Re: Disproving Creation: creationist Andrew-a-Blank running from Budikka's flood challenge - Day 143

[James]

walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>news:d0opp89vfqp71bvf8...@4ax.com:
>
>
>Followup set to same group James is posting from. Authority, the
>newsreader.
>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>>>Still running and admitting that your trumped-up omnipotent god is at
>>>best impotent and at worst, nothing more than your own brain-dead
>>>fiction! �Thanks for admitting that you cannot provide a shred of
>>>positive scientific evidence supporting your FALSE WITNESS that there
>>>was a global flood some 4,300 years ago.
>>>
>>
>> Concerning the global deluge, all that water had to go somewhere. Why
>
>Indeed ignorance is a sad thing to see in a child, let alone an adult.
>But ah well, Ishma Allah.
>At least this droll is well equiped for the task, unless he is role
>playing.
>
>> look, around 3/4 of the planet is covered in water. If you want some
>> evidence......
>
>I would look at the stats. The water required to cover Everst exceeds
>the water found on the surface of the earth. Being the Glaciers are
>older than the dew fall claimed flood, that leaves that standard
>apologetic out.
>You were trying to imprfess your audience in what way again?
>Where is the water?

Who said that the mountains were as tall as today back then?

-the quantity of water would have to be enough to cover all the
world's land. This publication, "The Sea" states:

"If all the irregularities on the earth's surface were to be smoothed
out, both above and below the water, so that there were no dents or
holes anywhere, no land would show at all. The ocean would cover the
entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet."

All the highest mountains had to be covered with water. There isn't
enough water to cover all the highest mountains of TODAY. But notice a
past comment from "The Scientific Monthly" concerning the earth's
earlier days:

"there were no high mountains forming physical or climatic barriers"

Thus without real high mountains (like Everest) existing back then,
there is more of a chance that the water we have today on the planet
could have covered all the land areas if the conditions were the same
as back then.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org





>
>A: It retrned to the center of the earth, or very deep into the earth?
>
>Ans. No it didn't, it would not make it past the magna, & that much
>water would have been the end of this world. Just the enery released
>from the hot spots would have rendered the earth devoid of life as we
>know it today. Odds are, there would be no life on earth today had that
>happened.
>Shucks, even an encounter with the New Zealand hot spot would be
>spectacular, if not fatal to the southern hemispher.
>
>Of course, you can show that to be wrong, if you have the knowledge
>which, according to your posings, you don't.
>
>You won't be able to show why the earth may not stay in orbit, let alone
>together.
>
>But then, you don't have to. Bubba loves you & that is all that matters.
>& in your corner of the world, that is all right. But you left your
>corner & demanded two things, neither of which have you shown any
>entitlement to.
>
>Attention of those that don't share your self centered POV, & the
>unspoken demand that we accept them.
>& to be considered a person worthy of respect. Most respectable people
>I've encountered don't walk into anyones living room, virtual or real,
>whip it & whizz on the carfpet. Nor do they take a dump.
>
>But you don't hold yourself to the standards you pretend others should
>hold to. So don't be surprised when the well runs dry.
>
>Ethical question for the group, should I add the jw newsgroups on
>followups, or should I trim the headers & then add this mess to the JW
>group.
>
>BTW James, that excludes you. Children, & those that act like children,
>get no say in adult matters.
>
>[1] two left to go.
>
>walksalone who is not surprised at the increase of new pretenders. After
>all, the schools are either out or on reduced hours. Therefore more
>posers are able to access the net without adult supervision.
>
>
> "If pride of character be of worth at any time, it is when it
>disarms the efforts of malice." Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Nelson, 1781.
>ME 4:364

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:5k0sp8prf9lfou7ag...@4ax.com:

> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>news:d0opp89vfqp71bvf8...@4ax.com:


Followup set to same group James is posting from. Authority, the
newsreader.

>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>

Obvious snip. IOt doesn't seem to be one of the skills I irk u 2 has.

>>> look, around 3/4 of the planet is covered in water. If you want some
>>> evidence......
>>
>>I would look at the stats. The water required to cover Everst exceeds
>>the water found on the surface of the earth. Being the Glaciers are
>>older than the dew fall claimed flood, that leaves that standard
>>apologetic out.
>>You were trying to imprfess your audience in what way again?
>>Where is the water?
>
> Who said that the mountains were as tall as today back then?

I realise this answer will not appeal to you, & don't much care.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060126185311.htm
Leadin
Jan. 26, 2006 � Two new studies by a University of Rochester researcher
show that mountain ranges rise to their height in as little as two million
years--several times faster than geologists have always thought. Each of
the findings came from two pioneering methods of measuring ancient mountain
elevations, and the results are in tight agreement.

The research papers, appearing in today's issue of Science and next week's
issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, mean scientists will have to
re-evaluate tectonic processes that build high elevation plateaus, such as
those in Tibet and the central Andes.
Just for starters.

Now, girls may prefer to not have their age known. But it does not bother
the life giver. The earth. You say ortherwise, go suck spoace for two
hours & check back with the evidence that you did it. The human body has
problems with severe vacuum & 3deg. K.

> -the quantity of water would have to be enough to cover all the
> world's land. This publication, "The Sea" states:

To be serious enough to discuss, it helps to be at the utleast, moderately
plusible. Being that is an apologetic source, it has no credibilty here.
OTOH, you have the restrictions of honesty with yourself when it comes to
emotional disfunctions. But very few people do.

> "If all the irregularities on the earth's surface were to be smoothed
> out, both above and below the water, so that there were no dents or
> holes anywhere, no land would show at all. The ocean would cover the
> entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet."

An occurance that has never happewned for the planet is still here.

> All the highest mountains had to be covered with water. There isn't

The definition of a mountain means any land feature that is no less than
1000ft. above ground level. Not sea level, ground level. Of course that,
means nothing to you, but to thinking people, it means a lot. For example,
Ur was above sea level when it got flooded. High enough that salt water
intrusion was unkown to them.
Say what, assumong no bedrock, which is unlikly, the local mountains would
be at 2000 feet. Now, the mountains of Aarat were inland & westerly,
possibly the highest mountains known to the authors of the Gilgamesh epic,
& the borrowers from Judea that were trying to become important to the
world, so they would be used.
Side note1, Mt. Aarat is the home of a moon goddess.
Side note 2, They never made it in the arc haic world.

> enough water to cover all the highest mountains of TODAY. But notice a
> past comment from "The Scientific Monthly" concerning the earth's
> earlier days:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scientific_Monthly
Now, what is the date of the article.

> "there were no high mountains forming physical or climatic barriers"

Well, prior to the end of planetary formation, that was true. But once the
earth settled in & it's internal fire got lit, from radiation & pressure,
the rules changed. You realise, that with your statement, it appears you
are quoting someone about the earth, say 4+billion years ago.
Neither one of was there, so you can quit pretending to know what you can
never show.

> Thus without real high mountains (like Everest) existing back then,
> there is more of a chance that the water we have today on the planet

Only if you need it to be. Geology, a discipline I am not adept at, says
otherwise. BTW, Everest was shorter bac k during the fictional flood days.

> could have covered all the land areas if the conditions were the same
> as back then.
>

An if not supported by the evidence, & all things considered, ;possibly
impossible without a hell of a lot of comet activity.
Normally I would remove teh following text, b ut it helps to show that I
irk u 2 is really as shallow as s/h/it appears.

[2]

walksalone who suspects Thanatos may be getting tired of hauling out the
trash.

DEBAUCHEE, n. One who has so earnestly pursued pleasure that
he has had the misfortune to overtake it.
Devil's Dictionary?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:55:05 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

Why are you repeating the same bullshit you know was debunked the last
time you were stupid enough to push it?

>All the highest mountains had to be covered with water. There isn't
>enough water to cover all the highest mountains of TODAY. But notice a
>past comment from "The Scientific Monthly" concerning the earth's
>earlier days:

WHICH "EARLIER DAYS", imbecile?

Have the honesty to stick to one period instead of dishonestly
switching between billions of years ago, tens of millions and a few
thousand years ago.

Do you "honestly" imagine your dishonesty fools anybody, even
yourself?

>"there were no high mountains forming physical or climatic barriers"

*W*H*E*N*, imbecile?

>Thus without real high mountains (like Everest) existing back then,

*W*H*E*N*, liar?

The oldest mountain ranges are more than three billion years old.
Everest is one of the youngest, about thirty million years old.

But then you know this, so why repeat the same falsehood?

>there is more of a chance that the water we have today on the planet
>could have covered all the land areas if the conditions were the same
>as back then.

*B*A*C*K* *W*H*E*N*, liar?

Three or Four billion years ago?

>James

Why have you never once addressed the fact that the whole thing is a
physical impossibility in the first place, dishonest, lying imbecile?

You're coming up with idiotic rationalisations for specific details of
a story whose complete basis is impossible.

It's like explaining how all the devices work in a faster than light
spaceship when there is no such thing in the first place.

>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org

Were you as dishonest or as stupid before you joined the JWs, or did
it do that to you?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5k0sp8prf9lfou7ag...@4ax.com>,

The facts.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[James]

Notice how they keep changing their dating: "several times faster than
geologists have always thought"

Hopefully, eventually they will get it right.

>
> The research papers, appearing in today's issue of Science and next week's
>issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, mean scientists will have to
>re-evaluate tectonic processes that build high elevation plateaus, such as
>those in Tibet and the central Andes.
>Just for starters.
>
>Now, girls may prefer to not have their age known. But it does not bother
>the life giver. The earth. You say ortherwise, go suck spoace for two
>hours & check back with the evidence that you did it. The human body has
>problems with severe vacuum & 3deg. K.
>
>> -the quantity of water would have to be enough to cover all the
>> world's land. This publication, "The Sea" states:
>
>To be serious enough to discuss, it helps to be at the utleast, moderately
>plusible. Being that is an apologetic source, it has no credibilty here.

Yes, I know. If I quote something, "it has no credibilty here". But if
you quote something, it is backed by a Congressional Act. Oh well,
each to his own.

>OTOH, you have the restrictions of honesty with yourself when it comes to
>emotional disfunctions. But very few people do.



>
>> "If all the irregularities on the earth's surface were to be smoothed
>> out, both above and below the water, so that there were no dents or
>> holes anywhere, no land would show at all. The ocean would cover the
>> entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet."
>
>An occurance that has never happewned for the planet is still here.

Look carefully at the quotation. It starts out with "If". That means,
that it didn't have to happen, but IF it did, then "The ocean would

cover the entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet."

>

>> All the highest mountains had to be covered with water. There isn't
>
>The definition of a mountain means any land feature that is no less than
>1000ft. above ground level. Not sea level, ground level. Of course that,
>means nothing to you, but to thinking people, it means a lot. For example,
>Ur was above sea level when it got flooded. High enough that salt water
>intrusion was unkown to them.
>Say what, assumong no bedrock, which is unlikly, the local mountains would
>be at 2000 feet. Now, the mountains of Aarat were inland & westerly,
>possibly the highest mountains known to the authors of the Gilgamesh epic,
>& the borrowers from Judea that were trying to become important to the
>world, so they would be used.
>Side note1, Mt. Aarat is the home of a moon goddess.
>Side note 2, They never made it in the arc haic world.
>
>> enough water to cover all the highest mountains of TODAY. But notice a
>> past comment from "The Scientific Monthly" concerning the earth's
>> earlier days:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scientific_Monthly
>Now, what is the date of the article.

August 1949, p. 71

>
>> "there were no high mountains forming physical or climatic barriers"
>
>Well, prior to the end of planetary formation, that was true. But once the
>earth settled in & it's internal fire got lit, from radiation & pressure,
>the rules changed. You realise, that with your statement, it appears you
>are quoting someone about the earth, say 4+billion years ago.
>Neither one of was there, so you can quit pretending to know what you can
>never show.

The August 1949 article was about dinosaurs. So the low mountains
would have been during the dinosaurs' reign.

Look over the web page:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_14b.htm

It explains how the great deluge would have caused the mountains to
change in size and height, etc.

We can see the effects of flooding on land areas today. And it is
quite catastrophic. But a global flood would have even super-greater
effects on the earth's land masses.

>
>> Thus without real high mountains (like Everest) existing back then,
>> there is more of a chance that the water we have today on the planet
>
>Only if you need it to be. Geology, a discipline I am not adept at, says
>otherwise. BTW, Everest was shorter bac k during the fictional flood days.
>
>> could have covered all the land areas if the conditions were the same
>> as back then.
>>
>
>An if not supported by the evidence, & all things considered, ;possibly
>impossible without a hell of a lot of comet activity.
>Normally I would remove teh following text, b ut it helps to show that I
>irk u 2 is really as shallow as s/h/it appears.

Then where do you believe all the water came from on the earth?

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


>

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:3tc1q89e7fgaarcvs...@4ax.com:

> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>news:5k0sp8prf9lfou7ag...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>>news:d0opp89vfqp71bvf8...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>Followup set to same group James is posting from. Authority, the
>>newsreader.

I see I irk u 2, has added a news group. Sure mark of a troll. Followup
set.

>>>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>

snip

>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060126185311.htm
>>Leadin
>>Jan. 26, 2006 � Two new studies by a University of Rochester
>>researcher show that mountain ranges rise to their height in as little
>>as two million years--several times faster than geologists have always
>>thought. Each of the findings came from two pioneering methods of
>>measuring ancient mountain elevations, and the results are in tight
>>agreement.
>
> Notice how they keep changing their dating: "several times faster than
> geologists have always thought"
>
> Hopefully, eventually they will get it right.
>
>>
>> The research papers, appearing in today's issue of Science and next
>> week's
>>issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, mean scientists will
>>have to re-evaluate tectonic processes that build high elevation
>>plateaus, such as those in Tibet and the central Andes.
>>Just for starters.

This is the article you are referring to?
<http://www.livescience.com/589-blobs-earth-explain-rapid-mountain-
building.html>

From that article:
The evidence suggested the Andes shot up between 10 million and 7 million
years ago.

"When I first showed this data to others, they had a hard time believing
that mountains could pop up so quickly," Garzione said this week.

The research was led by Prosenjit Ghosh and John M. Eiler of the California
Institute of Technology.

Now I don't know about you, but even 7 million years ago is a lot longer
than the Epic of Gilgamesh or its ripoffs.

& thjere ios a difference between unconfirmed hypotosis & theory. To
pretend this is the real deal is a bit immature. If it beccomes a theory,
great. But right now it is not.

Mountain formation theory explanation sites
http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/plate/4/ptpt4_3a.html
<https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/skeena_river/documents/journals/Farley
(2000).pdf> Downlaodable PDF file.
<http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.html>
The last may be understandable to you, for it is written by & for students
that are not knowledgable in the subject.

>>Now, girls may prefer to not have their age known. But it does not
>>bother the life giver. The earth. You say ortherwise, go suck spoace
>>for two hours & check back with the evidence that you did it. The
>>human body has problems with severe vacuum & 3deg. K.

>>> -the quantity of water would have to be enough to cover all the
>>> world's land. This publication, "The Sea" states:

>>To be serious enough to discuss, it helps to be at the utleast,
>>moderately plusible. Being that is an apologetic source, it has no
>>credibilty here.
>
> Yes, I know. If I quote something, "it has no credibilty here". But if
> you quote something, it is backed by a Congressional Act. Oh well,
> each to his own.

Poor baby, no one takes you seriously. Maybe it is that to date, you are
all blow & no show.
One major differen ce between us is that you rely on apologetic sources for
mainline sources don't suppoert your claims.

You want to be taken seriously, that can be done.

Use reputable sites.
USC&GS
Geology departments from none religious universitys. Or if they are
religious univedrsitys, insure the dept. Is accredited by the national
educational accredation system, & not their own which is not recogniseed by
thge National Education system.

Example, whih is the better sourcew for geological information?

The University of West Virginia?
http://geologyonlinecourses.com/
Or
Moody Bible Institute

>>OTOH, you have the restrictions of honesty with yourself when it comes
>>to emotional disfunctions. But very few people do.

No whione, good I'm low on cheese at the moment.

>>> "If all the irregularities on the earth's surface were to be
>>> smoothed out, both above and below the water, so that there were no
>>> dents or holes anywhere, no land would show at all. The ocean would
>>> cover the entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet."

>>An occurance that has never happewned for the planet is still here.

> Look carefully at the quotation. It starts out with "If". That means,

If is in thesame catergory as mgic. If does not esatab lish a likely
condition but indicates an imaginative one. If you knew what you are
trying to peddle, the word would be even more useless than it is as used.
If, the biggest little word in the English language.

> that it didn't have to happen, but IF it did, then "The ocean would
> cover the entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet."

There is no need of the if should one be familiar with the history of the
earth & it's formation. Your assumption of a perfectly level rock surfac e
is as implausable as it is imaginatiove. By any chance, do you have a
familarity of the following?
Solr disc accreation.
Planetary formation?

In particular, how they happen.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Planetary_formation_and_migration
http://phys.org/tags/planetary+formation/

Differing POV, doesa't seem to be well thought out in spite if teh
publisher.

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110222-planets-formation-
theory-busted-earth-science-space/>

Search engine
<http://www.info.com/how%20are%20planets%20formed?cb=27&cmp=4337
&gclid=CMih3ovSsbcCFRKf4Aod6VsA9g>

>>> All the highest mountains had to be covered with water. There isn't

>>The definition of a mountain means any land feature that is no less
>>than 1000ft. above ground level. Not sea level, ground level. Of
>>course that, means nothing to you, but to thinking people, it means a
>>lot. For example, Ur was above sea level when it got flooded. High
>>enough that salt water intrusion was unkown to them.
>>Say what, assumong no bedrock, which is unlikly, the local mountains
>>would be at 2000 feet. Now, the mountains of Aarat were inland &
>>westerly, possibly the highest mountains known to the authors of the
>>Gilgamesh epic, & the borrowers from Judea that were trying to become
>>important to the world, so they would be used.
>>Side note1, Mt. Aarat is the home of a moon goddess.
>>Side note 2, They never made it in the arc haic world.

>>> enough water to cover all the highest mountains of TODAY. But notice
>>> a past comment from "The Scientific Monthly" concerning the earth's
>>> earlier days:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scientific_Monthly
>>Now, what is the date of the article.
>
> August 1949, p. 71

That was before it sold out, & from Wiki
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve
this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)

>>> "there were no high mountains forming physical or climatic barriers"
>>
>>Well, prior to the end of planetary formation, that was true. But
>>once the earth settled in & it's internal fire got lit, from radiation
>>& pressure, the rules changed. You realise, that with your statement,
>>it appears you are quoting someone about the earth, say 4+billion
>>years ago. Neither one of was there, so you can quit pretending to
>>know what you can never show.
>
> The August 1949 article was about dinosaurs. So the low mountains
> would have been during the dinosaurs' reign.

Not neccesarily. The definition of low mountains may equate to hills for
you, but not mee. & new moutnain ranges are rugged & no fun to travel in.
Try walking the Great Divide if you think it is. Interesting? Why yes,
but fun, no.

> Look over the web page:

> http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_14b.htm

Now why did you try & palm another creation site off as a valid source of
information?
From the home page:
CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: The material for this site was taken from books,
compiled by Free-Lance Reporter Vance Ferrell. BA. MA. into our three-
volume Encyclopedia entitled:

'EVOLUTION DISPROVED SERIES'
Vol. 1: ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE;
Vol. 2: ORIGIN OF LIFE
Vol. 3: OTHER EVIDENCE

> It explains how the great deluge would have caused the mountains to
> change in size and height, etc.

No it does not. It will however claim to. Just what do you think the waer
cycle is, & how does it work, or how planets for?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4yirtvUurA
<Might be to long for you, but it's under two m inutes so hang in there.>

> We can see the effects of flooding on land areas today. And it is
> quite catastrophic. But a global flood would have even super-greater
> effects on the earth's land masses.

& totaly lacking in supportive evidence.

snip, nothing new to diuscuss.

>>An if not supported by the evidence, & all things considered,
>>;possibly impossible without a hell of a lot of comet activity.
>>Normally I would remove teh following text, b ut it helps to show that
>>I irk u 2 is really as shallow as s/h/it appears.
>
> Then where do you believe all the water came from on the earth?

Space via comet activity. & that is one of the reasons that water can be
older than the earth. Odd I know, but those familair with the concepts
involved in planetary formation understand these things are not for you.

walklaone who suspects I irk u 2 really believes s/he/it does irk others.
But I understand, not all children grow up. So instead of irritation, I
fine them mildly bemusing, bit like a small pet going through
housebreaking. Some grow up, others can't be trained due to a lack of a
memory, or it just doesn't want to.

You may want to pick another god, these are historicl & most predate yours
by centurys.

A-a
Abgaledit
Abhijnaraja
Abhimukhi
Abonsam
Acadla
Acolmiztli
Acolnahuacatl
Adad
Adhimukticarya
Adhimuktivasita
Adibuddha
Adidharma
Adro
Aed
Aengus
Age
Aglibol
Aine
Ajalamo
Ajaya
Aje
Akasagarbha
Akonadi
Akongo
Aksayajnana -Karmanda
Aksobhya
Ala
Alad Udug Lama
Alatangana
Alk'unta'm
Allat
Almaqh
Ama-arhus
Amaethon
Amasagnul
Amida
Amimitl
Amitabha
Amm
Amma
Amma (2)
Amma (l)
Ammavaru
Amoghapasa
Amoghasiddhi
Anantamukhi
Anat
Anaulikutsai'x
Anbay
Andarta
Anjea
Ankalamman
Ansar
Antu
Anu
Anu
Anunnaki
Aondo
Apap
Aphrodisias
Apsu
A'ra
Arapacana
Arawa
Aray
Arcismati
Arebati
Arebati
Arianrhod
Arsay
Arsu
Arthapratisamvit
Arvernus
Arya-Tara
Asalluha
Asar
Asase Yaa
Asase Yaa
Aserah
Aserah
Asertu
Ashiakle
Asira
Asis
Asnan
Asokottamasri
Asratum
Assur
Astlik
Ataa Naa Nyongmo
Atarsamain
Atete
Athirat
Atl
Atlahua
Attar
Aufaniae
Avalokitesvara
Avalokitesvara
Avrikiti
Aya
Ayaba
Ayurvasita
Azizos
Ba
Baal
Baba
Badb
Bagba
Balaparamita
Bala-Sakti
Baltis
Banba
Banga
Barsamin
Basamum
Beg-Tse
Behanzin
Bel
Belatucadros
Belenus
Belet-Ili
Belet-Seri
Beltiya
Bhagavan
Bhaisajyaguru
Bhrkuti- Tara
Bhumi
Bhutadamara
Bi-har
Birdu
Boann
Bodhisattva
Bonchor
Bres Macelatha
Brigit
Buadza
Buddha
Buddhabodhiprabhavasita
Buddhakapala
Budha
Bugid Y Aiba
Buk
Bumba
Bumba
Caelestis
Cagu
Cailleach Bheur
Camulos
Camunda
Candali
Candarosana
Candesvari
Cankilikkaruppan
Carcika
Cathubodua
Cauri
Ce Acatl
Cenkalaniyammal
Centeocihuatl
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Cghene
Chalchiuhtlatonal
Chalchiuhtlicue
Chalchiuhtotolin
Chalmecacihuitl
Chalmecatl
Chang Fei
Chang Hs'ien
Chantico
Chattrosnisa
Chi Sung Tzu
Chicomecohuatl
Chicomexochitl
Chiconahui
Chiconahui Itzculntli-Chantico
Chiconahuiehecatl
Chikara
Chiuke
Chos-Skyon
Chu Jung
Cihuacoatl-Quilaztli
Cipactli
Cipactonal
Citlalatonac
Citlalicue
Citrasena
Cittavasita
Co(co)chimetl
Coatlicue
Cocidius
Col
Condatis
Coyolxauhqui
Cunda
Dadimunda
Dagan
Dagan (2)
Dagda
Damgalnuna
Danaparamita
Danu (I)
Datin
Deng
Deng
Dhanada
Dharani
Dharmadhatuvagisvara
Dharmakirtisagaraghosa
Dharmamegha
Dharmapala
Dharmavasita
Dhrtarastra
Dhupa
Dhupatara
Dhvajagrakeyura
Dhvajosnisa
Dhyanibuddha
Dhyanibuddhasakti
Diancecht
Diang
Dictynna
Digambara
Dipa
Dipa Tara
Dipankara
Divona
dMu-bDud Kam-Po Sa-Zan
Dombi
Don
Dongo
Donn
Dumuzi
Durjaya
Dzivaguru
Ea
Edeke
Ehecatl
Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl
Eji Ogbe
Ekajata
El'eb
Elkunirsa
Ellaman
Enbilulu
Enmesarra
Ennugi
Enundu
Enzu
Epona
Ereskigal
Erh Lang
Eriu
Erra
Eshu
Esu
Esus
Faraguvol
Faro
Faro
Fe
Feng Po
Fidi MukuIlu
Fidi Mukullu
Flaitheas
Fu Shen
Gad
Gaganaganja
Gajavahana
Gal Bapsi
Galla
Ganapatihrdaya
Gandha
Gandha Tara
Garuda
Gatumdug
Gaunab
Gauri
Gerra
Gestu
Ghantapani
Ghasmari
Gibini
Gita
Gleti
Gobniu
God
Govannon
Grahamatrka
Grismadevi
gSan Sgrub
gShen-Lha-Odkhar
gShen-Rab
Gula
Gunura
Gur-Gyi�Mgon-Po
Gwydion
Gwynn Ap Nudd
Hahanu
Halahala
Hani(s)
Hao
Hara Ke
Hariti
Haubas
Haukim
Haurun
Hayagriva
Hayasya
Hemantadevi
Hendursaga
Herne
Heruka
Hevajira
Hilal
Huang Ti
Hubal
Huehuecoyotl
Huehuecoyotl-Coyotlinahual
Huehuetotl
Huitzilpochtli
Hung Sheng
Huvi
Iccovellauna
Ifa
Igigi
Ikenga
Il
Ilabrat
Ilat
Im
Imana
Imana
Inkanyamba
Inta
Ipalnemoani
Iruva
Isa
Isa (l)
Isara
Istar
Isum
Itonde
Itzcuintli
Itzpapalotl
Itzpapalotl-ltzcueye
Itztapal Totec
Itztli
Ixcozauhqui
Ixnextli
Ixpuztec
Ixquimilli-Itzlacoliuhqui
Ixtlilton
Izquitecatl
Jakomba
Jakomba
Jalinprabha
Jambhala
Jayakara
Jnanadakini
Jnanaparamita
Jok
Jokinam
Ka Tyeleo
Kades
Kahilan
Kaikara
Kaikara
Kakasya
Kakka
Kaladuti
Kalisia
Kalunga
Kamaksi
Kamini
Kangalogba
Karai-Shin
Karini
Karmavasita
Karttikeya
Kavra'nna
Kazyoba
Kere'tkun
Kesini
Ketua
Khasaparna
Khen-Ma
Khen-Pa
Khyung-Gai mGo-Can
Kianda
Kibuka
Kibuka
Kisar
Kitanitowit
Korravai
Kotisri
Koyote
Ksitigarbha
Kubaba
Kuei Shing
Kulisesvari
Kulla
Kundalini
Kun-Rig
Kuntu bXan Po
Kurukulla
Kus
Ku'urkil
Kwannon
Kwoth
Kyumbe
Lahmu
Lalaia'il
Lamaria
Lasya
Lau
Legba
Lendix - Tcux
Lenus
Lesa
Lha
Lianja
Libanza
Libanza
Lietna'irgin
Lir
Lisa
Llew Llaw Gyffes
Loa
Loba
Locana
Lokesvara
Loko
Lomo
Lu Pan
Lubanga
Lubanga
Lubangala
Lubangala
Lug
Lugal-Irra
Lulal
Ma
Ma Kiela
Ma Kiela
Mabon
Macha
Madhukara
Maeve
Mahabala
Mahacinatara
Mahakala
Mahakapi
Mahamantranusarini
Mahamayuri
Mahaparinirvanamurti
Mahaprabhu
Mahapratisara
Mahapratyamrga
Maharaksa
Mahasahaspramardani
Maha-Sarasvati
Mahasitavati
Mahasri- Tara
Mahasthama(prapta)
Mahavidya
Mahayasa
Maheo
Mahodadhi
Mahrem
Maitreya
Maju
Mal
Mala
Malakbel
Malik
Mamaki
Mami
Mamitu
Manannan (Mac Lir)
Manat
Manawyddan
Mandah
Mandanu
Manidhara
Manitu
Manjughosa
Manjusri
Manmatha
Manungal
Maponos
Mara
Marduk
Mari (2)
Mari (2)
Mari (I)
Marici
Mariyamman
Marnas
Matlalcueye
Mawu
Mawu
Maya(devi)
Mayahuel
Mayajalakrama-Kurukulla
Mayon
Ma-zu
Mbomba
Mbombe
Mbongo
Mbotumbo
Mbotumbo
Medha
Meher
Men Shen
Menechen
Mes An Du
Mes Lam Taea
Metztli
Mexitli
Micapet1acoli
Mictecacihuatl
Mictlantecuhtli
Midir
Milkom
Mi-Lo Fo
Mirsa
Mixcoatl-Camaxtli
Mkulumncandi
Mlentengamunye
Mmlambo
Modimo
Modron
Molek
Mombo Wa Ndhlopfu
Mor
Morrigan
Morva
Morvran
Mot
Moyocoyanl
Mratna'irgin
Mucalinda
Mugasa
Mugizi
Mugizi
Muhingo
Muhingo
Mujaji
Mukasa
Mukasa
Mulindwa
Mulindwa
Mulliltu
Mungu
Munisvara
Munume
Munume
Muraja
Murukan
Musisi
Muso Koroni
Muso Koroni
Muttalamman
Myoken-Bodhisattva
Na' chitna'irgin
Na Ngutu
Nabu
Nagual
Nahui Ehecatl
Nahui Ollin
Nai
Nairamata
Namasangiti
Nammu
Nana
Nanahuatl
Nanaja
Nanavasita
Nan-Sgrub
Nantosuelta
Napp~nnai
Nappatecuhtli
Natha
Ndaula
Ndaula
Ndjambi
Nediyon
Neit
Nergal
Nerthus
Nesu
Neti
Nextepehua
Ngai
Ngunuwo
Ni
Niamye
Niamye
Ninegal
Ningal
Ningikuga
Ningilin
Ningirama
Ningirsu
Ningis Zi Da
Ninhursaga
Nin-Ildu
Nin-Imma
Nin'insinna
Ninkarnunna
Ninkigal
Ninkurra
Ninmah
Ninsubur
Ninsun(a)
Nintu
Ninurta
Niruktipratisamvit
Nliladanda
Nommo
NommoJ
Nosenga
Nrtya
Nsongo
Nsongo
Nu Kua
Nuadu
Nunbarsegunu
Nusku
Nu'tenut
Nyakaya
Nyame
Nyavirezi
Nzambi
Nzambi
Nzapa
Nze
Obatala
Ocelotl
Oduduwa
Ogiuwu
Ogmius .
Ogun
Oi
Olokun
Omacatl
Ome Tochtli
Ometecuhtli
Ometeotl
Onuava
Opo
Opochtli
Ori
Orisania
Orotalt
Orunmila
Osande
Osanobua
Ostaraki
Osun
Pa-bil-sag
Padmantaka
Padmapani
Padmosnisa
Pahtecatl
Painal
Pancamukha-Patradeva
Pancaraksa
Pandara
Pao Kung
Pap-nigin-gara
Papsukkal
Paramita
Pararnasva
Pariskaravasita
Parna-Savari
Patadharini
Pekko
Pemba
Pemba
Pen Annwen
Perende
Phyi-Sgrub
Picvu'cin
Pidray
Prabhakari
Pradipatara
Prajna
Prajnantaka
Prajnaparamita
Prajnaparamita
Prajnavardhani
PraJnavardhani
Pramudita
Pranidhanavasita
Prasannatara
Pratibhanakuta
Pratibhanapratisamvit
Pratisamvit
Prende
Priyadarsana
Pukkasi
Puspa
Puspatara
Pwyll
Qamai'ts
Qos
Quiahuitl
Quzah
Rakta-Yamari
Raluvimbha
Raluvimbha
Rang
Ratnapani
Ratnaparamita
Ratnasambhava
Ratnolka
Ratnosnisa
Resep( A )mukal
Rhiannon
Riddhivasita
Rubanga
Rubanga
Ruda
Ruhanga
Rupini
Ryangombe
Sa
Sadaksari (Lokesvara)
Sadbhuja-Sitatara
Sadhumati
Sagaramati
Sahar
Sajara
Sakka(n)
Sakra
Sakti
Sakumo
Sakyarnuni
Sala
Salm of Mahram
Samantabhadra
Samantaprabha
Samas
Sams
Samvara
San Chou Niang Niang
San-Dui
Sango
Sao Ching Niang Niang
Sapas
Sara
Saraddevi
Sarra Itu
Sarvabuddhadharma-Kosavati
Sarvakarmavaranavisodhani
Sarvanivaranaviskambhin
Sarvapayanjaha
Sarvasokatamonirghatamati
Sasuratum
Saubhagya-Bhuvanesvari
Savari
Sebitti
Senx
Seta
Shango
Shankpana
Sheela Na Gig
Shen Nung
Shou Lao
Si
Siduri
Sikhin
Silaparamita
Sin
Singala
Sinhanada
Sipe Gialmo
Sipylene
Sirara
Sirsir
Sirtur
Sisyphos
Sitapatra
Sitatara
sMan-Bla
Smertrios
Snulk' ulxa'ls
So
Sodza
Sogblen
Sogbo
Soko
Sore-Gus
Soului
Spandaramet
Sri(devi)
Srivasumukhi
Srivasundhara
Subhaga
Subhamekhala
Suddhodana
Sudurjaya
Sukla-Tara
Suku
Sullat
Sulman(u}
Sumalini
Sumati
Sumbha
Sumbharaja
Sun Hou-Shi
Sundara
Suparikirtitanamasri
Suraksini
Surangama
Survarnabhadravimalaratnaprabhasa
Svaraghosaraja
Syamatara
Taditkara
T'ai Shan
T'ai Shan
T'ai Yi
Tailtiu
Tai-Sui-Jing
Tai-Sui-Jing
Takkiraja
Ta'lab
Tam Kung
Tanit
T'ao Hua Hsiennui
Tar
Tara
Tasmetu(m)
Tecciztecatl
Tegid Voel
Teicauhtzin
Tejosnisa
Teliko
Teliko
Telpochtli
Tenanto'mni
Tepeyollotl
Tepoztecatl
Teteo Innan
Teteoinnan
Teteoinnan-Toci
Tetzahauteotl
Tetzahuitl
Teuhcatl
Tezcacoac Ayopechtli
Tezcatlipoca
Tezcatlipoca-Itzlacoliuhqui
Tezcatzoncatl
Tezcatzoncatl
Thab-Iha
Theandros
Thuremlin
TIaloque- Tepictoton
Tiamat
Tien Mu
Tiksnosnisa
Tir
Tispak
Titlacahuan
Tlacahuepan
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli
Tlalchitonatiuh
Tlaloc
Tlaloque-Tepictoton
Tlaltecuhtli
Tlazolteotl (Ixcuiname)
Tloque Nahauque
Tne'sqan
Toa'lalit
Tomiyauhtecuhtli
Tomiyauhtecuhtli
Tonacacihuatl
Tonacatccuhtli
Tonaleque
Tonatiuh
Topoh
Tork
Toro
Tororut
Totoltecatl
Totoltecatl
Tou Mou
Tozi
Trailokyavijaya
Triglav
Tsai Shen
Tsunigoab
Tu (l)
Tuatha de Danann
Tule
Tutu
Tzontemoc
Tzu Sun Niangniang
Ua Ildak
Ucchusma
Umvelinkwangi
Unumbote
Unumbote
Upakesini
Upapattivasita
Upayaparamita
Usnisavijaya
Vac
Vadali
Vagisvara
Vahagn
Va'irgin
Vairocana
Vajracarcika
Vajradaka
Vajradhara
Vajradhatvisvari
Vajragandhari
Vajragarbha
Vajraghanta
Vajramrta
Vajrapani
Vajrasphota
Vajrasrnkhala
Vajravidarani
Vajrosnisa
Varahmukhi
Vasantadevi
Vasudhara
Vasumatisri
Vasusri
Vasya-tara
Vayu (2)
Verbti
Vetali
Vidyraja
VidyujjvalakariJi
Vighnantaka
Vikalaratri
Vimala
Vina
Virudhaka
Virupaksa
Viryaparamita
Visvosnisa
Vodu
Wadd
Wai
Waka
Wakan Tanka
Wamala
Wamala
Wed Kumbamb
Wer
Wiu
Wong Taisin
Wu
Wu'squus
Xewioso
Xilonen
Xipe Totec
Xiuhtecuhtli
Xochiquetzal
Xochiquetzal-Ichpuchtli
Xolotl
Xolotl Nanahuatl
Yacacoliuhqui
Yacahuiztli
Yacapitzahuac
Yama
Yamaduti
Yamantaka
Yamari
Yaotl
Yaro
Yasodhara
yauhqueme
Yayu
Yemekonji
Yemoja
Yen Kuang Niang Niang
Yoalli Ehecatl
Yoaltecuhtli
Yocahu
Yogesvari
Yspaddac
Yu-Chiang
Zababa
Zapotlantenan
Zarpanitu(m)
Zemi

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:06:58 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

But not as fast as you deluded idiots imagine they did.

Why are you still arguing the "details" of what never happened BECAUSE
IT IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY?

>Hopefully, eventually they will get it right.

God(tm), you're stupid.

>> The research papers, appearing in today's issue of Science and next week's
>>issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, mean scientists will have to
>>re-evaluate tectonic processes that build high elevation plateaus, such as
>>those in Tibet and the central Andes.
>>Just for starters.
>>
>>Now, girls may prefer to not have their age known. But it does not bother
>>the life giver. The earth. You say ortherwise, go suck spoace for two
>>hours & check back with the evidence that you did it. The human body has
>>problems with severe vacuum & 3deg. K.
>>
>>> -the quantity of water would have to be enough to cover all the
>>> world's land. This publication, "The Sea" states:
>>
>>To be serious enough to discuss, it helps to be at the utleast, moderately
>>plusible. Being that is an apologetic source, it has no credibilty here.
>
>Yes, I know. If I quote something, "it has no credibilty here". But if
>you quote something, it is backed by a Congressional Act. Oh well,
>each to his own.

What a whining liar.

What you say has no credibility BECAUSE IT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT and
your attempts to defend it are just plain dishonest.

>
>>OTOH, you have the restrictions of honesty with yourself when it comes to
>>emotional disfunctions. But very few people do.

James has no honesty.

If he did he would have stopped at the beginning of each of these
threads when it was demonstrated that the flood was a physical
impossibility instead of ignoring that and trying to rationalise
subsequent impossibilities before addressing the original one.

>>> "If all the irregularities on the earth's surface were to be smoothed
>>> out, both above and below the water, so that there were no dents or
>>> holes anywhere, no land would show at all. The ocean would cover the
>>> entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet."
>>
>>An occurance that has never happewned for the planet is still here.
>
>Look carefully at the quotation. It starts out with "If". That means,
>that it didn't have to happen, but IF it did, then "The ocean would
>cover the entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet."

*W*H*E*N*, imbecile?

Stick to one particular time instead of pretending there is only one
"earlier times"

Address what people explain rather than dishonestly switching from a
few thousand years ago to millions and then billions.

Do you imagine this fools anybody? After all it doesn't even fool
yourself.

>>> All the highest mountains had to be covered with water. There isn't
>>
>>The definition of a mountain means any land feature that is no less than
>>1000ft. above ground level. Not sea level, ground level. Of course that,
>>means nothing to you, but to thinking people, it means a lot. For example,
>>Ur was above sea level when it got flooded. High enough that salt water
>>intrusion was unkown to them.
>>Say what, assumong no bedrock, which is unlikly, the local mountains would
>>be at 2000 feet. Now, the mountains of Aarat were inland & westerly,
>>possibly the highest mountains known to the authors of the Gilgamesh epic,
>>& the borrowers from Judea that were trying to become important to the
>>world, so they would be used.
>>Side note1, Mt. Aarat is the home of a moon goddess.
>>Side note 2, They never made it in the arc haic world.
>>
>>> enough water to cover all the highest mountains of TODAY. But notice a
>>> past comment from "The Scientific Monthly" concerning the earth's
>>> earlier days:

Why do you keep repeating this dishonest bullshit that pretends there
is no difference between a few thousand years ago, millions of years
ago, and billions of years?

>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scientific_Monthly
>>Now, what is the date of the article.
>
>August 1949, p. 71

Which is at best the state of research more than sixty years ago.

And which "earlier days" were they talking about, dishonest
quote-mining liar by omission?

>>> "there were no high mountains forming physical or climatic barriers"
>>
>>Well, prior to the end of planetary formation, that was true. But once the
>>earth settled in & it's internal fire got lit, from radiation & pressure,
>>the rules changed. You realise, that with your statement, it appears you
>>are quoting someone about the earth, say 4+billion years ago.
>>Neither one of was there, so you can quit pretending to know what you can
>>never show.
>
>The August 1949 article was about dinosaurs. So the low mountains
>would have been during the dinosaurs' reign.

No, liar.

There were still mountains, because the oldest mountains were formed

more than three billion years old.

>Look over the web page:
>
>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_14b.htm
>
>It explains how the great deluge would have caused the mountains to
>change in size and height, etc.

WHAT "GREAT DELUGE" IS IT LYING ABOUT, liar?

>We can see the effects of flooding on land areas today. And it is
>quite catastrophic. But a global flood would have even super-greater
>effects on the earth's land masses.

Why do you keep talking as if a physical impossibility actually
happened, imbecile?

>>> Thus without real high mountains (like Everest) existing back then,

Lie, because you know perfectly well that the oldest mountains are
more than three billion years old, and it has taken hundreds of
millions of years for them to erode into lower ranges like the
Scottish Highlands, the Appalachians etc.

>>> there is more of a chance that the water we have today on the planet

Complete and utter bullshit.

>>Only if you need it to be. Geology, a discipline I am not adept at, says
>>otherwise. BTW, Everest was shorter bac k during the fictional flood days.
>>
>>> could have covered all the land areas if the conditions were the same
>>> as back then.

AS BACK WHEN, dishonest equivocating moron who shouldn't even fool
himself?

>>An if not supported by the evidence, & all things considered, ;possibly
>>impossible without a hell of a lot of comet activity.
>>Normally I would remove teh following text, b ut it helps to show that I
>>irk u 2 is really as shallow as s/h/it appears.
>
>Then where do you believe all the water came from on the earth?

Why do you imagine belief comes into it, imbecile?

>James
>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org

Were you this stupid and this dishonest before you became a JW, or did
that do it to you?

[James]

That is, the theories of how they happened. They keep changing the
theories. (like where the moon came from) Like I said before,
eventually they might get right. I believe the Bibles' account of
creation over any of man's theories. Sometimes they are in agreement,
sometimes not.

I don't have a copy of the material. You will have to go with the
source unless you can find a copy of it on the internet.

By the way, if you read some scientific statement and it gives the
Encyclopedia Americana etc, as its source. Do you criticize them for
not including sources within the source? You should if you expect that
from me.

Then your souce is an anti-creation site. Each to his own.

>
>> It explains how the great deluge would have caused the mountains to
>> change in size and height, etc.
>
>No it does not.

Did you read the web page?

>It will however claim to. Just what do you think the waer
>cycle is, & how does it work, or how planets for?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4yirtvUurA
><Might be to long for you, but it's under two m inutes so hang in there.>
>
>> We can see the effects of flooding on land areas today. And it is
>> quite catastrophic. But a global flood would have even super-greater
>> effects on the earth's land masses.
>
>& totaly lacking in supportive evidence.

Just turn on the news. Look at areas that have local floods or
tsunamis. And that is small compared on a global scale of flooding.

>
>snip, nothing new to diuscuss.
>
>>>An if not supported by the evidence, & all things considered,
>>>;possibly impossible without a hell of a lot of comet activity.
>>>Normally I would remove teh following text, b ut it helps to show that
>>>I irk u 2 is really as shallow as s/h/it appears.
>>
>> Then where do you believe all the water came from on the earth?
>
>Space via comet activity. & that is one of the reasons that water can be
>older than the earth. Odd I know, but those familair with the concepts
>involved in planetary formation understand these things are not for you.

I also have a bridge in San Francisco I would like to sell to you.
Now, how many comets do you think it would take to cover the earth
with about 3/4 water?

If it was one or two MASSIVE comets, they would probably destroy the
earth and cause tidal forces that would help to rip it apart. At any
rate, I see no credible scientific evidence for the source of ALL this
water!

Yes, many if not all of those below, have total fairy tales as to how
things came about. Here you bring up interesting comparisons If you
look at the "creation" accounts of the surrounding nations of the
Israelites back in Bible times, you will see accounts that are
obviously fictitious.

For example creation is mentioned in the ancient Egyptians "The Book
of the Dead". A museum curator, Louis Speleers said,

"The Book of the Dead relates that one day [the sun-god] Ra left his
divine Eye shining in heaven. Shu and Tefnut brought him back his Eye,
which began to cry, and men appeared from Ra's tears." (Suppl�ment au
Dictionnaire de la Bibl- a former curator of the Cinquantenaire Museum
in Brussels, Belgium)

If you were an Egyptian who lived back then, no doubt you would have
believed that you came from Ra's tears.

However, the contemporary Israelites, had a different belief as to the
creation. Briefly,they believed that a benevolent God (not the evil
god of Christendom's hellfire) created a man and woman and put them
into a paradise-like garden. They were to extend this garden earthwide
and produce offspring. (Ge 1:28) The Genesis account tells us the
order of creation and many scholars testify to its accuracy.

For example, the geologist Wallace Pratt said, "If I as a geologist
were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of
the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral
people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed,
I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the
language of the first chapter of Genesis."
He went on to say the origins of the oceans, the emergence of land,
the appearance of fish, birds, and mammals is essentially the
divisions of geologic time. (The Lamp, Fall 1971, Vol. 53, No. 3.)

The point here is the difference in beliefs of the Israelites as
compared with the other nations at that time. To find any accredited
modern scholars even partially agreeing with the ancient Egyptians, or
Babylonians etc., on the creation account, would be just about
impossible. If the Genesis account was pure myth, you should find
NOBODY supporting even parts of it.

The Israelites knew things that no other nations knew. For example,
they had the correct information concerning earth in space. When other
nations taught the earth was on the back of a giant turtle, etc, the
Bible writers penned the words at Isa 40:22,

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." (NIV)

The Hebrew word used here for "circle" is "hhug" which also has the
meaning of "sphere". Also, out of the Book of Job comes the statement
at Job 26:7,

"He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon
nothing." (RSV)

So we have here a description of a circular (sphere) hanging in space.
How did they know that? Were the Books of Job and Isaiah written in
the modern space-age? Were Isaiah and Moses given information from
UFO's? (with perhaps former Heaven's Gate personages aboard)
To explain it any other way gets into the realms of "myth".

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


>

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:gl44q8douaij6vtmp...@4ax.com:

> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>news:3tc1q89e7fgaarcvs...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>>news:5k0sp8prf9lfou7ag...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>>>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>>>>news:d0opp89vfqp71bvf8...@4ax.com:

Followup set again to same group James is posting from. Authority, the

>>>>newsreader.
>>
>>I see I irk u 2, has added a news group. Sure mark of a troll.
>>Followup set.
>>
>>>>>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>

snip

>>This is the article you are referring to?
>><http://www.livescience.com/589-blobs-earth-explain-rapid-mountain-
>>building.html>

You forgotten your source already? Fancy that.

>>From that article:
>>The evidence suggested the Andes shot up between 10 million and 7
>>million years ago.
>>
>>"When I first showed this data to others, they had a hard time
>>believing that mountains could pop up so quickly," Garzione said this
>>week.
>>
>>The research was led by Prosenjit Ghosh and John M. Eiler of the
>>California Institute of Technology.
>>
>>Now I don't know about you, but even 7 million years ago is a lot
>>longer than the Epic of Gilgamesh or its ripoffs.
>>
>>& thjere ios a difference between unconfirmed hypotosis & theory. To
>>pretend this is the real deal is a bit immature. If it beccomes a
>>theory, great. But right now it is not.
>>
>>Mountain formation theory explanation sites
>>http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/plate/4/ptpt4_3a.html
>><https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/skeena_river/documents/journals/Farley
>>(2000).pdf> Downlaodable PDF file.
>><http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.html>
>>The last may be understandable to you, for it is written by & for
>>students that are not knowledgable in the subject.

Snip

snip

>>> Look carefully at the quotation. It starts out with "If". That
>>> means,
>>
>>If is in thesame catergory as mgic. If does not esatab lish a likely
>>condition but indicates an imaginative one. If you knew what you are
>>trying to peddle, the word would be even more useless than it is as
>>used. If, the biggest little word in the English language.
>>
>>> that it didn't have to happen, but IF it did, then "The ocean would
>>> cover the entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet."
>>
>>There is no need of the if should one be familiar with the history of
>>the earth & it's formation. Your assumption of a perfectly level rock
>>surfac e is as implausable as it is imaginatiove. By any chance, do
>>you have a familarity of the following?
>>Solr disc accreation.
>>Planetary formation?
>>
>>In particular, how they happen.
>
> That is, the theories of how they happened. They keep changing the

The basic theory will change, in part at least. The hypothesis that are
the foundation that make the theory work will also change. That is how
science works. Find something new, see what happens when you try to use
it.

> theories. (like where the moon came from) Like I said before,
> eventually they might get right. I believe the Bibles' account of
> creation over any of man's theories. Sometimes they are in agreement,
> sometimes not.

What you believe is a private matter & I care less about that. My concern
is your lack of evidence to support your claims, or abuse of articles that
don't say what you want them to.

>>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Planetary_formation_and_migration
>>http://phys.org/tags/planetary+formation/

Did you read it? No? Why not? It won't support your pretensions but you
might learn how science does what you can't do.

Then why quote it or refer to it? Makes you look deliberaely dishonest. &
yes, most of our xian trolls are in that catergory.

> By the way, if you read some scientific statement and it gives the
> Encyclopedia Americana etc, as its source. Do you criticize them for

If it's the 1949 issue, I damn sight well question it. Time, like science,
waits on no one.

> not including sources within the source? You should if you expect that
> from me.

Most encyclopedias do provide background material for their articles, as
they should. After all, their info blurb rarely has the space to go into
great detail.

So, if you make a brag, I expect referednc es that can verify your brag.
To date there have been one from you that I've seen.

My sources care less about the false argument your site presents. Good
information sites stay away from that nonsense for there is no conifirming
evidence for the claims, & therefore, no need to drag them & show them to
be false in public. Web sites do cost money you know.
But then, you are indicating the truth is a side issue with you. if it
appears rto support your claims, you will try it on for cammy.

>>
>>> It explains how the great deluge would have caused the mountains to
>>> change in size and height, etc.
>>
>>No it does not.
>
> Did you read the web page?

I read enough to recognise it will work with the uninformed. Those with
minimal knowledge, not so much. Not to mention, I prefer to spend my time
learning geology, when that is supposed to be the subject.

>>It will however claim to. Just what do you think the waer
>>cycle is, & how does it work, or how planets for?
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4yirtvUurA
>><Might be to long for you, but it's under two m inutes so hang in
>>there.>
>>
>>> We can see the effects of flooding on land areas today. And it is
>>> quite catastrophic. But a global flood would have even super-greater
>>> effects on the earth's land masses.
>>
>>& totaly lacking in supportive evidence.
>
> Just turn on the news. Look at areas that have local floods or
> tsunamis. And that is small compared on a global scale of flooding.

& they leave evidence. Something your imaginary flood hasn't done. A
common trait of the imaginary is no evidence trail.

>>snip, nothing new to diuscuss.

>>>>An if not supported by the evidence, & all things considered,
>>>>;possibly impossible without a hell of a lot of comet activity.
>>>>Normally I would remove teh following text, b ut it helps to show
>>>>that I irk u 2 is really as shallow as s/h/it appears.

>>> Then where do you believe all the water came from on the earth?

>>Space via comet activity. & that is one of the reasons that water can
>>be older than the earth. Odd I know, but those familair with the
>>concepts involved in planetary formation understand these things are
>>not for you.
>
> I also have a bridge in San Francisco I would like to sell to you.

Sure, let's see your deed in the court house. If not, then you are guilty
of trying to sell state property. I'm sure the attorney general[1] would
like to talk with you, were you serious. [1] More likely an assistant to
the assistant to the assistant secretary from the office pool.

> Now, how many comets do you think it would take to cover the earth
> with about 3/4 water?

Not enough in the time frame you try to limit to. More than enough [it's
here after all] given the age of tehj earth.

> If it was one or two MASSIVE comets, they would probably destroy the

It wasn't, but then, that's simply another thing you can't understand. Not
my problem.

But you are demonstarting astronomy is another subject you have opinions
on. Information, not so much.
Let's see if I can't waste some time where you are concerned, but may be
helpful to those that want to learn.

http://www.space.com/13185-comets-water-earth-oceans-source.html
beautiful background for you to look at as you ignore the information.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/10/comets-life-earth-origin_n_
2839863.html>

http://blogs.jpl.nasa.gov/2009/08/comets-and-life-on-earth/

> earth and cause tidal forces that would help to rip it apart. At any

Not at all, being comets are mostly water & amino acids, there is not that
much maass involved.
Now an asteroid, that can be ugly & is thought to have played a major part
in at least two mass extinctions.

> rate, I see no credible scientific evidence for the source of ALL this
> water!

Of course you don't. The readily availible information conflicts with what
you want reality to be. Reality seems not to notice.

>>>>>>A: It retrned to the center of the earth, or very deep into the
>>>>>>earth?

>>>>>>Ans. No it didn't, it would not make it past the magna, & that
>>>>>>much water would have been the end of this world. Just the enery
>>>>>>released from the hot spots would have rendered the earth devoid
>>>>>>of life as we know it today. Odds are, there would be no life on
>>>>>>earth today had that happened.
>>>>>>Shucks, even an encounter with the New Zealand hot spot would be
>>>>>>spectacular, if not fatal to the southern hemispher.

>>>>>>Of course, you can show that to be wrong, if you have the
>>>>>>knowledge which, according to your posings, you don't.

Stanage how this never draws a response. Well, not really.

snip

Snerk

> they had the correct information concerning earth in space. When other
> nations taught the earth was on the back of a giant turtle, etc, the
> Bible writers penned the words at Isa 40:22,

You do realize that is not a good call. It is the second book of Isiah for
starters. But then, you don't know that.

> "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." (NIV)

Good grief, that simpleton's claim again.
Circles are flat, & Hebrew had a word for round, or sphereical shaped. Not
that deatailed, IIRC, more like ball.

> The Hebrew word used here for "circle" is "hhug" which also has the

Just for yolu to help you reenforce your belief. Not knowledge, belief.

<SEAG> http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-astronomy.html </SEAG>

> meaning of "sphere". Also, out of the Book of Job comes the statement
> at Job 26:7,
>
> "He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon
> nothing." (RSV)
>
> So we have here a description of a circular (sphere) hanging in space.

No, but you do have a description of a flat earth. Which is also a common
feature in the myths of desert dwellers.

> How did they know that? Were the Books of Job and Isaiah written in
> the modern space-age? Were Isaiah and Moses given information from

They didn't know that, but the Greeks did. OOOPPSIE.

> UFO's? (with perhaps former Heaven's Gate personages aboard)
> To explain it any other way gets into the realms of "myth".

To explain it your way is established myth. Don't like it, quit tryhing to
use flawed sources & pretend they are authoratative.
Hint
Non authoratative sources include the over 100 translations of the Hebrew
Bible.


walkalone who has given i ril u 2 enough of a chance to be taken seriously.
Henceforth, any replies to his postureing will be for the information of
others. He has demonstrated he can't enter discussions.
Chase his tail now, that he does well.


All things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat;
All things rude and nasty, the Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons, each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom, He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous, all evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous, the Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet, each beastly little squid.
Who made the spiky urchin? Who made the shark? He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous, all pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all. Amen.
-- Monty Python

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 25, 11:40 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

"What you say has no credibility BECAUSE IT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT and
your attempts to defend it are just plain dishonest".

Why, don't you believe Mr and Mrs Common Ancestor
had a Mr and Mrs Ape and a Mr and Mrs Human, and
had no Mr and Mrs Common Ancestor? We all know
this happened .once upon a time.

[James]

Alright, concerning the moon notice:

"Five serious theories have been proposed for the formation of the
Moon (not counting the one involving green cheese):

1. The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and
somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar
System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for
the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.

2. The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was
later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.

3. The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together
from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.

4. The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of
earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of
rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to
their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.

5. The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck
the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting
material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the
Moon in orbit around the Earth."

I don't think you want me to quote the whole web page, so here it is:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html

Is this a creation site? It doesn't look like that to me.

Usually when I give you evidence, you don't accept it. Looks like you
want me to be in a 'no win' scenario. At any rate, I would rather
comment on the topic of discussion than hear your constant derogatory
opinions of me. When Mt 24:14 is finally fulfilled by JW's, I sure
hope you can 'slip in' to the truth before the end. Just my two-cents
worth of opinion.

I gave you enough information. I am sure you get the same amount of
information from footnotes on any books you read. Do you criticize
them also?

>
>> By the way, if you read some scientific statement and it gives the
>> Encyclopedia Americana etc, as its source. Do you criticize them for
>
>If it's the 1949 issue, I damn sight well question it. Time, like science,
>waits on no one.

It can be just to show you that not EVERYONE, ALL the time believes
as you do.

>

I stand behind all the evidences I have presented to you. You can
ignore them all you want, but that won't make them go away. I am not
trying to sound adversarial, but even though many other religious
groups hate JW's, I don't seem to get the name calling that the
alt.atheist groups do. Does that show a lack of education, or just a
negative personality? I don't know. Ever heard of a FRIENDLY debate?

By the way, I don't even have alt.atheism listed in my groups. The
only time I post there is when I am answering someone' else's posting
who did post there. (and many other places usually)

Also being an old Navy man, I have heard it all, said it all. Some
times it is difficult to hold back the old Navy ways. But as a
Christian (or trying to be one), I cannot return tit for tat, as they
say. Don't worry, I get into less opinion and less more scientific
facts below.

I guess you have no sense of humor; sorry about that. :(

>
>> Now, how many comets do you think it would take to cover the earth
>> with about 3/4 water?
>
>Not enough in the time frame you try to limit to. More than enough [it's
>here after all] given the age of tehj earth.

That subject is briefly touched upon below.

>
>> If it was one or two MASSIVE comets, they would probably destroy the
>
>
>It wasn't, but then, that's simply another thing you can't understand. Not
>my problem.
>
>But you are demonstarting astronomy is another subject you have opinions
>on. Information, not so much.
>Let's see if I can't waste some time where you are concerned, but may be
>helpful to those that want to learn.

Then I guess my astronomy course in college was a waste of time? Oh
well.

>
>http://www.space.com/13185-comets-water-earth-oceans-source.html
>beautiful background for you to look at as you ignore the information.
>
><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/10/comets-life-earth-origin_n_
>2839863.html>
>
>http://blogs.jpl.nasa.gov/2009/08/comets-and-life-on-earth/
>
>
>> earth and cause tidal forces that would help to rip it apart. At any
>
>Not at all, being comets are mostly water & amino acids, there is not that
>much maass involved.

Water weighs around 8 lbs per gallon. It is not light stuff. Also
according to this reference, comets also are made of dust and rocky
material. They can be in size from few hundred meters to tens of
kilometers across. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)

"Many comets and asteroids collided into Earth in its early stages.
Many scientists believe that comets bombarding the young Earth (about
4 billion years ago) brought the vast quantities of water that now
fill the Earth's oceans, or at least a significant portion of it.
Other researchers have cast doubt on this theory.[56]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)

56. ^ Muir, H. (25 September 2007). "Earth's water brewed at home, not
in space". New Scientist. Retrieved 2009-04-26."

So the comet water source theory is not written in stone. Other
researches (I doubt ere creationists- just my guess) do not accept
that theory. If you want more facts on this, go to Wikipedia.

"There are only five bodies in our Solar System that are cross-listed
as both comets and asteroids: 2060 Chiron (95P/Chiron), 4015
Wilson�Harrington (107P/Wilson�Harrington), 7968 Elst�Pizarro
(133P/Elst�Pizarro), 60558 Echeclus (174P/Echeclus), and 118401 LINEAR
(176P/LINEAR)." (same web page as above)

Although tidal forces do exist between most comets and the earth, you
are right and it is almost negligible. But the large comet viewed in
1729 was thought to be around 100 km diameter:

" It is therefore likely that the Comet of 1729 was an exceptionally
large object, with a cometary nucleus of the order of 100 km in
diameter.[7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_of_1729)

7. ^ Sagan, C. and Druyan, A. Comet, Ballantine, 1997"

That 100 km comet would certainly cause devastation if it collided
with the earth, tidal forces or no. Of course, it would depend up
things such as its mass and velocity.

>Now an asteroid, that can be ugly & is thought to have played a major part
>in at least two mass extinctions.

Since comets may have a rocky core, they can cause the same damage as
an astroid. (given the same mass and velocity) Once you strip away the
frozen water and gases, it would probably be called an astroid.

So, what would be the effect of a comet-astroid around 100 km core, do
to the earth? Here is what might happen if a 113 km one hit the earth.

"A 70 mile asteroid would make a large impact but it would not destroy
the Earth.

A 70 mile asteroid would however, with the right velocity and angle,
in all probability, wipe all life off of the Earth and cause years of
non regeneration. Simple life would eventually recolonise the planet,
but it would take millions of years for complex animals to evolve. So
much so, that a devastation on that scale would eliminate mankind from
the Universe as we know it.

The asteroid that wiped out the Dinosaurs and ended their reign was a
mere 10 miles in diameter and produced 2 million times more energy
that our most powerful atomic bomb.

So the 70 mile asteroid would not destroy the Earth but it would
certainly destroy everything on it."

So as mentioned above, I am on the side of the "other" researchers who
do not agree with the comet water theory that filled the earth with
its water.

And just one more thing just for the record, the Bible doesn't say how
the earth got its water. It just starts off in Genesis showing an
earth filled with water.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:29:01 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

You miss the remarkably obvious point that these all fit the evidence,
and unlike your religious beliefs nobody insists that any one is the
right one.

Why not show some intelligence or honesty for a change?

>Is this a creation site? It doesn't look like that to me.
>
>Usually when I give you evidence, you don't accept it. Looks like you
>want me to be in a 'no win' scenario. At any rate, I would rather
>comment on the topic of discussion than hear your constant derogatory
>opinions of me.

Observation, liar, not just opinion.

If you don't like the way you are treated as a result of your
transparent dishonesty that insults the intelligence and merely
demonstrates your narcissism, as well as your mind-numbing stupidity,
then tough.

The solution is easy - address what people have taken the time and
trouble to explain instead of ignoring it repeating what was just
debunked and introducing new red herrings.

> When Mt 24:14 is finally fulfilled by JW's, I sure
>hope you can 'slip in' to the truth before the end. Just my two-cents
>worth of opinion.

Idiot.

Why can't you stop lying?

You have never once provided anything remotely resembling evidence.

And you continue to lie by calling what are merely your ridiculous
religious beliefs "the truth".

Where, liar?

>>> By the way, if you read some scientific statement and it gives the
>>> Encyclopedia Americana etc, as its source. Do you criticize them for
>>
>>If it's the 1949 issue, I damn sight well question it. Time, like science,
>>waits on no one.
>
>It can be just to show you that not EVERYONE, ALL the time believes
>as you do.

Why do you lie by calling scientific understanding a mere belief?

>>
>>> not including sources within the source? You should if you expect that
>>> from me.
>>
>>Most encyclopedias do provide background material for their articles, as
>>they should. After all, their info blurb rarely has the space to go into
>>great detail.
>>
>>So, if you make a brag, I expect referednc es that can verify your brag.
>>To date there have been one from you that I've seen.
>>
>>>>>>> "there were no high mountains forming physical or climatic
>>>>>>> barriers"

The dishonest liar hasn't said when he is talking about - as that
would mean he could no longer equivocate between a few thousand years
ago, a few million and a few billion.

>>>>>>Well, prior to the end of planetary formation, that was true. But
>>>>>>once the earth settled in & it's internal fire got lit, from
>>>>>>radiation & pressure, the rules changed. You realise, that with
>>>>>>your statement, it appears you are quoting someone about the earth,
>>>>>>say 4+billion years ago. Neither one of was there, so you can quit
>>>>>>pretending to know what you can never show.
>>
>>>>> The August 1949 article was about dinosaurs. So the low mountains
>>>>> would have been during the dinosaurs' reign.

And it was wrong because the oldest mountain ranges are more than
three billion years old

And you were dishonest because even if the article were correct which
it wasn't, it was talking about tens of millions of years ago, not
five thousand.

Which has already been explained to you many times, so why do you
keep repeating the same lie?

>>>>Not neccesarily. The definition of low mountains may equate to hills
>>>>for you, but not mee. & new moutnain ranges are rugged & no fun to
>>>>travel in. Try walking the Great Divide if you think it is.
>>>>Interesting? Why yes, but fun, no.
>>
>>>>> Look over the web page:
>>
>>>>> http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_14b.htm
>>
>>>>Now why did you try & palm another creation site off as a valid source
>>>>of information?
>>>>From the home page:
>>>>CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA
>>>>BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: The material for this site was taken from
>>>>books, compiled by Free-Lance Reporter Vance Ferrell. BA. MA. into our
>>>> three- volume Encyclopedia entitled:
>>>>
>>>>'EVOLUTION DISPROVED SERIES'

How does one disprove an well understood, objective fact?

>>>> Vol. 1: ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE;

Is nothing to do with evolution. How many times does this have to be
pointed out to these deliberately ignorant idiots?

>>>> Vol. 2: ORIGIN OF LIFE

Is nothing to do with evolution. How many times does this have to be
pointed out to these deliberately ignorant idiots?

>>>> Vol. 3: OTHER EVIDENCE

>>> Then your souce is an anti-creation site. Each to his own.

Lie noted.

Creationism is complete and utter bullshit, fairy stories that the
ignorant, gullible and stupid believe as part of their religion.

Sites describing the results of objective scientific research just
describe the objective knowledge base - which doesn't give a flying
fuck about one particular religions's myths and legends.

>>My sources care less about the false argument your site presents. Good
>>information sites stay away from that nonsense for there is no conifirming
>>evidence for the claims, & therefore, no need to drag them & show them to
>>be false in public. Web sites do cost money you know.
>>But then, you are indicating the truth is a side issue with you. if it
>>appears rto support your claims, you will try it on for cammy.

Stupid religious fanatics imagine that because science doesn't even
consider things for which there is no reason even to propose, that it
is actively against religious beliefs they imagine are reflect
reality.

>I stand behind all the evidences I have presented to you. You can

What "evidences" are you lying about, pathological liar?

>ignore them all you want, but that won't make them go away. I am not

There has been nothing to ignore, pathological liar.

>trying to sound adversarial, but even though many other religious
>groups hate JW's,

A paranoid lie - they find some of your practices disgusting like your
refusal to allow proper medical care especially to children.

They also don't like you knocking on their doors to "discuss" your
theology which is irrelevant to them.

Or your in-your-face stupidly where you are in denial about reality.

> I don't seem to get the name calling that the
>alt.atheist groups do.

What you pretend is "name calling" is merely reaping what your
in-our-face dishonesty and stupidity sow,

Stop being such a whining, lying hypocrite.

> Does that show a lack of education, or just a
>negative personality? I don't know. Ever heard of a FRIENDLY debate?

You have nothing to "debate", imbecile.

And the only lack of education is yours - you don't even have a high
school understanding of history, geology, logic or science.

>By the way, I don't even have alt.atheism listed in my groups. The

Liar.

If you didn't you wouldn't cross-post here.

>only time I post there is when I am answering someone' else's posting
>who did post there. (and many other places usually)

So what?

What matters is to whom you are replying - and you know you are
replying to atheists, who by definition aren't going to believe your
nonsense, no matter how seriously you yourself take it.

>Also being an old Navy man, I have heard it all, said it all. Some
>times it is difficult to hold back the old Navy ways. But as a
>Christian (or trying to be one), I cannot return tit for tat, as they
>say. Don't worry, I get into less opinion and less more scientific
>facts below.

What a whining hypocrite.

You post transparent, stupid dishonesty and cannot cope when you reap
what you sow so you lie about it..

Post something honest and intelligent for a change, and you will get
the kind of response your self-image expects.

>>>>> It explains how the great deluge would have caused the mountains to
>>>>> change in size and height, etc.

What "great deluge"?

And that excuses your flippant stupidity?

>>> Now, how many comets do you think it would take to cover the earth
>>> with about 3/4 water?
>>
>>Not enough in the time frame you try to limit to. More than enough [it's
>>here after all] given the age of tehj earth.
>
>That subject is briefly touched upon below.

Only as a red herring.

Did you even bother to think that comets were formed at the same time
as the planets, from water in the same accretion disk as the other
matter that formed the sun and the planets? Using the same gravity
that brought it all together to form the clumps that collided to form
bigger clumps?

>>> If it was one or two MASSIVE comets, they would probably destroy the
>>
>>It wasn't, but then, that's simply another thing you can't understand. Not
>>my problem.
>>
>>But you are demonstarting astronomy is another subject you have opinions
>>on. Information, not so much.
>>Let's see if I can't waste some time where you are concerned, but may be
>>helpful to those that want to learn.
>
>Then I guess my astronomy course in college was a waste of time? Oh
>well.

If you had one you didn't learn anything, so it must have been.

Heck, if you had been to any other than a Bible college, you wouldn't
make so many silly errors.

>>http://www.space.com/13185-comets-water-earth-oceans-source.html
>>beautiful background for you to look at as you ignore the information.
>>
>><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/10/comets-life-earth-origin_n_
>>2839863.html>
>>
>>http://blogs.jpl.nasa.gov/2009/08/comets-and-life-on-earth/
>>
>>
>>> earth and cause tidal forces that would help to rip it apart. At any
>>
>>Not at all, being comets are mostly water & amino acids, there is not that
>>much maass involved.
>
>Water weighs around 8 lbs per gallon. It is not light stuff. Also
>according to this reference, comets also are made of dust and rocky
>material. They can be in size from few hundred meters to tens of
>kilometers across. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)

And the relevance of its, is?

>"Many comets and asteroids collided into Earth in its early stages.
>Many scientists believe that comets bombarding the young Earth (about
>4 billion years ago) brought the vast quantities of water that now
>fill the Earth's oceans, or at least a significant portion of it.
>Other researchers have cast doubt on this theory.[56]
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)

And?

Comets, asteroids and even meteors were the clumps that formed in the
early days of the solar system when it was a lot more chaotic than it
is now, and formed larger clumps as they collided, ultimately forming
the planets. And they kept colliding in the early days of the planets
making them bigger.

>56. ^ Muir, H. (25 September 2007). "Earth's water brewed at home, not
>in space". New Scientist. Retrieved 2009-04-26."

And what would it have been "brewed from"?

Have you forgotten that hydrogen, helium and oxygen are the three most
common elements in the universe, and that because oxygen is so
reactive, free oxygen and free hydrogen combine to form water
molecules even in space? Water that is the most common molecule in
the universe? That was present in the material which formed the
accretion disk from which the solar system was formed?

And have you forgotten that hydrogen is so light it escapes into
space?

>So the comet water source theory is not written in stone. Other
>researches (I doubt ere creationists- just my guess) do not accept
>that theory. If you want more facts on this, go to Wikipedia.

Tough.

If *Y*O*U* want the facts on this get an education, and not from your
fellow creationists.

>"There are only five bodies in our Solar System that are cross-listed
>as both comets and asteroids: 2060 Chiron (95P/Chiron), 4015

>Wilson蓬arrington (107P/Wilson蓬arrington), 7968 Elst鳳izarro
>(133P/Elst鳳izarro), 60558 Echeclus (174P/Echeclus), and 118401 LINEAR

>(176P/LINEAR)." (same web page as above)

So?

>Although tidal forces do exist between most comets and the earth, you
>are right and it is almost negligible. But the large comet viewed in
>1729 was thought to be around 100 km diameter:

So?

>" It is therefore likely that the Comet of 1729 was an exceptionally
>large object, with a cometary nucleus of the order of 100 km in
>diameter.[7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_of_1729)

So?

>7. ^ Sagan, C. and Druyan, A. Comet, Ballantine, 1997"
>
>That 100 km comet would certainly cause devastation if it collided
>with the earth, tidal forces or no. Of course, it would depend up
>things such as its mass and velocity.

So?

>>Now an asteroid, that can be ugly & is thought to have played a major part
>>in at least two mass extinctions.
>
>Since comets may have a rocky core, they can cause the same damage as
>an astroid. (given the same mass and velocity) Once you strip away the
>frozen water and gases, it would probably be called an astroid.

So?

>So, what would be the effect of a comet-astroid around 100 km core, do
>to the earth? Here is what might happen if a 113 km one hit the earth.
>
>"A 70 mile asteroid would make a large impact but it would not destroy
>the Earth.

So?

>A 70 mile asteroid would however, with the right velocity and angle,
>in all probability, wipe all life off of the Earth and cause years of
>non regeneration. Simple life would eventually recolonise the planet,
>but it would take millions of years for complex animals to evolve. So
>much so, that a devastation on that scale would eliminate mankind from
>the Universe as we know it.

That's obvious when you do the sums and work out the energy released.

There is an enormous amount of kinetic energy as it is falling
towards the sun with at something approximating solar escape velocity.

But as the Earth was forming there was no life to be destroyed.

>The asteroid that wiped out the Dinosaurs and ended their reign was a
>mere 10 miles in diameter and produced 2 million times more energy
>that our most powerful atomic bomb.

And?

>So the 70 mile asteroid would not destroy the Earth but it would
>certainly destroy everything on it."

And?

>So as mentioned above, I am on the side of the "other" researchers who
>do not agree with the comet water theory that filled the earth with
>its water.

Comets are merely part of the accretion that formed the solar system.

The Earth didn't just "condense" from that material - gravity caused
the material to clump together, and these clumps to form bigger ones
as they collided. The planets are the result of these chaotic
collisions. But don't forget the slingshot effect of bodies passing
close to each other without colliding so the orbits of these clumps
were all over the place.

Comets and asteroids are just those clumps whose slingshot orbits were
extremely elliptic.

And which with smaller meteors formed the planets as they clumped
together to form larger clumps, and then larger clumps and so on. As
they got bigger this got faster due to gravity. And as they got
bigger the gravity heated them up especially at the centre.

So the heavier stuff moved to the centre and the lighter stuff to the
surface.

>And just one more thing just for the record, the Bible doesn't say how
>the earth got its water. It just starts off in Genesis showing an
>earth filled with water.

Where did you demonstrate that the Bible has any relevance, imbecile?

>James
>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org

Why don't you learn to think or learn, imbecile?

Is it because that would get you shunned?

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:6e47q8hq01d94amj5...@4ax.com:

> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>news:gl44q8douaij6vtmp...@4ax.com:

snip, everyone realises I ril u 2 lacks the courtesy, or knowledge, or
both.
For the general group, the boyo is on my aw shit list. No discussion &
repeat claims can do that real easy, & quick.

>>>>This is the article you are referring to?
>>>><http://www.livescience.com/589-blobs-earth-explain-rapid-mountain-
>>>>building.html>
>>
>>You forgotten your source already? Fancy that.
>>
>>>>From that article:
>>>>The evidence suggested the Andes shot up between 10 million and 7
>>>>million years ago.

Part of your credibility problem. When asked to confirm or deny whether of
not a site is one you have referenced, you ignore it.

snip

>>>>Mountain formation theory explanation sites
>>>>http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/plate/4/ptpt4_3a.html
>>>><https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/skeena_river/documents/journals/Farley
>>>>(2000).pdf> Downlaodable PDF file.
>>>><http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.html>
>>>>The last may be understandable to you, for it is written by & for
>>>>students that are not knowledgable in the subject.
>>
>>Snip
>>
>>>>>>To be serious enough to discuss, it helps to be at the utleast,
>>>>>>moderately plusible. Being that is an apologetic source, it has
>>>>>>no credibilty here.

No response to the sites, now why is that one does not wonder.

snip

>>>>Use reputable sites.
>>>>USC&GS
>>>>Geology departments from none religious universitys. Or if they are
>>>>religious univedrsitys, insure the dept. Is accredited by the
>>>>national educational accredation system, & not their own which is
>>>>not recogniseed by thge National Education system.

snip

>>> That is, the theories of how they happened. They keep changing the
>>
>>The basic theory will change, in part at least. The hypothesis that
>>are the foundation that make the theory work will also change. That
>>is how science works. Find something new, see what happens when you
>>try to use it.
>>
>>> theories. (like where the moon came from) Like I said before,
>>> eventually they might get right. I believe the Bibles' account of
>>> creation over any of man's theories. Sometimes they are in
>>> agreement, sometimes not.
>>
>>What you believe is a private matter & I care less about that. My
>>concern is your lack of evidence to support your claims, or abuse of
>>articles that don't say what you want them to.
>
> Alright, concerning the moon notice:
>
> "Five serious theories have been proposed for the formation of the
> Moon (not counting the one involving green cheese):

Nope, those are hypotheses. To make it to theory status, one has to be
confirmed as the expalnation that best fits the observations.

snip evidence that i ril u 2 is not up on his sciencetific knowledge. But
then, he is not alone in that.

> I don't think you want me to quote the whole web page, so here it is:
>
> http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html
>
> Is this a creation site? It doesn't look like that to me.

Doesn't matter if the basic information is wrong. As long as I've been out
of school, I know what a theory is, & is not. So mabye the prof is guilty
of sloppy terminology. Makes his material look suspect.

> Usually when I give you evidence, you don't accept it. Looks like you

Because yolur version of evidence fgalls in the maybe so catergory, like
your comet treatsie.

> want me to be in a 'no win' scenario. At any rate, I would rather
> comment on the topic of discussion than hear your constant derogatory
> opinions of me. When Mt 24:14 is finally fulfilled by JW's, I sure

Erm, you do realise you just went back to your gullible mode. Trying to
quote the Greek Testaments as if they were meaningful to any but real true
believers�, is the height of uninformed arrogance.

You see, there are several problems encountered when one considers the
claims for Bubba & the drty dozen.
This is not for you BTW. For the nonce, you are excused.

There is no evidence for a historical jesus [that's the way they spelled it
back then, Caps are Germaninc in origin],as claiomed in the Greek
Testament.
There is no New Testament, for the Hebrew Bible never has been thought of
as a Testament. The concept, like the myth, is Greek in origin,
Most atheists accept the Hellenistic period as predateing the Roman.
The crucifixtion is impossible as claimed. Roma saved it for traitors,
slaves in revolt, against their masters, or haveing klilled them & after
Julie baby, sea pirates. Of course, you can't accept that, but no one
really cares.
The writings of Saul predate the pseudographic so called gospels, so much
for integrity.
The Greek Testament of today is nowhere near the writings of first century
xianity.
All churches of the xian myth follow basic catholic publications [such as
the so called Holy Bible] & dogma, yet, they are all incomplete by first
century standards.
True, some dog & pony shows are not included by such groups as the
Primative baptist Church, but they are in there when one examines their
claims.
There are no first century xian churches today, the religions had to change
in order for them to gain power over the populace.

To keep this short, you can play now.

> hope you can 'slip in' to the truth before the end. Just my two-cents
> worth of opinion.

Hint, I have a vivid imagination, not a morbid one.

>>>>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Planetary_formation_and_migration
>>>>http://phys.org/tags/planetary+formation/
>>
>>Did you read it? No? Why not? It won't support your pretensions but
>>you might learn how science does what you can't do.

snip no one expects i ril u 2 to actually read, let alone follow up
information that does not flatter his pov.

>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scientific_Monthly
>>>>>>Now, what is the date of the article.
>>>>>
>>>>> August 1949, p. 71
>>>>
>>>>That was before it sold out, & from Wiki
>>>>This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help
>>>>improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
>>>>Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)
>>>
>>> I don't have a copy of the material. You will have to go with the
>>> source unless you can find a copy of it on the internet.
>>
>>Then why quote it or refer to it? Makes you look deliberaely
>>dishonest. & yes, most of our xian trolls are in that catergory.
>
> I gave you enough information. I am sure you get the same amount of
> information from footnotes on any books you read. Do you criticize
> them also?

No, you threw out what would work, you thought. If you want to be taken
seriously, conduct yourself seriously. But then, you don'tg have to, or so
you think.

>>> By the way, if you read some scientific statement and it gives the
>>> Encyclopedia Americana etc, as its source. Do you criticize them for
>>
>>If it's the 1949 issue, I damn sight well question it. Time, like
>>science, waits on no one.
>
> It can be just to show you that not EVERYONE, ALL the time believes
> as you do.

The Encyclopedias quote sciednced, they don't establish the rules or verify
the theory. Not their job.

snip

>>>>> http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_14b.htm
>>
>>>>Now why did you try & palm another creation site off as a valid
>>>>source of information?
>>>>From the home page:
>>>>CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA
>>>>BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: The material for this site was taken from
>>>>books, compiled by Free-Lance Reporter Vance Ferrell. BA. MA. into
>>>>our
>>>> three- volume Encyclopedia entitled:
>>>>
>>>>'EVOLUTION DISPROVED SERIES'
>>>> Vol. 1: ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE;
>>>> Vol. 2: ORIGIN OF LIFE
>>>> Vol. 3: OTHER EVIDENCE
>>>
>>> Then your souce is an anti-creation site. Each to his own.
>>
>>My sources care less about the false argument your site presents.
>>Good information sites stay away from that nonsense for there is no
>>conifirming evidence for the claims, & therefore, no need to drag them
>>& show them to be false in public. Web sites do cost money you know.
>>But then, you are indicating the truth is a side issue with you. if
>>it appears rto support your claims, you will try it on for cammy.
>
> I stand behind all the evidences I have presented to you. You can

I beleive you believe you have presented evidence, but all you have done is
what other bleaters have done. Baically you are saying
I'm right
so there.

You are so wrong it should be an embarrasssment to you, but you can't
accept that for you know, even though you demonstrate you don't have much
of a clue.

> ignore them all you want, but that won't make them go away. I am not
> trying to sound adversarial, but even though many other religious

I suspect it's a natural knack. I see it in a lot of the Kruger-Dunning
types. A bit of a defense mechanism if you will.

> groups hate JW's, I don't seem to get the name calling that the
> alt.atheist groups do. Does that show a lack of education, or just a
> negative personality? I don't know. Ever heard of a FRIENDLY debate?

Sure, so when do you want to start. One of the things about debate, you
are not working on establishing any truth, just swaying the audience.

> By the way, I don't even have alt.atheism listed in my groups. The
> only time I post there is when I am answering someone' else's posting
> who did post there. (and many other places usually)

Bullshit.

> Also being an old Navy man, I have heard it all, said it all. Some
> times it is difficult to hold back the old Navy ways. But as a
> Christian (or trying to be one), I cannot return tit for tat, as they
> say. Don't worry, I get into less opinion and less more scientific
> facts below.

Right, it's possible you have service behind you.
But given the integrity you have displayed, I have serious doubts.

>>>>> It explains how the great deluge would have caused the mountains
>>>>> to change in size and height, etc.

>>>>No it does not.

>>> Did you read the web page?
>
>>I read enough to recognise it will work with the uninformed. Those
>>with minimal knowledge, not so much. Not to mention, I prefer to
>>spend my time learning geology, when that is supposed to be the
>>subject.

snip

>>& they leave evidence. Something your imaginary flood hasn't done. A
>>common trait of the imaginary is no evidence trail.
>>
>>>>snip, nothing new to diuscuss.

snip

>>>>> Then where do you believe all the water came from on the earth?
>>
>>>>Space via comet activity. & that is one of the reasons that water
>>>>can be older than the earth. Odd I know, but those familair with
>>>>the concepts involved in planetary formation understand these things
>>>>are not for you.
>>>
>>> I also have a bridge in San Francisco I would like to sell to you.

>>Sure, let's see your deed in the court house. If not, then you are
>>guilty of trying to sell state property. I'm sure the attorney
>>general[1] would like to talk with you, were you serious. [1] More
>>likely an assistant to the assistant to the assistant secretary from
>>the office pool.

> I guess you have no sense of humor; sorry about that. :(

I've got one, but apparently you expect mine to parallel yours. SBTSGI.

>>> Now, how many comets do you think it would take to cover the earth
>>> with about 3/4 water?
>>
>>Not enough in the time frame you try to limit to. More than enough
>>[it's here after all] given the age of tehj earth.
>
> That subject is briefly touched upon below.

>>> If it was one or two MASSIVE comets, they would probably destroy the

>>It wasn't, but then, that's simply another thing you can't understand.
>> Not my problem.

>>But you are demonstarting astronomy is another subject you have
>>opinions on. Information, not so much.
>>Let's see if I can't waste some time where you are concerned, but may
>>be helpful to those that want to learn.

> Then I guess my astronomy course in college was a waste of time? Oh
> well.

From what you have demonstrated, could be.

>>http://www.space.com/13185-comets-water-earth-oceans-source.html
>>beautiful background for you to look at as you ignore the information.
>><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/10/comets-life-earth-origin_n_
>>2839863.html>
>>http://blogs.jpl.nasa.gov/2009/08/comets-and-life-on-earth/
>>
>>> earth and cause tidal forces that would help to rip it apart. At any
>>
>>Not at all, being comets are mostly water & amino acids, there is not
>>that much maass involved.
>
> Water weighs around 8 lbs per gallon. It is not light stuff. Also

And? Let me guess, you are going say what if?

> according to this reference, comets also are made of dust and rocky

Contain, the majority of their bulk is H2O.

> material. They can be in size from few hundred meters to tens of
> kilometers across. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)

And?

> "Many comets and asteroids collided into Earth in its early stages.
> Many scientists believe that comets bombarding the young Earth (about
> 4 billion years ago) brought the vast quantities of water that now
> fill the Earth's oceans, or at least a significant portion of it.
> Other researchers have cast doubt on this theory.[56]
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)

Comet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the astronomical objects. For other uses, see Comet
(disambiguation).

Comet IRAS Araki Alcock, as seen through infrared light by the Infrared
Astronomical Satellite (IRAS).

Nucleus of Comet 103P/Hartley with jets streaming out; photography by a
visiting space probe. The nucleus is about 2 km in length and 400 meters
wide at its narrowest point.

A comet is an icy small Solar System body (SSSB) that, when close enough to
the Sun, displays a visible coma (a thin, fuzzy, temporary atmosphere) and
sometimes also a tail. These phenomena are both due to the effects of solar
radiation and the solar wind upon the nucleus of the comet. Comet nuclei
range from a few hundred meters to tens of kilometers across and are
composed of loose collections of ice, dust and small rocky particles.
Comets have been observed since ancient times.

Wiki can be a good start, but so far it has not been your friend.

> 56. ^ Muir, H. (25 September 2007). "Earth's water brewed at home, not
> in space". New Scientist. Retrieved 2009-04-26."

Considering the time involved, what percent%? 2, 3%.

> So the comet water source theory is not written in stone. Other

No one said it was, at least I don't. I know how theorys work.

> researches (I doubt ere creationists- just my guess) do not accept
> that theory. If you want more facts on this, go to Wikipedia.

Nope
I prefer to read what the people doing the research are saying.

> "There are only five bodies in our Solar System that are cross-listed
> as both comets and asteroids: 2060 Chiron (95P/Chiron), 4015
> Wilson�Harrington (107P/Wilson�Harrington), 7968 Elst�Pizarro
> (133P/Elst�Pizarro), 60558 Echeclus (174P/Echeclus), and 118401 LINEAR
> (176P/LINEAR)." (same web page as above)

<SARCASIM>Oh how thrilling. you can cut & paste. A skill mastered by most
trolls. Understganding OTOH, seems in short supply.</SARCASIM>

> Although tidal forces do exist between most comets and the earth, you
> are right and it is almost negligible. But the large comet viewed in
> 1729 was thought to be around 100 km diameter:
>
> " It is therefore likely that the Comet of 1729 was an exceptionally
> large object, with a cometary nucleus of the order of 100 km in
> diameter.[7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_of_1729)

And it mikssed. But you want to make a big deal out of it.

> 7. ^ Sagan, C. and Druyan, A. Comet, Ballantine, 1997"
>
> That 100 km comet would certainly cause devastation if it collided
> with the earth, tidal forces or no. Of course, it would depend up
> things such as its mass and velocity.

There's that magic if word again.

>>Now an asteroid, that can be ugly & is thought to have played a major
>>part in at least two mass extinctions.
>
> Since comets may have a rocky core, they can cause the same damage as

Another variant of the if word, may have.

> an astroid. (given the same mass and velocity) Once you strip away the
> frozen water and gases, it would probably be called an astroid.

You know, given enough time, you may get there. But don't give up your day
job.

> So, what would be the effect of a comet-astroid around 100 km core, do
> to the earth? Here is what might happen if a 113 km one hit the earth.

Depends on several things. Was the earth geologic ally quiet? No chains
of volcanoes or rifts acting up? Yellowstone still asleep.
But being I don't do the if word in serious matters, I haven't a clue if
you just think, or dol know, where you want to go.

> "A 70 mile asteroid would make a large impact but it would not destroy
> the Earth.

You don't know that. & there are circumstances where another major die off
would ensue. What is your imaginary comet made of?

> A 70 mile asteroid would however, with the right velocity and angle,
> in all probability, wipe all life off of the Earth and cause years of
> non regeneration. Simple life would eventually recolonise the planet,
> but it would take millions of years for complex animals to evolve. So

So A god is not requjirfed then. Nice call.

> much so, that a devastation on that scale would eliminate mankind from
> the Universe as we know it.

What's tghe hurry? Humanikty has no guarantee of not going extinct on teir
own.

> The asteroid that wiped out the Dinosaurs and ended their reign was a
> mere 10 miles in diameter and produced 2 million times more energy
> that our most powerful atomic bomb.

AND, or are you trying to impress yourself?

> So the 70 mile asteroid would not destroy the Earth but it would
> certainly destroy everything on it."

Maybe yes, maybe no. Until it happens, no one knows.

> So as mentioned above, I am on the side of the "other" researchers who
> do not agree with the comet water theory that filled the earth with
> its water.

Yippie ti yo, cow Patty.

> And just one more thing just for the record, the Bible doesn't say how
> the earth got its water. It just starts off in Genesis showing an
> earth filled with water.

I take it you haven't read Genesis for comprehension. Something about a
void with the earth covered with water IIRC. Or are you saying your gods,
& yes elohim is plural in Hebew. No, not the royal; plural, wasn't around
when ther lies started.
snip, anyone that wants to respond to any errors I made is welcome to do
so. I ril u 2 can continue to chase his tail & impress himself.

walksalone who suspects i ril u 2 hasn't figured it out, he no longer is a
participant in the conversation with me. Just a springboard to show the
shallow arguments & pretensions that trolls like him expect everyone else
to take seriously.

What is a god, a short & incomplete list.

Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other
divinities of the human species. [Incomplete]

Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the
Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these
types of gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less
powerful than others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the
European ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything
from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red
Hat, are not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the
world, they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most
understand the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of
humans or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are
entitled to go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 23:35:34 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>news:6e47q8hq01d94amj5...@4ax.com:
>
>> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>news:gl44q8douaij6vtmp...@4ax.com:

>>>>>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Planetary_formation_and_migration
>>>>>http://phys.org/tags/planetary+formation/
>>>
>>>Did you read it? No? Why not? It won't support your pretensions but
>>>you might learn how science does what you can't do.
>
>snip no one expects i ril u 2 to actually read, let alone follow up
>information that does not flatter his pov.

He's a Jehovah's Witness.

'Nuff said.

[walksalone]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:hps7q8l5hrma7dlhb...@4ax.com:

That was sort'a obvious from the gitgo, & his lack of performance verifies
it.

walksalone who will continue to point out the flaws & pretensions of i ril
u 2, boredom you know.

You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the
best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the
Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance,
Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in
America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon. Need I say more?
-Chris Rock

[walksalone]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:hps7q8l5hrma7dlhb...@4ax.com:

[walksalone]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:hps7q8l5hrma7dlhb...@4ax.com:

[James]

the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as
correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction
for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms:
principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject
to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that
are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea,
notion hypothesis, postulate"
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t)

Those statements about the moon at least fall into the definition 2.
Here they are again:

1. The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow
separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The
present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of
the Earth from which the Moon came.

2. The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was
later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.

3. The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together
from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.

4. The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of
earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of
rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to
their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.

5. The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck
the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting
material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the
Moon in orbit around the Earth."

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html)

I still haven't seen any reasonable statements about where the water
came from to cover about 3/4 of it.

Also, all of that water and all of the substances out in space are
made up of a lot of energy.

"First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to
another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of
energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing
from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics
(Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be
created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one
form into another."
(http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.htm)

That having been said, where did all the energy come from to start the
universe?

Respectfully, wow, there are errors all over the place. I'll deal with
just one, the historicity of Christ. Hopefully you can open your mind
at least a little:

The first century non-Christian historian Josephus (37-100 A.D) wrote,

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to
call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of
such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both
many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And
when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did
not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;
(10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named
from him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book
XVIII, Chap. III, par. 3.)

Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in
reference to the death of Jesus:

"That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of
Pontius Pilate."

In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned
Jesus' miracles, regarding which he says:

"That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius
Pilate."

True, these "Acts," or official records, no longer exist. But they
evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr
confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth
of what he said. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chap. III, par.
3)

"German historian and archaeologist Hans Einsle writes that Jewish
historian Flavius Josephus, Roman writers Suetonius and Pliny, and
especially Roman historian Tacitus "all confirm the historicity of
Jesus and the main facts of his life."" (1988 Watchtower, 7/15, p. 4.)

Some other first-century pagan Roman writers who made mention of
Christ and his followers were the poet Juvenal, and the stoic
philosopher Lucius Seneca, who was a contemporary of Jesus and the
leading intellectual figure in Rome in the middle of the first
century.

Concerning those early non-Christian writers, the Encyclopaedia
Britannica states:

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus."
(1980 edition, vol. 10, p. 145.)

Concerning the Roman historian Suetonius, (69-140 A.D.) in his
history, The Twelve Caesars, stated regarding the emperor Claudius:

"Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the
instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from the city."

This occurred about the year 52 C.E. (Compare Acts 18:1, 2.) Note that
Suetonius expresses no doubt about the existence of Christ.

Even the well-known skeptic, the mission doctor Albert Schweitzer,
admitted:

"We have to avow that there are not many of the personalities of
antiquity of whom so many indubitable historical facts and of whom so
many statements have been preserved as in the case of Jesus."

Historian Will Durant said,

"Is the life story of the founder of Christianity the product of human
sorrow, imagination, and hope-a myth comparable to the legends of
Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras?"

He answers that in the first century, to deny that Christ had ever
existed

"seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish
opponents of nascent Christianity." (The Story of Civilization,: Part
III, "Caesar and Christ.")

This encyclopedia states:

"THE HISTORICAL JESUS

The Christ-myth school of the early 20th century held that Jesus never
lived but was invented as a peg on which to hang the myth of a dying
and rising God. Yet the evidence for the historical existence of
Jesus is good.

Non-Christian Sources

Among Roman historians, TACITUS (Annals 15.44) records that the
Christian movement began with Jesus, who was sentenced to death by
Pontius Pilate. SUETONIUS (Claudius 25.4) refers to the expulsion of
the Jews from Rome because of a riot instigated by one "Chrestus" in
AD c.48, and this is usually taken to be a confused reference to the
Christians and their founder. PLINY THE YOUNGER (Epistles 10.96),
writing to Emperor Trajan, says that the early Christians sang a hymn
to Christ as God. Most of the Jewish evidence is late and
anti-Christian propaganda, but an early reference in the Babylonian
Talmud says that Jeshu ha-Nocri was a false prophet who was hanged on
the eve of the Passover for sorcery and false teaching. The evidence
from the historian JOSEPHUS is problematical. He recounts
(Antiquities 20.9.1) the martyrdom of JAMES, "the brother of Jesus
called the Christ," in AD 62. Another passage in the Antiquities
(18.3.3) gives an extended account of Jesus and his career, but some
features of it are clearly Christian interpolations. Whether this
passage has an authentic nucleus is debated.

Thus the Roman sources show a vague awareness that Jesus was a
historical figure as well as the object of a cult; the reliable
Jewish sources tell us that he was a Jewish teacher who was put to
death for sorcery and false prophecy and that he had a brother named
James. The Jewish evidence is especially valuable because of the
hostility between Jews and Christians at the time: it would have been
easy for the Jewish side to question the existence of Jesus, but this
they never did." (The Software Toolworks Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1992
Edition, pp. 3,4.)

"A unique work of the second century was Tatian's "Diatessaron,"
meaning "of the four." This was an early harmony, weaving together
into one narrative the various sections of the four canonical Gospels.
This again indicates the acceptance of the four as a collection and
testifies to their undisputed authority as the authentic record of
Jesus' life and words." (1963 Watchtower, p. 269 )

Yes, there is evidence outside the Bible testifying to the existence
of the man Jesus Christ. But to lovers of God, the most important
testimony is from the Bible itself, since it says it is inspired of
God. (2 Ti 3:16)

As the Bible itself testifies to the historicity of Jesus,

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to
you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were
eyewitnesses of his majesty. (RSV, 2 Pe 1:16)

Yes I know, they are not what you want to hear, so just ignore them.
But they are on record for all to see.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org



>

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:0us9q8p47lsk93uav...@4ax.com:

> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>news:6e47q8hq01d94amj5...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>>news:gl44q8douaij6vtmp...@4ax.com:
>>
>>snip, everyone realises I ril u 2 lacks the courtesy, or knowledge, or
>>both.
>>For the general group, the boyo is on my aw shit list. No discussion
>>& repeat claims can do that real easy, & quick.

What part of being on an aw shit list is eluding you. Just in case you
are that ignorant about usenet it means that responses to your attempts
to convince others you know of what you speak are generally ignored. &
when responded to, are not directed to you but to the audience.
It's a form of piggybacking.

742 lines, talk about clogging the system.

snip

& don't worry, I'll let you know when I expect responses instead of
meanderings.

walksalone who suspects i ril u 2 really is that ignorant about usenet,
as well as his mythology & science in general.

It may well do thje sprout well to remember the following when he wants
to prance on usenet.

ABASEMENT, n. A decent and customary mental attitude in the
presence of wealth of power. Peculiarly appropriate in an
employee when addressing an employer.
Devils dictionary

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:39:45 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>That having been said, where did all the energy come from to start the
>universe?

The universe is considered by physicists and cosmologists to have a
zero sum over its life, with matter plus energy plus antimatter plus
anti-energy (gravity) adding up to zero.

This isn't a problem for science because if you had an education and
weren't arguing from nothing more than wilful ignorance, you would
know that science in the form of quantum mechanics knows about
causeless events including the appearance of particles ex-nihilism.

Google "casimir effect".

>>So mabye the prof is guilty
>>of sloppy terminology. Makes his material look suspect.
>>
>>> Usually when I give you evidence, you don't accept it. Looks like you
>>
>>Because yolur version of evidence fgalls in the maybe so catergory, like
>>your comet treatsie.
>>
>>> want me to be in a 'no win' scenario. At any rate, I would rather
>>> comment on the topic of discussion than hear your constant derogatory
>>> opinions of me. When Mt 24:14 is finally fulfilled by JW's, I sure
>>
>>Erm, you do realise you just went back to your gullible mode. Trying to
>>quote the Greek Testaments as if they were meaningful to any but real true
>>believers™, is the height of uninformed arrogance.

It's a combination of rudeness and stupidity - he has to try and find
common ground if he wants to communicate, and he knows the Gospels
mean no more than eg the Hindu scripture or the Greek myths in the
real world.

>>You see, there are several problems encountered when one considers the
>>claims for Bubba & the drty dozen.
>>This is not for you BTW. For the nonce, you are excused.

[snip]

>Respectfully, wow, there are errors all over the place. I'll deal with

Whan have you ever been respectful?

Respect includes honest argument and debate, which you have refused to
provide. And taking notice of what people have taken the time and
trouble to write.

>just one, the historicity of Christ. Hopefully you can open your mind
>at least a little:

Take your own advice, pig-ignorant, arrogant moron.

>The first century non-Christian historian Josephus (37-100 A.D) wrote,
>
>"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to
>call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of
>such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both
>many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And
>when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
>condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did
>not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;
>(10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
>wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named
>from him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book
>XVIII, Chap. III, par. 3.)

No, he didn't.

It is an obvious later (to this day) Christian insertion.

Josephus was a Jew who never converted (source, Origen). As such he
would never have called Christianity "the truth". If you read the
surrounding material instead of taking an out-of context mined quote,
this is described as a misfortune for the Jews - and no Jew would have
regarded the coming of the Messiah as a misfortune, after all he was
expected to lead them to freedom from Roman occupation.

And "about this time" there was a lascivious incident at the Temple to
Isis, Which Tacitus dates at about 19 AD.

Which is like writing about Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1938 and
saying that "about this time" Gary Powers was shot down over Russia in
a U2 spy plane.

>Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in
>reference to the death of Jesus:
>
>"That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of
>Pontius Pilate."

So show how he reached this conclusion.

But Justin Martyr is part of the Christian tradition, and you can't
use that to prove itself.

And he is hardly trustworthy - he knew about the earlier myths and
legends that the Gospel stories parallel and claimed Satan knew Jesus
was coming and planted them in advance to try and discredit him.

Yeah, right.

>In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned
>Jesus' miracles, regarding which he says:
>
>"That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius
>Pilate."

Where die either he or you quote Pontius Pilate?

>True, these "Acts," or official records, no longer exist. But they
>evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr
>confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth
>of what he said. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chap. III, par.
>3)

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said pretty much the same thing.

But Justin martyr was still the same man whose stupid and dishonest
rationalisation for the fact that the Jesus stories copy earlier myths
and legends was that Satan planted these in advance to discredit him?

>"German historian and archaeologist Hans Einsle writes that Jewish
>historian Flavius Josephus, Roman writers Suetonius and Pliny, and
>especially Roman historian Tacitus "all confirm the historicity of
>Jesus and the main facts of his life."" (1988 Watchtower, 7/15, p. 4.)

Either he or the Watchtower are lying. Or both.

Because none of them mention Jesus, just Christians as followers of
Christ.

Apart from the obvious Christian insertion in Josephus.

Do you honestly imagine that "some authority says so but doesn't say
why" is worthless?

It's a classic fallacy, the argument from authority.

And you miss the obvious - if the mentions were genuine (which is
itself in doubt because none of the early Christian writers mention
them, eg they would have been both Origen's and Justin Martyr's
ace-in-the-hole) then Christianity hadn't yet evolved from Paul's
Christ to the Jesus of the Gospels.

And if they were later insertions (as the evidence suggests) then
whoever wrote them expected their audience to make the connection
between Christ and Jesus which the original authors didn't..

It takes the hindsight of Christian tradition too do this.

Which Tacitus and the others didn't have.

>Some other first-century pagan Roman writers who made mention of
>Christ and his followers were the poet Juvenal, and the stoic
>philosopher Lucius Seneca, who was a contemporary of Jesus and the
>leading intellectual figure in Rome in the middle of the first
>century.

Christians and what they believed, without even mentioning Jesus.

>Concerning those early non-Christian writers, the Encyclopaedia
>Britannica states:
>
>"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
>opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus."
>(1980 edition, vol. 10, p. 145.)

So Britannia got it wrong.

But once again, you use the fallacy of the argument from authority
with a context-free quote that doesn't show how they reached that
conclusion.

>Concerning the Roman historian Suetonius, (69-140 A.D.) in his
>history, The Twelve Caesars, stated regarding the emperor Claudius:
>
>"Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the
>instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from the city."

Chrestus was a common name among slaves.

>This occurred about the year 52 C.E. (Compare Acts 18:1, 2.) Note that
>Suetonius expresses no doubt about the existence of Christ.

Has any historian ever showed the early spread of Christianity up to
this time, and whether it actually was Christianity or just a Jewish
salvation cult?

>Even the well-known skeptic, the mission doctor Albert Schweitzer,
>admitted:

He was a Christian, pathological liar...

>"We have to avow that there are not many of the personalities of
>antiquity of whom so many indubitable historical facts and of whom so
>many statements have been preserved as in the case of Jesus."

..and this was his excuse/reason/etc for not finding anything at all
to corroborate Christian tradition.

>Historian Will Durant said,
>
>"Is the life story of the founder of Christianity the product of human
>sorrow, imagination, and hope-a myth comparable to the legends of
>Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras?"
>
>He answers that in the first century, to deny that Christ had ever
>existed
>
>"seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish
>opponents of nascent Christianity." (The Story of Civilization,: Part
>III, "Caesar and Christ.")

So he lies, because there is no evidence at all outside a book telling
Christians to believe a whole slew of wacky things, and that re-tells
earlier hero myths.

It's a rationalisation and not evidence.

Why don't you learn the difference?

>This encyclopedia states:
>
>"THE HISTORICAL JESUS
>
>The Christ-myth school of the early 20th century held that Jesus never
>lived but was invented as a peg on which to hang the myth of a dying
>and rising God. Yet the evidence for the historical existence of
>Jesus is good.

No.

There is none that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.

Do you honestly imagine you're the first hard-of-thinking believer to
come up with the same old stuff that you never bother to check for
yourselves before posting it?

>Non-Christian Sources

Which you never bothered to check out yourself before stupidly citing
the same old nonsense.

>Among Roman historians, TACITUS (Annals 15.44) records that the
>Christian movement began with Jesus, who was sentenced to death by

No, he doesn't.

He says Christians believe in Christ.

Not the same thing at all.

>Pontius Pilate.

Whose title he gets wrong - a Roman historian and Senator would have
known the difference between a Procurator and a Prefect. They might be
insignificant to today's Christians but they were very different to
contemporary Romans.

A procurator reported directly to the emperor, but a prefect had
authority delegated to him.

The first appearance of this passage is a few hundred years later, by
Sulpicus Severus almost word for word. It is not attributed to
Tacitus, either then or by any Christian writer until the fifteenth
century.

The passage makes no mention of Jesus per se, just that people
believed in Christ.

Later Christians make a connection that Tacitus didn't, using the
hindsight of Christian tradition.

Saying that people prayed to and worshipped Christ means no more than
saying people worshiped and prayed to Jupiter.

> SUETONIUS (Claudius 25.4) refers to the expulsion of
>the Jews from Rome because of a riot instigated by one "Chrestus" in

Is Jesus spelled "C,h,r,e,s,t,u,s", imbecile?

By the way, Suetonius also says he saw Augustus Caesar ascend to
heaven after he died.

Why don't you believe that?

>AD c.48, and this is usually taken to be a confused reference to the

No.

Even if there actually were Christians in Rome at the time, the Romans
would have thought they were Jews - there _was_ a Jewish community
there.

If they were called anything else it was zealots.

The passage makes no mention of Jesus per se, just that people
believed in Christ.

Later Christians make a connection that Tacitus didn't, using the
hindsight of Christian tradition.

Saying that people prayed to and worshipped Christ means no more than
saying people worshiped and prayed to Jupiter.

>Christians and their founder. PLINY THE YOUNGER (Epistles 10.96),
>writing to Emperor Trajan, says that the early Christians sang a hymn
>to Christ as God.

Just as Romans prayed to Zeus. Does that make either of them real?

And once again, he doesn't connect Christ with Jesus.

>Most of the Jewish evidence is late and
>anti-Christian propaganda, but an early reference in the Babylonian
>Talmud says that Jeshu ha-Nocri was a false prophet who was hanged on
>the eve of the Passover for sorcery and false teaching.

Did you check when this was written?

> The evidence
>from the historian JOSEPHUS is problematical. He recounts
>(Antiquities 20.9.1) the martyrdom of JAMES, "the brother of Jesus
>called the Christ," in AD 62.

According to Dan Barker this was a different James, who died
differently. From chapter 51 of "Losing Faith in Faith"...

This is flimsy, and even Christians scholars widely consider this
to be a doctored text. The stoning of James is not mentioned in
Acts. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, in 170 AD wrote a history of
the church saying that James the brother of Jesus was killed in a
riot, not be sentence of a court, and Clement confirms this (quoted
by Eusebius). Most scholars agree that Josephus is referring to
another James here, possibly the same one that Paul mentions in
Acts, who led a sect in Jerusalem. Instead of strengthening
Christianity, this "brother of Jesus" interpolation contradicts
history. Again, if Josephus truly thought Jesus was "the Christ,"
he would have added more about him than a casual aside in someone
else's story.

> Another passage in the Antiquities
>(18.3.3) gives an extended account of Jesus and his career, but some
>features of it are clearly Christian interpolations. Whether this
>passage has an authentic nucleus is debated.

More than just "debated" - it is an obvious later insertion by a
Christian.

Do you seriously imagine a Jew would have thought Jesus was the
Messiah and not become a follower? Or would have called Christianity
"the truth"? Or would have regarded the coming of the Messiah as a
tragedy for the Jews?

The Jews expected a Messiah, but one who would lead them to freedom
from Roman occupation.

Which is why no Jew recognises Jesus as the Messiah, whether or not
there actually was an historical Jesus.

>Thus the Roman sources show a vague awareness that Jesus was a

No.

Only in the minds of believers desperately trying to find something
they can rationalise as evidence to support their beliefs.

Who don't you look at Photius or Albert Schweitzer, they lived about a
thousand years apart,but they were both deeply religious scholars who
spent a lifetime searching for an historical Jesus - without finding
anything.

Photius (810-893) was the Patriarch of Constantinople, where
Constantine had moved the Roman capital to get away from the invaders.

He is most famous for indexing and cataloging the library of Christian
and other works. He bemoans that he found no evidence outside
Christianity.

A thousand years later Albert Schweitzer spent a major part of his
lifetime researching all the known writing of the era, and came to the
same conclusion.

>historical figure as well as the object of a cult; the reliable
>Jewish sources tell us that he was a Jewish teacher who was put to

No, they don't.

They are a response to Christian claims.

>death for sorcery and false prophecy and that he had a brother named
>James. The Jewish evidence is especially valuable because of the
>hostility between Jews and Christians at the time: it would have been
>easy for the Jewish side to question the existence of Jesus, but this
>they never did." (The Software Toolworks Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1992
>Edition, pp. 3,4.)

Except of course that if they had put him to death for sorcery he they
would have stoned him themselves.

Which actually gives a clue to when the crucifixion story was written
- the Jews were allowed their own executions until the Bar Kokhbar
revolt in AD 134 - after which the condemned had to be handed over to
the Romans for execution the Roman way.

>"A unique work of the second century was Tatian's "Diatessaron,"
>meaning "of the four." This was an early harmony, weaving together
>into one narrative the various sections of the four canonical Gospels.
>This again indicates the acceptance of the four as a collection and
>testifies to their undisputed authority as the authentic record of
>Jesus' life and words." (1963 Watchtower, p. 269 )

Then the Watchtower is as big a liar as you are.

The historical method is all about corroboration from multiple
independent sources. And there is none for the Gospels.

And you can't use them to prove themselves.

That would be like using the Harry Potter books to "prove" themselves.

The four canonical Gospels are worthless as evidence, because they
were written much later, when Christianity was being repackaged as a
religion for the Romans.

They describe events which never happened - eg the whole Nativity
story was made up.

If you were able to think you would have realised that the Romans
didn't make people travel long distances at walking pace for a census
because the region would have ground to a halt if everybody did that.

It was written to fit cherry-picked "prophecies" from a Greek
translation of the Tanakh, the Pentateuch, complete with
mis-translations and events manufactured to fit.

The most significant mis-translation was the substitution of "virgin"
for a young woman who gave birth to a Prince a few chapters later.

If you read it even in translation it is pretty obvious it wasn't
referring to Jesus.

And Bethlehem Ephratah was a person, a clan or a family. Not a place.

The stories in the Gospels repeat earlier hero myths from the Greek
and other myths - because that's what the Mediterraneans expected of
their hero figures.

There is no corroboration for any of it - no contemporary historian
mentions any of the events.

The most significant one would be Philo who was an in-law of the
Herods as well as having business connections.

Yet he mentions none of the supposedly Earth-shattering events.

And they get other basic historical and geographical facts wrong too.

Heck, three of the four authors didn't even speak Hebrew otherwise
they would gone to the Tanakh rather than the Pentateuch.

>Yes, there is evidence outside the Bible testifying to the existence
>of the man Jesus Christ. But to lovers of God, the most important
>testimony is from the Bible itself, since it says it is inspired of
>God. (2 Ti 3:16)

Why not actually provide some that stands up to cross-examination,
instead of just saying there is. imbecile?

>As the Bible itself testifies to the historicity of Jesus,

You can't use the Bible to prove itself, imbecile.

>"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to
>you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were
>eyewitnesses of his majesty. (RSV, 2 Pe 1:16)

Where did you demonstrate that the Bible was the truth\, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, imbecile?

>Yes I know, they are not what you want to hear, so just ignore them.

Project much, narcissistic liar?

>But they are on record for all to see.

But they don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Just saying something is evidence doesn't make it so = you have to
defend it under cross-examination.

Idiot.

>James
>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org

Werte yoiu as stupid and dishonest before yo became a JW or it it do
that to you?

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:0us9q8p47lsk93uav...@4ax.com:

There will be some sincere & heartfelt snipage as I look at thje latest
attempt iof i ril u 2, & his assuming because it stokes his ego, it works
for everyone else. Starting here.

>>Doesn't matter if the basic information is wrong. As long as I've
>>been out of school, I know what a theory is, & is not.
>
> "

> the�o�ry
> [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
> noun, plural the�o�ries.

> 1.
> a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as
> correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction
> for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms:
> principle, law, doctrine.
> 2.
> a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject
> to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that
> are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea,
> notion hypothesis, postulate"
> (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t)

Things are looking up, you are starting to use reputable sources. saddly,
just not very well.
From: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis

In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test
through study and experimentation. Outside science, a theory or guess can
also be called a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-
established theory. In science, a hypothesis needs to go through a lot of
testing before it gets labeled a theory. In the non-scientific world, the
word is used a lot more loosely. A detective might have a hypothesis about
a crime, and a mother might have a hypothesis about who spilled juice on
the rug. Anyone who uses the word hypothesis is making a guess.
DEFINITIONS OF:
hypothesis
1
n
a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet
verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
�a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a
scientific theoryďż˝
Synonyms:
possibility, theory
Types:
show 17 types...
Type of:
concept, conception, construct
an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances
n
a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
Type of:
proposal
something proposed (such as a plan or assumption)
n
a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
Synonyms:
conjecture, guess, speculation, supposition, surmisal, surmise
Types:
divination
successful conjecture by unusual insight or good luck
Type of:
opinion, view
a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief
that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or
proof

Therefore, the correct word is not theory.

> (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html)
>
> I still haven't seen any reasonable statements about where the water
> came from to cover about 3/4 of it.

Your self imposed limitations are not a matter of concern to others, until
you try & pass them off as binding on everyone. Like, what you are doing
here. Mr. Lee & others have expoised you to the information, but they can
not, & should not, impose the requirement of understanding the information
on you.

> Also, all of that water and all of the substances out in space are
> made up of a lot of energy.

Matter. But then, that's just one more thing you will fail to understand.

> "First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to
> another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of
> energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing
> from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics
> (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be
> created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one
> form into another."
> (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.htm)
>
> That having been said, where did all the energy come from to start the
> universe?

You might start here. Won't vouch for the source, never having used it.
You are looking for answers to questions that are above answers more
complicated than, say, why did I get wet when I jumped in the swimming
pool. Yet you inmdicate you lack the ability to understand answers of that
caliber & higher.

<http://straighterline.com/landing/take-a-free-trial-course/?
subid=CMSM000069&gclid=CI3ah-iJu7cCFQSZ4AodlQUA0Q>

Or:
<http://www.ask.com/web?l=sem&ifr=1&qsrc=999
&ad=semA&an=google_s&q=thermodynamics%20first%20law&siteid=5567&o=5567
&ar_uid=0582412E-DAD1-4E32-85B3-03A4E2F89BE6&click_id=35E43866-0065-4ABC-
AEDC-EEE3512A414C>

A decentg search engine.

>>So mabye the prof is guilty
>>of sloppy terminology. Makes his material look suspect.

snip

>>>>> I don't have a copy of the material. You will have to go with the
>>>>> source unless you can find a copy of it on the internet.
>>>>
>>>>Then why quote it or refer to it? Makes you look deliberaely
>>>>dishonest. & yes, most of our xian trolls are in that catergory.
>>>
>>> I gave you enough information. I am sure you get the same amount of
>>> information from footnotes on any books you read. Do you criticize
>>> them also?
>>

snip

>>> groups hate JW's, I don't seem to get the name calling that the
>>> alt.atheist groups do. Does that show a lack of education, or just a
>>> negative personality? I don't know. Ever heard of a FRIENDLY debate?
>>
>>Sure, so when do you want to start. One of the things about debate,
>>you are not working on establishing any truth, just swaying the
>>audience.
>>
>>> By the way, I don't even have alt.atheism listed in my groups. The
>>> only time I post there is when I am answering someone' else's
>>> posting who did post there. (and many other places usually)
>>
>>Bullshit.

snip

>>> I guess you have no sense of humor; sorry about that. :(
>>
>>I've got one, but apparently you expect mine to parallel yours.
>>SBTSGI.

snip

>>> So the comet water source theory is not written in stone. Other
>>
>>No one said it was, at least I don't. I know how theorys work.
>>
>>> researches (I doubt ere creationists- just my guess) do not accept
>>> that theory. If you want more facts on this, go to Wikipedia.
>>
>>Nope
>>I prefer to read what the people doing the research are saying.

snip

>>> And just one more thing just for the record, the Bible doesn't say
>>> how the earth got its water. It just starts off in Genesis showing
>>> an earth filled with water.
>>
>>I take it you haven't read Genesis for comprehension. Something about
>>a void with the earth covered with water IIRC. Or are you saying your
>>gods, & yes elohim is plural in Hebew. No, not the royal; plural,
>>wasn't around when ther lies started.
>>snip, anyone that wants to respond to any errors I made is welcome to
>>do so. I ril u 2 can continue to chase his tail & impress himself.
>>
>>walksalone who suspects i ril u 2 hasn't figured it out, he no longer
>>is a participant in the conversation with me. Just a springboard to
>>show the shallow arguments & pretensions that trolls like him expect
>>everyone else to take seriously.
>
> Respectfully, wow, there are errors all over the place. I'll deal with

& you arfe about to repaet them.

> just one, the historicity of Christ. Hopefully you can open your mind
> at least a little:
>
> The first century non-Christian historian Josephus (37-100 A.D) wrote,

As pointeed out by Mr. lee, neither contemporary, nor his work. Just
another pious forgery. this time, the forger is thought to be known.
Hint, that passage would have been quoted by early church fathers that
wsree developing & defending the myth, iot wasn't.

> "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to
> call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of

Petty good ikndicator no pious Jew wrote that. Not to mention Josephus
knew the requirements for a messiah, & the claimed bubba failed every one
of them.

> Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in
> reference to the death of Jesus:
>
> "That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of
> Pontius Pilate."

The acts of Pilate are known psuedographic in source.

snip more appeals to a forged document.

snip more appeals

> Some other first-century pagan Roman writers who made mention of
> Christ and his followers were the poet Juvenal, and the stoic
> philosopher Lucius Seneca, who was a contemporary of Jesus and the
> leading intellectual figure in Rome in the middle of the first
> century.

None of which refer to your version of bubba. There iks a good chance they
may refer to Apollinus[sp] of Tyre however.

> Concerning those early non-Christian writers, the Encyclopaedia
> Britannica states:
>
> "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
> opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus."
> (1980 edition, vol. 10, p. 145.)

Encyclopedias can be wrong, & who wrote the article. Without that
knowledge, we have no indication of any bias of the author.
BTW, there is a rather long list of first & second century authors of note
who never mention your bubba or the so called miracles claimed on his
behalf.

A short list of people we would expect to have mentioned bubba. & didn't.

Apollonius of Tyana [3-97] Greek from Cappadocia, philosopher & worker of
miricales.
Appian of Alexandria [2nd cent] Wrote 24 volumes of Roman conquests to
include Vespian. Nine still exist.
Arrian [Flavius Arrianus] [95-180] Greek historian, known for his Anabasis
Alexandria, Served as Perfect of Cappadocia in 136, Legate feom 131-137.
Aulus Gellius [NV]
Columella [NV]
Damis [NV]
Dio Chrysostom [Dion Chrysostom] [40-112 Gr.] Freek rhetorician &
philosoper, left 80 orations on politics & philosophy.
Dion Pruseus [NV]
Epictetus [50-130 gr.] Stoic Philosopher
Favorinus [NV]
Florus Lucius [NV]
Hermogones [NV]
Josephus Flavius [Josph ben Matthius] [37-?] Historian & rebel leader.
Justus of Tiberius [NV]
Juvenal [Decimus Junius Juvenalis] [55-130] Satirist, did a tour of duty as
a tribune in Egypt,
Lucannus [Marcus Annaeus Lucannus]Nephew of Seneca the younger, quaestor &
auger under Nero, wrote in 62Gr.
Lucian [117-180] Rhetorician, widely traveled, introducd the literature
form known as the humourus dialogue.
Lysias [NV]
Martial [Marcus valerius Martialis] 40-104 Gr. Left twelve epigrammatical
works, mostly on social & contemporary events.
Paterculus [NV]
Pausanias [NV]
Persius [Aulus Perisus Flaccus] 34-62 GR.
Petronius
Ph�drus
Philo-Jud�us
Phlegon
Pliny Elder
Pliny Younger
Plutarch
Pomponius Mela
Ptolemy
Quintilian
Quintius Curtius
Seneca
Silius Italicus
Statius
Suetonius
Tacitus
Theon of Smyrna
Valerius Flaccus
Valerius Maximus

> Concerning the Roman historian Suetonius, (69-140 A.D.) in his
> history, The Twelve Caesars, stated regarding the emperor Claudius:

Claudius didn't burn Rome, that was blamed on Nero by xians. Oddly enough,
in spite of his dislike for nero, that is never claimed.

> "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the
> instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from the city."

Chrestus doeas not mean christ, which is a title. It means handy & was a
very common name for slaves.
Xians have been known to insist history did not happen as others saw it.

> This occurred about the year 52 C.E. (Compare Acts 18:1, 2.) Note that
> Suetonius expresses no doubt about the existence of Christ.

Really, so we can add reading to the list of skills you have yet to master.

I just happen to have a copy of that book. Which translation are you
using? Thee watchtower version?

Lives of the twelve Cedasars
Suetonius
Translator Robert Graves.

According to pg. 285, christ is not mentioned. Xians OTOH, are. pg. 191
AAMOF.

In the chapter devoted to Nero.

You were pretending?

> Even the well-known skeptic, the mission doctor Albert Schweitzer,
> admitted:

snip appewal to ujnfounded authoritys.

> Non-Christian Sources

snip appeals to more erronious authority, such as Pliny he seconfd where
xians are mentioned, but not bubba.

> Yes, there is evidence outside the Bible testifying to the existence
> of the man Jesus Christ. But to lovers of God, the most important
> testimony is from the Bible itself, since it says it is inspired of
> God. (2 Ti 3:16)

Appealing to known forgerys & pseudographic documents may be iomportznt &
needful to you. Others are not bound by your limitations.

> As the Bible itself testifies to the historicity of Jesus,

Snip appeal to circular arguments.

> Yes I know, they are not what you want to hear, so just ignore them.

What I want to, or do not want to hear is immaterial. What you can
demonstrate wth evidence is of interest. So far, all you have done is
rfeinforce teyh concept that most xians are extremely ignorant about their
beliefs & the reasons they claim the right to those beliefs.

> But they are on record for all to see.

Along with the rebuttals & reasons you know not of what you speak.

walksalone who would feel better if he thought i ril u 2 coluld learn about
the errors & lies he has been taught, but holds out no hope for that ever
being likely. Though it has happened with others, he indicates he lacks to
much to be able to make that leap, & retain his beliefs.

Go away. I'd like to forget you just the way you are. -- Milton Berle

[James]

Respectfully, yes, just snip away the conversation. Maybe the facts
out there will also 'snip' themselves away for you.

At any rate I made a statement then asked a question last time. In
case you missed it in all those lines, I will repeat it here:

"First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to
another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of
energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing
from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics
(Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be
created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one
form into another."
(http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.htm)

That having been said, where did all the energy come from to start the

universe, if energy cannot be created?

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:ihtbq8dm5t0f6ic2h...@4ax.com:

When the questions are avoided, like you do, there is no reason to not
consider others & snip them. & mark them. Some people are still on dial
up.

> At any rate I made a statement then asked a question last time. In
> case you missed it in all those lines, I will repeat it here:

I saw it & pointed out starting sources for you. Something you seem to
avoid faster than I would a known case of the Galloping Mongolian Clap.

> "First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to
> another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of
> energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing
> from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics
> (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be
> created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one
> form into another."
> (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.htm)

Seeing as you can't cipher what you cut & paste, your following confusion
is not my problem. Riling ain't it.

> That having been said, where did all the energy come from to start the
> universe, if energy cannot be created?

There is a hypothesis that has theory status, The Big Bang. You may have
heard of it. You can either study, & then ask for clairification, or
remain ignorant.
BTW, the same question can & is asked about your gods. & yes, you have
gods, but don't understand why.

One starting point for those thjat display the ignorancve you weear like
a badge:
http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/a/lawthermo_3.htm

Very basic with links for those interested.

excerpt:

First Law of Thermodynamics
The change in a system's internal energy is equal to the difference
between heat added to the system from its surroundings and work done by
the system on its surroundings.
Though this may sound complex, it's really a very simple idea. If you
add heat to a system, there are only two things that can be done --
change the internal energy of the system or cause the system to do work
(or, of course, some combination of the two). All of the heat energy must
go into doing these things.
Mathematical Representation of the First Law
Physicists typically use uniform conventions for representing the
quantities in the first law of thermodynamics. They are:

walksalone who realises i can 't ril anyone is beyond clueles. Please,
don't anyone tell him about virtual particles. Both positive & negative.

* Calvin & Hobbes (cartoon characters)
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never
incinerated by bolts of lightning."

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:36:27 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

You have never once been respectful, hypocrite.

> just snip away the conversation. Maybe the facts
>out there will also 'snip' themselves away for you.

You don't even know what facts are, liar.

But then you are one of the worst kinds of religious idiot - JW
doctrine is totally at odds with reality, and they send you out into
the world to wipe it in everybody else's face insisting it is true
while ignoring anything they try to explain about reality.

The JWs made you so dishonest, disrespectful, ignorant and stupid that
you are incapable of functioning like a normal human being - even
mainstream Christians want nothing to do with you.

Are you scared of being disfellowshipped if you learned to use your
allegedly god-given brain?

>At any rate I made a statement then asked a question last time. In
>case you missed it in all those lines, I will repeat it here:
>
>"First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to
>another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of
>energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing
>from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics
>(Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be
>created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one
>form into another."
>(http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.htm)

And?

>That having been said, where did all the energy come from to start the
>universe, if energy cannot be created?

Asked and answered, liar.

It's not our fault you can't read for comprehension.

What part of ZERO SUM are you pretending you are too stupid to
understand?

Why do you imagine this breaks conservation?

Or any other known laws of physics?

And why do you pretend this is anything to do with atheism?

The laws of physics were discovered through a process of observation
and validation and are part of an objective knowledge base.

But it's pretty well standard for you in-your-face, dishonest
hypocrites to demand absolute answers in areas that are still being
researched, while at the same time claiming absolute knowledge that a
magical superbeing did it - without ever providing any support for it
let a lone any reason to propose it but rudely and stupidly talking as
if everybody believed it anyway.

>James
>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org

Did they make you so arrogantly, transparently, stupidly and
ignorantly dishonest or were you already all those before you became
one?

[James]

Yes I have heard of the Big Bang (and the Big Crunch, etc) But you
never answered my question, just did character assassination. So here
it is again. If energy cannot be created, where did all the energy
come from for your Big Bang?

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org




>

[Tom McDonald]

The net energy of the universe is zero, so it came from nothing.

[James]

walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>

>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>news:0us9q8p47lsk93uav...@4ax.com:
>
>There will be some sincere & heartfelt snipage as I look at thje latest
>attempt iof i ril u 2, & his assuming because it stokes his ego, it works
>for everyone else. Starting here.
>
>
>>>Doesn't matter if the basic information is wrong. As long as I've
>>>been out of school, I know what a theory is, & is not.
>>
>> "

>> the�o�ry
>> [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
>> noun, plural the�o�ries.

>> 1.
>> a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as
>> correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction
>> for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms:
>> principle, law, doctrine.
>> 2.
>> a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject
>> to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that
>> are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea,
>> notion hypothesis, postulate"
>> (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t)

Notice about a theory: "whose status is still conjectural and subject
to experimentation,"


>

>Things are looking up, you are starting to use reputable sources. saddly,
>just not very well.
>From: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis
>
>In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test
>through study and experimentation. Outside science, a theory or guess can
>also be called a hypothesis.
>
>A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-
>established theory. In science, a hypothesis needs to go through a lot of
>testing before it gets labeled a theory. In the non-scientific world, the
>word is used a lot more loosely. A detective might have a hypothesis about
>a crime, and a mother might have a hypothesis about who spilled juice on
>the rug. Anyone who uses the word hypothesis is making a guess.
>DEFINITIONS OF:
>hypothesis
>1
>n
> a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet
>verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

>�a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a
>scientific theory�

That is your opinion. The writer of the article disagrees with you.
The 5 theories about the moon's origin shows that science of certain
things is not set in stone. But changes (as it should) when new data
is found.

>
>> (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html)
>>
>> I still haven't seen any reasonable statements about where the water
>> came from to cover about 3/4 of it.
>
>Your self imposed limitations are not a matter of concern to others, until
>you try & pass them off as binding on everyone. Like, what you are doing
>here. Mr. Lee & others have expoised you to the information, but they can
>not, & should not, impose the requirement of understanding the information
>on you.

None of your character assassination answers the question. Where did
all that water come from to start with?

>
>> Also, all of that water and all of the substances out in space are
>> made up of a lot of energy.
>
>Matter. But then, that's just one more thing you will fail to understand.
>
>> "First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to
>> another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of
>> energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing
>> from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics
>> (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be
>> created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one
>> form into another."
>> (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.htm)
>>
>> That having been said, where did all the energy come from to start the
>> universe?
>
>You might start here. Won't vouch for the source, never having used it.
>You are looking for answers to questions that are above answers more
>complicated than, say, why did I get wet when I jumped in the swimming
>pool. Yet you inmdicate you lack the ability to understand answers of that
>caliber & higher.

Nice attempt at diversion, but it didn't answer my question. If energy
cannot be created, where did all the energy come from for your Big
Bang?

Also, I stand behind all my references about a historical Jesus.

>
><http://straighterline.com/landing/take-a-free-trial-course/?
>subid=CMSM000069&gclid=CI3ah-iJu7cCFQSZ4AodlQUA0Q>
>
>Or:
><http://www.ask.com/web?l=sem&ifr=1&qsrc=999
>&ad=semA&an=google_s&q=thermodynamics%20first%20law&siteid=5567&o=5567
>&ar_uid=0582412E-DAD1-4E32-85B3-03A4E2F89BE6&click_id=35E43866-0065-4ABC-
>AEDC-EEE3512A414C>
>
>A decentg search engine.
>
>>>So mabye the prof is guilty
>>>of sloppy terminology. Makes his material look suspect.
>
>snip
>
>>>There is no evidence for a historical jesus [that's the way they
>>>spelled it back then, Caps are Germaninc in origin],as claiomed in the
>>>Greek Testament.
>>>There is no New Testament, for the Hebrew Bible never has been thought
>>>of as a Testament. The concept, like the myth, is Greek in origin,

I agree that technically there is no a old "testament" or new
"testatment". I use it because it is common practice. (I also say
"sunrise" and "sunset" and usually do not get in a long explanation
about the earth rotating on its axis etc.)

One way to describe them is the "Hebrew Aramaic Scriptures", and the
"Christian Greek Scriptures".

The actual source of the terms comes from 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the
Latin Vulgate and the King James Version. The words "old testament"
in this text is incorrect. The Greek word "diathekes" here means
"covenant," as it does in the other 32 places where it occurs in the
Greek text. Many modern translations correctly read "old covenant."
(NIV, NASB, RSV)

Actually, Jesus fulfilled many, many requirements for the messiah.
There are several prophecies which determine when the Messiah (Jesus)
had to appear. Taken all together, he had to come when he did.

(1) he had to be born from the tribe of Judah. (Ge 49:10)
(2) From the family of David the son of Jesse. (Ps. 132:11; Isa. 9:7;
11:1, 10)

In modern times, there is no way to accurately trace one's ancestry
back to the time of the Bible. Those genealogical records no longer
exist. Thus there would be no way to prove that any later day Messiah
qualified as the true Messiah. So he would have had to at least appear
at a time when those genealogical records were still available to the
people for verification. Most, if not all of them, were destroyed
along with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E..

(2) the "way" would be prepared before him. (Mal. 3:1; 4:5; Isa. 40:3)

We now know that John the Baptist was the person sent for this job.
And we know that John appeared on the scene back in the first century,
so Jesus had to follow close behind John.

(3) Appeared as Messiah at the end of 69 "weeks". (Da 9:25)

The scripture in Daniel reads,

"And you should know and have the insight [that] from the going forth
of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes�si'ah
[the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks."

This prophecy pinpoints the time of Jesus arrival, and it had to be
just when he came. The following goes into the details showing how
this prophecy was fulfilled:

The mark of this new prophecy was to start at the decree to rebuild
the whole city of Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem continued to lay
waste another 80 yrs after Daniel received his prophecy.

Around this time, Nehemiah was employed in king Artaxerxes' court as a
cupbearer. Being saddened about Judas' desolation, he asked the king
if they could rebuild Jerusalem. The king gave his permission. (Ne
2:1-8) This is the start of Daniel's prophecy. But what was the date?

This Artaxerxes (also called Longimanus because of a long right hand)
came to the Persian throne after the death of his father, Xerxes. Thus
Artaxerxes first year of reigning would be 474 B.C.. Ezra 2:1 says
that it was the "twentieth" year of Artaxerxes reign that his decree
went out. This would start the "weeks" of Daniel 9:25 as beginning
around 455 B.C..

Since this prophecy of Daniel was actually given to show the arrival
time of the Messiah, the Jews in the first century were probably
familiar with the "seventy weeks" prophecy and were awaiting the
arrival of the Messiah. (Lu 3:15)

In Da 9:25 the number of weeks from the decree till the Messiah was to
be "seven" plus "sixty-two" or 69 weeks of years. (Why 'years'?
Because all the things prophesied here regarding the Messiah did not
occur within 70 weeks, or less than a year and a half. These proved to
be "weeks" in which each day counted for one year. Compare Numbers
14:33, 34.)

It then mentions the ending of the 69 weeks of years (483 yrs) as
ending with "the Anointed One" (Messiah the Prince, KJV) Thus 483
years from 455 B.C. ends at 29 A.D.. Did the "Anointed One" appear
then? Jesus didn't start his Messianic role until God anointed him
with holy spirit on the day that John the Baptist baptized him. (Lu
3:21,22) Lu 3:1-3 tells us of John's baptisms "In the fifteenth year
of the reign of Tiberius Caesar". Historians establish that Tiberius
became Roman emperor on Aug 17, 14 A.D.. (Gregorian calendar) Fifteen
years of his reign ends around the spring of 29 A.D. when John
started his baptisms. Around the fall of that year, Jesus was
baptized.

So the scriptures show that Jesus was destined to arrive back when he
did, and could not have come at a different time either before, or
after that.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


>

>Ph�drus
>Philo-Jud�us

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:coieq8dopvgjachou...@4ax.com:

followup set, the boy never learns.

> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>

snip

>>>>& don't worry, I'll let you know when I expect responses instead of
>>>>meanderings.

Seems English comprehension is not one of his bettger claims to famed.

snip

Just so you know the audience knows, I never pretended to. I did give
you starting souurces. That you are to lazy and/or incompetent to do
your own work is no sweat off my ass.

You see, one of the major differences between us is I don't pretend that
I have all the answerts, & my evidence does not require supporting
documentation.

The audience has noted by now, that all you do is attempt to divert
attention away from your inability to engage in conversation. You made
claims for Suetonius, but you didn't know what you were talking about.
So now you are off on another track, dead ended though it is.

& now you know the audience is not as impressed with your charade as you
are.

Hint, it's your posting history & pretensions that gave you away.

> it is again. If energy cannot be created, where did all the energy
> come from for your Big Bang?

Obviously you are under the false impression that you can demand from
others what you can't do yourself. Notg being a phshist, I don't klnow.
Nor am I curious.
But I am unimpressed by those that demand others answer their questions,
while avoiding discussion tehmselves.
Such as the claimed & missing messiah of xianity being real. Just
another dieing/resurrecting god story, but it makes you happy.

walksalone who suspects the audience is as weary of your pretensions as I
am. Rileing ain't it.

"As for the demented, I hold it certain that all beings
deprived of reason are thus afflicted only by the Devil."
Martin Luther

[walksalone]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:K3Ipt.9778$Pt5....@newsfe02.iad:

> On 5/30/2013 7:57 AM, James wrote:
>> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>> James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>> news:ihtbq8dm5t0f6ic2h...@4ax.com:

snip

>> Yes I have heard of the Big Bang (and the Big Crunch, etc) But you
>> never answered my question, just did character assassination. So here
>> it is again. If energy cannot be created, where did all the energy
>> come from for your Big Bang?
>>
> The net energy of the universe is zero, so it came from nothing.

I suspect that i ril can't accept that. It's to easy, & starightforward.
Maybe if you said a god says that he could deal with it, as long as it's
his variant.

walksalone who is aware of the above observation but lacks the knowledge to
say yea or nay when it comes up.

If he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword holds true,
then jesus the carpenter met his end properly. After all, he
was nailed to a piece of wood, wasn't he?

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:hnjeq8pbu82kijmn4...@4ax.com:

> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com>
>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>news:0us9q8p47lsk93uav...@4ax.com:

Second verse, no worse than the first.

snip latest look at me attempt.

Unless I feel inclined to point out i ril's errors & rub his nose in it,
this will be pretty much routine when I respond to his attempts at mental
masturbation.

walkslaone who doesn't mind differing opinions, but opinions based on
trivial authority such as I believe or I said or an appeal to a unfounded
authority says aren't worth the effort to rub his nose in. & that's all he
has had to date. Maybe if he got a temple elder to do his writing for him?

I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and
reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992)

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:00:17 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/30/2013 7:57 AM, James wrote:

>> Yes I have heard of the Big Bang (and the Big Crunch, etc) But you
>> never answered my question,

Lie.

>> just did character assassination. So here

Lie.

>> it is again. If energy cannot be created, where did all the energy
>> come from for your Big Bang?

Asked and answered by several of us already, so why ask it again?

>The net energy of the universe is zero, so it came from nothing.

This has already been answered, but he's a JW so answers that don't
fit his beliefs vanish as if they'd never been given.

I prophesy he'll ignore it this time as well.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 21:10:22 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

[to James]

>The audience has noted by now, that all you do is attempt to divert
>attention away from your inability to engage in conversation. You made
>claims for Suetonius, but you didn't know what you were talking about.
>So now you are off on another track, dead ended though it is.

Suetonius says he saw Augustus Caesar ascend bodily into heaven after
he died.

Does James believe that?

If not, why not?

[casey]

On 30 May, 14:26, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:00:17 -0500, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com>

If he *really* wanted an answer he could read books
you can find in any good book shop where experts
on this subject explain it to the layman.