Science Proves the Bible Again

[cnm]

Doesn't come across as a belief in a god, particularly a moral god.

“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education.
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.”
― Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein: The Human Side​

 

[Hollie]

`
Yours are all FIGURATIVE USAGES You STUPID/DISHONEST RELIGIO-BIMBO.
Mine are LITERAL/Actual beliefs.

"..The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still Primitive Legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish.

No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
"These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions.".."

- Einstein letter to Gutkind, 1954

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ience.religion​

`

Note that he was referring to religion, the Jewish religion specifically and the other religions generally.
The God that created the universe is the God he believed in, and said so over and over.

We will just have to agree to disagree. This is going nowhere.

It’s actually pretty stereotypical for religionists to cut and paste “quotes” (“argument from authority”, fallacy) in an attempt to prove their gods. You can also find “quotes” from scientists who believe in competing versions of gods. What’s missing in all the various cutting and pasting is any verification for any of the gods.

 

[The Irish Ram]

`
Yours are all FIGURATIVE USAGES You STUPID/DISHONEST RELIGIO-BIMBO.
Mine are LITERAL/Actual beliefs.

"..The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still Primitive Legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish.

No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
"These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions.".."

- Einstein letter to Gutkind, 1954

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ience.religion​

`

Note that he was referring to religion, the Jewish religion specifically and the other religions generally.
The God that created the universe is the God he believed in, and said so over and over.

We will just have to agree to disagree. This is going nowhere.

It’s actually pretty stereotypical for religionists to cut and paste “quotes” (“argument from authority”, fallacy) in an attempt to prove their gods. You can also find “quotes” from scientists who believe in competing versions of gods. What’s missing in all the various cutting and pasting is any verification for any of the gods.

If Einstein didn't believe in God, he sure was adept at describing Him, and often.
Einstein said:
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man".

^ All you have to do is ask yourself if Einstein was someone who was seriously involved in the pursuit of science. If the answer is yes, then he was convinced, not maybe, but convinced, in a spirit that is manifest. Listening to his words instead of interpreting them is a simple solution to the question of Einstein's beliefs.
As to simple solutions, Einstein felt that:
"When the solution is simple, God is answering".

And Hollie, I could take the the time to type all his quotes, but you know what Einstein said:
"God always takes the simplest way".

 

[abu afak]

Einstein and God and Quote Mining
Einstein and God and Quote Mining

Quote mining Christians like to pull this trick a lot. They take quotes out of context, misusing Einstein’s sense of humor and Poetic use of the word “god.” They say, “Einstein was religious!” when all evidence–when looked at in the correct context–proves he was Not.

Those who like to pull the “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind” quote out of their asses don’t know when he said, why he said it, where he said it, or who he was saying it to. They know the quote, they don’t know the source. If they actually read Einstein’s letters (available at Amazon.com), they’d understand his sense of humor, his love of irony and sarcasm, and the poetic use of “god” when speaking of the universe.

(When Christians try to claim Einstein as one of their own, they often forget he was Jewish–a fact that puts him squarely in Hell, standing right next to Hitler, Jim Jones and Stalin. They forget that.)

And so, to provide even more evidence against this ridiculous idea, here’s a new letter–that you can read for yourself–that makes it very clear what Einstein thought of religion.

No quote mining. No out-of-context bullshit. Just plain speaking from the horse’s mouth.​

`

 

[The Irish Ram]

How do you forget some one is Jewish when it comes from the horse's own mouth?
Einstein said:
"I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever."

You are laying it on a little thick now. No one is sending Einstein to hell. His Jewish heritage has already been discussed.

Did you know that Bible readers knew there was a beginning long before Einstein realized it and told the rest of you? In 1931!
His constant universe was anything but. He would just create things that didn't exist to make his equations work. It wasn't until the 1930's that non Bible readers were enlightened. Hubble proved to Einstein an expanding universe and Einstein called it the bane of his existence. For the first time in his life he realized there really was a beginning. He had to add a new found dimension, space time. Had he also added the dimension that described Christ twice in the Bible, Einstein would have found what Hawking did. More dimensions. No need to make them up anymore. Or he could have just asked the notable scientist, Nachnamides who found ten just by reading Genesis in the 1200's.

Here are some other scientific Bible knowledge tidbits that I cut and pasted for Hollie:

The Bible: The Earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:23) Science then: The Earth is a flat disk. Science now: The Earth is a sphere

The Bible: Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). Science then: Only 1100 stars. Science now: Incalculable number of stars

The Bible: Free float of Earth in space (Job 26:7). Science then: Earth sat on a large animal. Science now: Free float of Earth in space

The Bible: Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3). Science then: Science is mostly ignorant on the subject. Science now: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms)

The Bible: Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41). Science then: All stars were the same. Science now: Each star is different

The Bible: Light moves (Job 38:19-20). Science then: Light was fixed in place. Science now: Light moves

The Bible: Air has weight (Job 28:25). Science then: Air was weightless. Science now: Air has weight

The Bible: Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6). Science then: Winds blew straight. Science now: Winds blow in cyclones

The Bible: Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). Science then: Sick people must be bled. Science now: Blood is the source of life and health

The Bible: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6). Science then: The ocean floor was flat. Science now: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains

The Bible: Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16). Science then: Ocean fed only by rivers and rain. Science now: Ocean contains springs

The Bible: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). Science then: Hands washed in still water. Science now: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.

And on the scientific horizon:
Dimensions can be torn, burnt, rolled up... so sayeth the Lord anyway.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did you know that Bible readers knew there was a beginning long before Einstein realized it and told the rest of you? In 1931!

And readers of Harry Potter know there is a Hogwarts. Good for all of you.

 

[james bond]

The biggest evidence is observable. The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface. There is no other planet or exo planet like it. Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it. What a "dumbass atheist." Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?

 

[Hollie]

The biggest evidence is observable. The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface. There is no other planet or exo planet like it. Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it. What a "dumbass atheist." Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?

Odd that the silly “fountains of the deep” doesn't appear in any of the relevant science literature. Could it be that creationists / Flat Earthers are simply pressing Christian fundamentalist dogma?

 

[alang1216]

The biggest evidence is observable. The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface. There is no other planet or exo planet like it. Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it. What a "dumbass atheist." Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?

I viewed it but didn't see anything in it that supported "foundtains of the deep" or anything Biblical. What did this "dumbass atheist" miss?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no other planet or exo planet like it.

Made-up bullshit

 

[LittleNipper]

"The fountains of the deep."

The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."

Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.

Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?

Any global flood would have been a supernatural event. Pure and simple. Nature does not provide a mechanism for pulling massive amounts of water, in whatever form, buried beneath miles of rock, in any time frame less than millions of years.

And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists. To accept it happened would prove GOD to a degree that would eliminate all excuses.

 

[alang1216]

And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists. To accept it happened would prove GOD to a degree that would eliminate all excuses.

The flood is denied by me because there is no evidence nor mechanism for it. Since there is neither, you'd have to prove GOD before I'd accept it. Reminds me of the old joke: Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

 

[Taz]

"The fountains of the deep."

The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."

Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.

Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?

From a biblical site, ya sure.

So why isn’t there any geologic evidence?

 

[LittleNipper]

There is no other planet or exo planet like it.

Made-up bullshit

And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists. To accept it happened would prove GOD to a degree that would eliminate all excuses.

The flood is denied by me because there is no evidence nor mechanism for it. Since there is neither, you'd have to prove GOD before I'd accept it. Reminds me of the old joke: Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

May your "honest eyes" consider the following without bias: Geological Evidences for a Flood

 

[LittleNipper]

Compelling evidence for the FLOOD of Noah:

The traditional view held by geologists is that the Yellowstone petrified tree formations represent many forests which grew one after the other. Each took hundreds of years to grow before it was buried by volcanic ash and slides of volcanic breccia (sharp-edged chunks of volcanic rock cemented to form a solid rock). Then another forest grew on top of it, only to suffer a similar fate, until perhaps as many as fifty to sixty-five forests had been buried and petrified. This explanation has been accepted without question for almost a century. However, recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence that contradicts this traditional view.

Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Specimen Ridge formations. Some of the facts that do not fit the picture of forests' being buried where they grew are as follows:9

a. Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken.

b. Almost all trees completely stripped of bark and limbs.

c. Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over).

d. Ring patterns of neighboring trees do not match.

e. Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current.

f. No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew.

g. Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found.

h. Many examples of trees overlapping with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another.

i. Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers.

j. Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks.

These and other facts strongly contradict the uniformitarian view. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported from another location by water and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia. The evidence supports the view that this happened rapidly, not slowly over periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists.

Utter nonsense. It is rejected by both atheists and many Christians as a myth, since the evidence all contradicts it. All of it. If there were evidence of a global flood, then atheists would accept it, and merely reject magical sky daddies as the explanation. So no, what you just said is stupid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Compelling evidence for the FLOOD of Noah:

The traditional view held by geologists is that the Yellowstone petrified tree formations represent many forests which grew one after the other. Each took hundreds of years to grow before it was buried by volcanic ash and slides of volcanic breccia (sharp-edged chunks of volcanic rock cemented to form a solid rock). Then another forest grew on top of it, only to suffer a similar fate, until perhaps as many as fifty to sixty-five forests had been buried and petrified. This explanation has been accepted without question for almost a century. However, recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence that contradicts this traditional view.

Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Specimen Ridge formations. Some of the facts that do not fit the picture of forests' being buried where they grew are as follows:9

a. Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken.

b. Almost all trees completely stripped of bark and limbs.

c. Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over).

d. Ring patterns of neighboring trees do not match.

e. Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current.

f. No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew.

g. Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found.

h. Many examples of trees overlapping with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another.

i. Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers.

j. Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks.

These and other facts strongly contradict the uniformitarian view. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported from another location by water and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia. The evidence supports the view that this happened rapidly, not slowly over periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

Um...hey professor...observations of trees in what amounts to .0001% of the earth's surface is not evidence for a global flood. Stop saying stupid shit!!!

 

[LittleNipper]

And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists.

Utter nonsense. It is rejected by both atheists and many Christians as a myth, since the evidence all contradicts it. All of it. If there were evidence of a global flood, then atheists would accept it, and merely reject magical sky daddies as the explanation. So no, what you just said is stupid.

No, it's not utter nonsense. It's rejected by ALL atheists and some people who call themselves "Christian." The evidence is mounting regardless of your opinion. Atheists will not accept the FLOOD unless they become saved (or at least acknowledge the probability of GOD). In which case, they are no longer atheists and don't count according to your logic. I know of several in that regard who now accept the FLOOD and are Christian. Atheists cannot accept the FLOOD because it would vindicate the Bible in the eyes of the world, and make atheists seem stubborn and foolish.

 

[LittleNipper]

Compelling evidence for the FLOOD of Noah:

The traditional view held by geologists is that the Yellowstone petrified tree formations represent many forests which grew one after the other. Each took hundreds of years to grow before it was buried by volcanic ash and slides of volcanic breccia (sharp-edged chunks of volcanic rock cemented to form a solid rock). Then another forest grew on top of it, only to suffer a similar fate, until perhaps as many as fifty to sixty-five forests had been buried and petrified. This explanation has been accepted without question for almost a century. However, recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence that contradicts this traditional view.

Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Specimen Ridge formations. Some of the facts that do not fit the picture of forests' being buried where they grew are as follows:9

a. Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken.

b. Almost all trees completely stripped of bark and limbs.

c. Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over).

d. Ring patterns of neighboring trees do not match.

e. Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current.

f. No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew.

g. Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found.

h. Many examples of trees overlapping with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another.

i. Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers.

j. Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks.

These and other facts strongly contradict the uniformitarian view. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported from another location by water and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia. The evidence supports the view that this happened rapidly, not slowly over periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

Um...hey professor...observations of trees in what amounts to .0001% of the earth's surface is not evidence for a global flood. Stop saying stupid shit!!!

I rest my case!

 

[Hollie]

There is no other planet or exo planet like it.

Made-up bullshit

And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists. To accept it happened would prove GOD to a degree that would eliminate all excuses.

The flood is denied by me because there is no evidence nor mechanism for it. Since there is neither, you'd have to prove GOD before I'd accept it. Reminds me of the old joke: Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

May your "honest eyes" consider the following without bias: Geological Evidences for a Flood

An unsourced personal blog is hardly a reliable source.