture walk together. Embedded in the Scriptures are factual statements that become clearer as time goes on.

The book of Revelation is a perfect example.

This is why I say that [true] scientists are a gift from God, as we Christians [should] hold science up to a higher Standard than atheists do.

 

[Morcova]

Wow, man. You're like Mother Theresa or something. I weep thinking of the good you do.

Momma T gloried in tormenting people, it's a horrible thing to compare someone to her.

 

[Morcova]

This is where [true] science and Scripture walk together. Embedded in the Scriptures are factual statements that become clearer as time goes on.

That you have to quote mine to find... lol.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you, AV, are a literalist only when it suits.

Excuse me?

I have a feeling you don't know much about how Hebrew poetry works; and I went into this in-depth with someone else here - (Frumious, I think) - about the three major types and how they work, etc.

You must have been absent that day.

These remarks are a dime a dozen, and believe me, you're making you [the student] look bad, not me [the teacher].

 

[speakout]

Look let us not let these people off the hook, let us stick strictly to the video.

Physists are still working on it but they want to riicule those who say we know when and by whom the world was created.

Dawkins should stay in sleepy old Oxford and work out what needs to be worked on, then he should step up to the plate.

Guess what? They will never work it out because they started out by dreaming.

This thing is sci-fi, there is no proof because it is not true.

No, it is true lies.

 

[IrishRockhound]

Well, you "scientists" make up your minds which it is.

In the meantime, I'll go with what God said; since He's already made up His.

Oh, how arrogant you are, AV, that you can make such statements without a shadow of a doubt about your god. Who are you, that you can speak for your unknowable deity? Why can he not speak for himself, if he is omnipotent?

Any god that chooses to send such an arrogant and snide messenger as you, any god who raises a mere book above the reason and study of our entire race; such a god is unworthy of our worship. I can only hope that the christian god is not as you make him appear to be.