Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 28 July 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

I think this is original research, it certainly hasn't got anything to do with science, and the few external links given are vaguely on topic but given the amount of server space used for religion on the Internet, I don't think are particularly notable. Perhaps someone more knowlegable about theology (which I can't get my head round at all) can correct me. Dunc|☺ 17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and move to under Fundamentalism. POV and claims notwithstanding, this topic is not at this point worthy of an entire article, and seems unlikely to become so. Put in a redirect and move. I agree its crap, its silly nonsense, but it is believed by Fundamentalists and used by Fundamentalistic Apologists to bolster their beliefs and position. Outside of Fundamental Apologetics, however, it has no adherents - hence is a sub-topic of same. --216.53.182.148 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (was not logged in - sorry - this is --KillerChihuahua 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC) )
• Delete it seems another nutty joke theory. drini ☎ 17:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)* Keep Whether one agrees with it or not, it is an argument made by some Christian apologists. Similar claims are made by Muslims about the Qur'an. --Flex 17:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — the article is fairly neutral as it does not assert that these claims are true. I have read in books such claims going back to the 19th century, so it has some slight historical value. But I would like to see this closely linked into a more general article on the supposed links between scientific knowledge and religious dogma. :) — RJH 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It needs work, but it's a valid topic, and a prevelant belief among fundamentalist creationist christians. Lots of references on the internet: MickWest 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 24 at 18:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - fairly neutral article JoJan 18:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wiki doesn't have to be the home for everything bible, ad this certianly seems like gibberish--172.152.1.161 18:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, fairly neutral, and a valid topic. --Idont Havaname 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I've stumbled across the article when it was very fresh, and was apalled by unencyclopedic style (look in the history), but this can be cured. It's an argument of enough public visibility so that it cannot be ignored. Unfortunately these articles attract contributions which are against our WP:NOR policy, but this can also potentially be kept under control. --Pjacobi 18:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. It's poorly written and wikified atm. Mmmbeer 18:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but needs clean up. Phoenix prima
• Keep and clean up, it's as legitimate a topic as Intelligent Design. if anyone has an issue with its POV, they can update it and provide additional arguments. Unknown
• Bullshit. Keep, though, as believed bullshit. humblefool® 00:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• From original research:
  • The following are examples of allowable claims, research, and views (as long as they are verifiable and sources are cited):
  1. listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C);
  2. listing notable claims which contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g morphogenetic fields or conspiracy theories);
  3. including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories);
  4. citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. Phlogiston, Aether).
  • This appears to fit squarely within those bounds. --Unknown 16:14, 27 July 2005 (PDT)
• Keep. This is grasping at straws, clearly, but it's cited. Gazpacho 01:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

author's commnent

There are a lot of Bible science foreknowledge arguments I did not give due to time constraints. Also, I know of non-creationist who believe in Bible scientific foreknowledge.

Here are few more arguments for those interested (and there are more by the way):

Lions and the Bible http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm

REVISING THE BRITANNICA TO AGREE WITH THE BIBLE http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBritannicaCobra38.htm

Although disagree with a few points here is another which discusses ocean valleys and mountains, ocean creation, ocean currents, and a lastly, greenhouse effect and coastal cities:

THE BIBLE ON OCEANOGRAPHY: SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES ANTICIPATED http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BOceanography68.htm

SNAKES EAT DIRT?

Here is another interesting thing about those verses:

Snakes do east dust! by Carl Wieland http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i4/snakes.asp

I also cite:

QUOTE Speaking of the "tasting" ability of snakes, Dr. William R. Teska, a biology professor at Furman University who specializes in snakes informed me that snakes "taste" both dirt and air to navigate.

taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/parody/babinski1.html

Nuclear fission and St. Peter http://www.geocities.com/faithinevidence/prophecy.html

ken 21:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo