Church fathers destroy art, education and science
Peter Terry
assumed leadership, activity in the field of medicine technology,
science, education, history, art and commerce all but collapsed.
Europe entered the Dark Ages. Although the church amassed
immense wealth during these centuries, most of what defines
civilization disappeared. (Helen Ellerbe)
** The Church burned enormous amounts of literature. In 391 Christians
burned down one of the worlds greatest libraries in Alexandria, said to have
housed 700,000 rolls.
(The new Colombia Encyclopaedia, 61, and, Eisler, The Chalice and the
Blade.)
** All the books of the Gnostic Basilides, Porphyry's 36 volumes, papyrus
rolls of 27 schools of mysteries, and 270,000 ancient documents gathered by
Ptolemy Philadelphus were burned.
(Graham. Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, 444).
** Ancient academies of learning were closed. Education for anyone outside
of the church came to an end. And what little education there was during the
Middle Ages, while still limited to the clergy, was advocated by powerful
Kings as a means of providing themselves with capable administrators.
(Jeffrey Burton. Russell, a History of Medieval Christianity, 103.)
** The church opposed the study of grammar and Latin. Pope Gregory the l, or
Gregory the Great, a man thought to have been one of the greatest architects
of the medieval order objected to grammatical study. He writes: " I despise
the proper construction and cases, because I think it is very unfitting that
the words of the celestial oracle should be restricted by the rules of
Donatus \a well known grammarian/. ( Charles Homer Haskins, The Renaissance
of the 12th century, 96.)
** Gregory the Great also condemned education for all but the clergy as
folly and wickedness. He forbade laymen to read even the bible. He had the
library of Palatine Apollo burned, "lest it's secular literature distract
the faithful and the contemplation of heaven." ( Barbara G Walker, The
Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myths and Secrets, 208.)
** The Fourth Council of Cartharge in 398 forbade Bishops to even read the
books of gentiles. ( Haskins, The Renaissance of the 12th Century, 95.)
** The church father Jerome and early monastics in the fourth century
rejoiced that the classical authors were being forgotten. And his younger
monastic contempories were known to boast of their ignorance of everything
except Christian literature. (John H Smith, The Death of Classical Paganism,
247).
** After Christians had spent years destroying books and libraries, St. John
Chrysostom, the pre-eminent Greek father of the Church, proudly declared,
"Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has
vanished from the face of the earth. ( Walker, The woman's encyclopaedia of
Myths and Secrets, 208)
** Monastic libraries the only libraries left, were composed of books of
devotion. Even the most significant of monastic libraries carried little
aside from books on Christian theology. While monks did copy manuscripts,
such work was not esteemed for its intrinsic value but rather considered
part of the prescribed manual labour, necessary in the effort of "fighting
the devil in pen and ink," in the words of the Christian Cassiodorus.
(Haskins, The Renaissance of the 12th Century, 34.)
** The early Roman church had devastating impact upon artistic expression.
According to Roman Christianity, art should enhance and promote the RC and
it's values; it should not simply serve as an individuals creative
exploration and expression. New works of art which did not concur with the
churches ideology would not be created again before the renaissance. Marble
statues of ancient Rome were torn down, most notably Gregory the Great, and
made into lime. Architectural marbles and mosaics were either made into
lime or went to adorn Cathedrals all over Europe and as far away as
Westminster Abbey in London. The ravaging of marble works accounts for the
thin ornate slabs with ancient inscription still found in many churches
today. (Boorstin, The Discoverers, 581.)
PeterT
Athanasius
On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:15:49 +1000, "Peter Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>** The Church had a devastating impact on society. As the Church
>assumed leadership, activity in the field of medicine technology,
>science, education, history, art and commerce all but collapsed.
>Europe entered the Dark Ages. Although the church amassed
>immense wealth during these centuries, most of what defines
>civilization disappeared. (Helen Ellerbe)
>
>** The Church burned enormous amounts of literature. In 391 Christians
>burned down one of the worlds greatest libraries in Alexandria, said to have
>housed 700,000 rolls.
>(The new Colombia Encyclopaedia, 61, and, Eisler, The Chalice and the
>Blade.)
>
>** All the books of the Gnostic Basilides, Porphyry's 36 volumes, papyrus
>rolls of 27 schools of mysteries, and 270,000 ancient documents gathered by
>Ptolemy Philadelphus were burned.
>(Graham. Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, 444).
From:
http://www.bede.org.uk/Library2.htm
In conclusion, although Caesar was most probably responsible for the
loss of the Royal Library, the lack of any solid testimony before
Plutarch is distressing. Seneca could just as well be referring to a
destruction that did not involve Caesar. That the Library was already
missing when Caesar arrived remains a tantalising possibility which
may deserve further investigation.
Many, indeed probably the majority, of scholars claim that the Royal
Library existed long into the Christian era and cite the continuation
of intellectual activity in Alexandria as evidence. This is simply a
mistake since it is known that not only was there a library at the
Serapeum, but there was also one at the Caesarion as well[53]. To use
a modern example, the loss of the Bodleian Library in Oxford would not
necessitate a complete halt to academic activity in that city, not
least because there are many other smaller libraries to be found
there. There are no explicit references to the Royal Library existing
after about 100BC[54] while there are many saying that it had been
destroyed[55]. On this basis, the suggestion that it still existed
into the Christian era cannot be allowed to stand.
It can safely be said that the story of Christians destroying the
Serapeum library was originated by Edward Gibbon[87] in the late
eighteenth century when he read too much into his sources and this
story has been repeated ever since. Alexandria Rediscovered by
Jean-Yves Empereur, Cosmos by Carl Sagan and From the Holy Mountain by
William Dalyrymple are just three recent books to combine this myth
with the earlier loss of the Royal Library while even scholars such as
Luciano Canfora and Alfred Butler have tried to interpret the evidence
to support Gibbon.
The Serapeum library was probably founded as an adornment to the new
Roman temple. Although there are no details as to its size, it would
have been quite large enough to be confused with the earlier Royal
Library. The various descriptions of the temple are highly significant
as one, from Aphthonius, has the library in situ, while another, from
Ammianus Marcellinus, says it is gone. Both these sources will be
examined in some detail.
In the modern world, the Library of Alexandria has been used as a
parable against tyranny and religion as Caesar, Islam or Christianity
were blamed for its loss. It is portrayed as the repository of all
ancient wisdom but for whose loss the Dark Ages might never have
happened and science could have progressed much more smoothly and
quickly. The truth is more satisfying for being more reasonable. The
Royal Library was an important institution in the history of
literature but its destruction in the first century BC did not spell
the end of ancient scholarship and Alexandria remained the
Mediterranean’s intellectual capital for seven centuries afterwards.
One of the reasons it could do so was the foundation of other
libraries like that in the Serapeum and the desire of the Roman
Emperors to patronise the city. At last, the Arab invasion ended the
story and our inheritance from the ancient world had to be preserved
in Constantinople and Baghdad.
Peace and grace
Athanasius, Deacon and sinner.
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au (REMOVE is spam trap-please remove it from the email address).
"The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is
catholic, but not Roman. It isn't non-denominational - it is pre-denominational. It has believed,
taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost
2000 years ago."
"If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world." St Athanasius.
Tom P
"Athanasius" <dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:aa1f71ln9978i3l9m...@4ax.com...
> Christ has Risen!
>
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:15:49 +1000, "Peter Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >** The Church had a devastating impact on society. As the Church
> >assumed leadership, activity in the field of medicine technology,
> >science, education, history, art and commerce all but collapsed.
> >Europe entered the Dark Ages. Although the church amassed
> >immense wealth during these centuries, most of what defines
> >civilization disappeared. (Helen Ellerbe)
> >
Western Europe. Did the "Dark Ages" effect the Eastern Empire in the same
manner? It seems to me the "Dark Ages" did not impact Ireland or Iberia
much, but seemed to be restricted to those parts of Europe overrun
repeatedly by tribes from the east and north as was the case with England,
France, the Rhineland, and parts of Italy. I would say that those invasions
which included the looting and burning of centers of learning and culture
were more responsible for the degradation of European culture during the
first half of the Medieval period.
> >** The Church burned enormous amounts of literature. In 391 Christians
> >burned down one of the worlds greatest libraries in Alexandria, said to
have
> >housed 700,000 rolls.
> >(The new Colombia Encyclopaedia, 61, and, Eisler, The Chalice and the
> >Blade.)
> >
Were all of the "rolls" burned indiscriminately? Does your term "rolls"
imply that only scrolls were burned or do you include all literary media to
include codices? Perhaps this poster can name any institution or group
controlling the force of the state or tribe that did not destroy the culture
it conquered. I would enjoy reading such a post and discussing it.
> >** All the books of the Gnostic Basilides, Porphyry's 36 volumes, papyrus
> >rolls of 27 schools of mysteries, and 270,000 ancient documents gathered
by
> >Ptolemy Philadelphus were burned.
> >(Graham. Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, 444).
>
Were these volumes singled out for destruction?
An interesting assessment. Thank you. It seems to me that Alexandria
continued as an intellectual and cultural beacon long after the Islamic
conquest. Didn't Maimonides and others teach and write there during the
later Medieval period?
Kirche und Amt
And today, the secular "fathers" kill MILLIONS of unborn babies a year.
(Just in America, mind you.) And you are crying about books?!?!?
Approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year (based on
assumptions by the Alan Guttmacher Institute).
1996 - 1,365,700
1995 - 1,363,700
1994 - 1,431,000
1993 - 1,500,000
1992 - 1,528,900
1991 - 1,556,500
1990 - 1,608,600
1989 - 1,566,900
1988 - 1,590,800
1987 - 1,559,100
1986 - 1,574,000
1985 - 1,588,600
1984 - 1,577,200
1983 - 1,575,000
1982 - 1,573,900
1981 - 1,577,300
1980 - 1,553,900
1979 - 1,497,700
1978 - 1,409,600
1977 - 1,316,700
1976 - 1,179,300
1975 - 1,034,200
1974 - 898,600
1973 - 774,600
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
Excuse me if I can't get as mad about Books and Art and Science... and
shame on you for not being more angry at the daily Nazi-like atrocities
happening in your own country. (wheter it be Europe, The Americas Asia,
Australia or wherever.) Also remember, this is happening in the modern
world, not 400 to 1700 years ago.
--Carl
Peter Terry
"Kirche und Amt" <no_no_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115159254.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
are all essentially Christian.
PeterT
> --Carl
>
The Great Hairy One
dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au says...
> Christ has Risen!
It's amazing what viagra can do these days!
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
Peter James
<no_no_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I understand that some religious persons can not countenance
abortion. What I have never understood is the compulsion to force the
rest of the world into accepting the same beliefs.
Have you ever considered that in the numbers you quote in your
original posting might reflect the choices of the women themselves.
Would you force a pregnant woman to carry to term, when that
pregnancy might be the result of rape, incest, might not be capable of
living after birth due to irremediable birth defects etc, etc.
-
Peter James
Remove AT to reply
Peter Terry
"Peter James" <pfj...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bk8h71lijuhaf823o...@4ax.com...
choose to abort are Catholics or protestants.
Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in
the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%,
and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18%
of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as
"Born-again/Evangelical".
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Catholic women "more likely" to have abortion
http://www.cathnews.com/news/408/35.php
PeterT
> Peter James
Michael
<momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ** The Church had a devastating impact on society. As the Church
> assumed leadership, activity in the field of medicine technology,
> science, education, history, art and commerce all but collapsed.
> Europe entered the Dark Ages. Although the church amassed
> immense wealth during these centuries, most of what defines
> civilization disappeared. (Helen Ellerbe)
>
> ** The Church burned enormous amounts of literature.
Except that it saved pagan Rome from utter destruction. Snipped balance
of pagan revisionism.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
Michael
"Kirche und Amt" <no_no_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Neo pagans and feminazis on the radical religious left aren't concerned
about the atrocities of this time, they only want to empathize and fear
monger over things already addressed and resolved centuries ago to avert
attention from their own errors. Terry isn't going to like this one if
you post it, ooops, too late.
Kirche und Amt
>are all essentially Christian.
>PeterT
Rather telling is your response. The Government officials who allow
such things (or have allowed them in the past) are speaking volumes as
to their "Christianity". Especially the ones in Communist China, Japan,
India and all over the Middle East. I wasn't aware that those 4 billion
people were led by "Christians".
--Carl
Kirche und Amt
It certainly does take the sting out of reality when they pretend it
doesn't exist. It's much easier to beat up on 1700 year old dead dogs
rather than the ones who bite back, eh?
--Carl
Paul Duca
mike...@ix.netcom.com wrote on 5/4/05 9:31 AM:
You can worry about it, since you have nothing better to do...but at
least you admit God is not lavishing you with material rewards (such as
fancy new vehicles) in return.
Paul
Kirche und Amt
Nope... the whole "prosperity theology" makes me ill.
God has lavished me with the Word and Sacrament. It is far better than
gold.
--Carl
Peter Terry
"Kirche und Amt" <no_no_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115215778.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Although I don't see sex as a moral issue, rather one of
serious responsibility, termination is an issue which each individual
has a right to decide upon.
Statistically, Christian women in the WEST appear more prone to
termination. I wonder why?
PeterT
> --Carl
>
Peter Terry
"Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0405050928080001@localhost...
> In article <4276f...@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ** The Church had a devastating impact on society. As the Church
>> assumed leadership, activity in the field of medicine technology,
>> science, education, history, art and commerce all but collapsed.
>> Europe entered the Dark Ages. Although the church amassed
>> immense wealth during these centuries, most of what defines
>> civilization disappeared. (Helen Ellerbe)
>>
>> ** The Church burned enormous amounts of literature.
>
> Except that it saved pagan Rome from utter destruction. Snipped balance
> of pagan revisionism.
>
that does not find it's roots in paganism. Facts are, Roman Christianity
became the reformation of paganism itself.
PeterT
Kirche und Amt
I don't know if that is true or not, because I have heard that abortons
in Asia are STAGGERING because of
1. Population restrictions
2. Abortions of girls because boys are preferred.
So I somehow doubt that statistic (even though I will look into it,
more in order to be fair.)
--Carl
Michael
<momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-0405050928080001@localhost...
> > In article <4276f...@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ** The Church had a devastating impact on society. As the Church
> >> assumed leadership, activity in the field of medicine technology,
> >> science, education, history, art and commerce all but collapsed.
> >> Europe entered the Dark Ages. Although the church amassed
> >> immense wealth during these centuries, most of what defines
> >> civilization disappeared. (Helen Ellerbe)
> >>
> >> ** The Church burned enormous amounts of literature.
> >
> > Except that it saved pagan Rome from utter destruction. Snipped balance
> > of pagan revisionism.
> >
> Rubbish! There is hardly a ritual or doctrine within Catholicism
> that does not find it's roots in paganism. Facts are, Roman Christianity
> became the reformation of paganism itself.
The only problem with your thesis is that Christianity preceeded paganism
which copied things that later found their way back into the church,
sometimes in a different form than it left. Paganism was born with Cain
and catapulted into an institution by Nimrod, but it was Cain, Nimrod,
Hammarabi et al that copied things of Adam, Enoch, and Noah, not the other
way around.
The Great Hairy One
says...
> The only problem with your thesis is that Christianity preceeded paganism
Incorrect. Paganism (the worship of "natural" gods and the like)
precedes christianity probably by around 8000 years. Religions
identified as paganistic include the Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian,
early Chinese, various tribal religions and so on. All of these fall
under the heading of "paganism".
If you are rather using the modern paganistic church for your
definition, you need to understand that it find's it's roots in druidic
and celtic culture - which still predates christianity.
> which copied things that later found their way back into the church,
> sometimes in a different form than it left.
It has been historically documented that the christian church absorbed
and modified the paganistic rituals and celebrations, to try to get
converts.
> Paganism was born with Cain
> and catapulted into an institution by Nimrod, but it was Cain, Nimrod,
> Hammarabi et al that copied things of Adam, Enoch, and Noah, not the other
> way around.
Uh-huh. Please explain how Cain and all that celebrated easter before
your particular jesus-myth supposedly died and came back to life? Please
explain how Cain and all that celebrated christmas before your
particular jesus-myth was mythically born?
Apart from all that - Cain et al never existed mate. They are just
further parts of the myth.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
Peter Terry
"The Great Hairy One" <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce622cdd...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
overrides
anything in history.
PeterT
Michael
<momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Exactly....but to Terry documented fact has no meaning and must be denied
without any evidence at all, that entrenched doctrine of denial overrides
documented writings in history.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-0605050917490001@localhost>, mike...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
>
> > The only problem with your thesis is that Christianity preceeded paganism
>
> Incorrect. Paganism (the worship of "natural" gods and the like)
> precedes christianity probably by around 8000 years.
How so? Adam walked with the Father in the cool of the evening, you can't
get any better Christianity than that.
Religions
> identified as paganistic include the Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian,
> early Chinese, various tribal religions and so on. All of these fall
> under the heading of "paganism".
But all came after Cain invented pagan religious practices, what is your point?
>
> If you are rather using the modern paganistic church for your
> definition, you need to understand that it find's it's roots in druidic
> and celtic culture - which still predates christianity.
Hardly, Christianity began before the Tree of Life, long before druidic
and celtic culture.
>
> > which copied things that later found their way back into the church,
> > sometimes in a different form than it left.
>
> It has been historically documented that the christian church absorbed
> and modified the paganistic rituals and celebrations, to try to get
> converts.
It has not been documented that some of them were based in Christianity
before that.
>
> > Paganism was born with Cain
> > and catapulted into an institution by Nimrod, but it was Cain, Nimrod,
> > Hammarabi et al that copied things of Adam, Enoch, and Noah, not the other
> > way around.
>
> Uh-huh. Please explain how Cain and all that celebrated easter before
> your particular jesus-myth supposedly died and came back to life?
Tee hee hee, Jesus was slain before the foundations of the world, a long
time before Cain was born. Passover (which includes Unleavened Bread and
First Fruits, called Easter) was observed by Cain by the mark given to him
by God so that the angel of death passed over him as the angel does to us
when we place the blood of the Lamb over the doorpost of our hearts.
Please
> explain how Cain and all that celebrated christmas before your
> particular jesus-myth was mythically born?
Tabranacles (called Christmas) which Christ fulfilled at His birth in the
flesh and tabranacled with men was well known to Cain's parents. Who do
you think the Tree of Life in the garden was?
>
> Apart from all that - Cain et al never existed mate. They are just
> further parts of the myth.
So say the fundie and radical religious left, all without any evidence.
Bob
>
>>Apart from all that - Cain et al never existed mate. They are just
>>further parts of the myth.
>
>
> So say the fundie and radical religious left, all without any evidence.
>
I don't see any evidence to show they actually existed in the first place.
Before you have to 'prove' something does not exist, there has to be
some kind of evidence that it might exist after all, and then you can
refute that evidence.
But, since there is no evidence to begin with, why, you are just trying
to shift the burden of proof.
The Great Hairy One
> Exactly....but to Mike fact has no meaning, that entrenched doctrine
> overrides anything in history.
That's disappointing. I prefer arguing with people who have open minds.
Maybe we can open this one! :)
The Great Hairy One
says...
> Exactly....but to Terry documented fact has no meaning and must be denied
> without any evidence at all, that entrenched doctrine of denial overrides
> documented writings in history.
Well, we'll see how we go. :) I've got an open mind.
The Great Hairy One
says...
> How so? Adam walked with the Father in the cool of the evening, you can't
> get any better Christianity than that.
That might be "good" christianity, but it isn't placed within a definite
timeframe within human history. Since we can trace human history back to
the Stone Age, well before christianity was developed, we can easily see
that paganism predates christianity.
> But all came after Cain invented pagan religious practices, what is your point?
Cain is a myth, and never actually existed. He's a metaphor for nomadic
tribes which settled down to become city dwellers, as compared to Adam,
who represents farming culture.
> Hardly, Christianity began before the Tree of Life, long before druidic
> and celtic culture.
Actually, no. The druidic religion can be traced back to around 1500BCE,
although since records were verbal, much of this is based on
archaeological work.
Christianity did not begin, as such, until around 50CE. Well into the
Roman times at that point, and well after the Egyptians, Greeks, etc.,
etc.
> It has not been documented that some of them were based in Christianity
> before that.
Yes, that's correct. It's not been documented because christianity
didn't exist until after around 50CE, well after all these other
religions.
> Tee hee hee, Jesus was slain before the foundations of the world, a long
> time before Cain was born.
Oh? Where is that written? Please cite some biblical verse to back up
your assumption here.
And where do you get "a long time before Cain" from? According to
christian writings, Cain was born from Adam and Eve - which wasn't that
long after the world was meant to be created.
> Passover (which includes Unleavened Bread and
> First Fruits, called Easter) was observed by Cain by the mark given to him
> by God so that the angel of death passed over him as the angel does to us
> when we place the blood of the Lamb over the doorpost of our hearts.
Passover was observed well before the jews called it such. It was known
as the Spring Equinox, and was celebrated by pretty much all ancient
religions.
Cain, as a myth, was not introduced until much later.
> Tabranacles (called Christmas)
Can you cite a source for this?
> which Christ fulfilled at His birth in the
> flesh and tabranacled with men was well known to Cain's parents.
This is not within the christian belief spectrum - where are you getting
this from? Is is gnostic?
> Who do you think the Tree of Life in the garden was?
Not the christian jesus-myth. You can't eat an apple from a person, as
they don't grow apples, mate.
> So say the fundie and radical religious left, all without any evidence.
Hmmm, considering I'm neither a fundie nor religious, I don't fit into
your definition.
Futher, it is very easy to show that the biblical Cain never existed.
Archaeological evidence has humanity developing in Africa for millions
of years before christianity, as well as showing that humans (Homo
sapiens) were present pretty much everywhere well and truly before
christianity was developed.
Peter Terry
"The Great Hairy One" <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote in message
> In article <427be...@news.iprimus.com.au>, momb...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> Exactly....but to Mike fact has no meaning, that entrenched doctrine
>> overrides anything in history.
>
> That's disappointing. I prefer arguing with people who have open minds.
> Maybe we can open this one! :)
>
to be simply enjoyed as a beacon of stupidity!
PeterT
Peter Terry
>
>Adam walked with the Father in the cool of the evening, you can't
> get any better Christianity than that.
>
foundation in fact or history, was invented by zealots so
that the primitives and the brain dead like you could be sold the
idea that while we were creations in the image of god, god
is not responsible for the human debacle because we can now
blame Eve the sinner, for our fall from grace. Fact are, humans
evolved from animals, and there was NO Adam and Eve, Cane
and Able, unless of course you consider God to be the
king ape?
>
> So say the fundie and radical religious left, all without any evidence.
>
POT KETTLE BLACK
PeterT
icono
"Peter Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4279c...@news.iprimus.com.au...
I must disagree.
RCC is still paganism, pure and simple. Just the names used changed.
Peter Terry
"icono" <ic...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:427d5caa$0$29796$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Thomas Hobbs the respected seventeenth century philosopher and political
thinker said," the papacy is non other than the ghost of the deceased of the
Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave there of.
PeterT
Michael
som...@somewhere.com wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> >
> >>Apart from all that - Cain et al never existed mate. They are just
> >>further parts of the myth.
> >
> >
> > So say the fundie and radical religious left, all without any evidence.
> >
> I don't see any evidence to show they actually existed in the first place.
>
> Before you have to 'prove' something does not exist, there has to be
> some kind of evidence that it might exist after all, and then you can
> refute that evidence.
Dust off your Bible.
>
> But, since there is no evidence to begin with, why, you are just trying
> to shift the burden of proof.
--
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <427be...@news.iprimus.com.au>, momb...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Exactly....but to Mike fact has no meaning, that entrenched doctrine
> > overrides anything in history.
>
> That's disappointing. I prefer arguing with people who have open minds.
> Maybe we can open this one! :)
Tee hee hee, coming from you, I accept the false witness as a compliment.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-0705051344250001@localhost>, mike...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
>
> > How so? Adam walked with the Father in the cool of the evening, you can't
> > get any better Christianity than that.
>
> That might be "good" christianity, but it isn't placed within a definite
> timeframe within human history. Since we can trace human history back to
> the Stone Age, well before christianity was developed, we can easily see
> that paganism predates christianity.
Only if you believe in the evolutionary fairy tale time frame complete
with the caveman mythology.
>
> > But all came after Cain invented pagan religious practices, what is
your point?
>
> Cain is a myth,
And your proofs for that?
and never actually existed.
According to whom? And upon what evidence?
He's a metaphor for nomadic
> tribes which settled down to become city dwellers, as compared to Adam,
> who represents farming culture.
I thought that you had an open mind? Where is the evidence to support
your conclusions?
>
> > Hardly, Christianity began before the Tree of Life, long before druidic
> > and celtic culture.
>
> Actually, no. The druidic religion can be traced back to around 1500BCE,
> although since records were verbal, much of this is based on
> archaeological work.
Interestingly, near the time of the Exodus.
>
> Christianity did not begin, as such, until around 50CE.
At least according to the narrow minds of the radical religious left.
Well into the
> Roman times at that point, and well after the Egyptians, Greeks, etc.,
> etc.
>
> > It has not been documented that some of them were based in Christianity
> > before that.
>
> Yes, that's correct. It's not been documented because christianity
> didn't exist until after around 50CE, well after all these other
> religions.
And the documentation is?
>
> > Tee hee hee, Jesus was slain before the foundations of the world, a long
> > time before Cain was born.
>
> Oh? Where is that written? Please cite some biblical verse to back up
> your assumption here.
Revelation 13:8* And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world.
>
> And where do you get "a long time before Cain" from? According to
> christian writings, Cain was born from Adam and Eve - which wasn't that
> long after the world was meant to be created.
Depends upon your intrepretation of the Hebrew "tohum vav bohuw".
>
> > Passover (which includes Unleavened Bread and
> > First Fruits, called Easter) was observed by Cain by the mark given to him
> > by God so that the angel of death passed over him as the angel does to us
> > when we place the blood of the Lamb over the doorpost of our hearts.
>
> Passover was observed well before the jews called it such. It was known
> as the Spring Equinox, and was celebrated by pretty much all ancient
> religions.
And your documentation that Adam did not celebrate passover which began
the practice, later corrupted?
>
> Cain, as a myth, was not introduced until much later.
And your documentatin for your conclusion?
>
> > Tabranacles (called Christmas)
>
> Can you cite a source for this?
Luke 1, starting with the Course of Abia.
>
> > which Christ fulfilled at His birth in the
> > flesh and tabranacled with men was well known to Cain's parents.
>
> This is not within the christian belief spectrum - where are you getting
> this from? Is is gnostic?
What is gnostic about Christ tabranacling with men?
>
> > Who do you think the Tree of Life in the garden was?
>
> Not the christian jesus-myth. You can't eat an apple from a person, as
> they don't grow apples, mate.
Tee hee hee, you seem to have a kindergarten understanding of Scripture,
And where is this 'apple' in Scripture? You reject what you call the
'jesus myth' which is in Scripture but freely accept the 'apple mythology'
which does not appear in Scripture.
>
> > So say the fundie and radical religious left, all without any evidence.
>
> Hmmm, considering I'm neither a fundie nor religious, I don't fit into
> your definition.
Somehow, you have beliefs that appear to be well at home there.
>
> Futher, it is very easy to show that the biblical Cain never existed.
We are all ears.
> Archaeological evidence has humanity developing in Africa for millions
> of years before christianity,
Tee hee hee, you mean lucy the chimpanzee?
as well as showing that humans (Homo
> sapiens) were present pretty much everywhere well and truly before
> christianity was developed.
Only if you have a closed mind that Christianity didn't begin in the
Garden of Eden and couln't begin until Christ was crucified the second
time in the physical.
The Great Hairy One
2ivekht.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
> Tee hee hee, coming from you, I accept the false witness as a compliment.
I'm not sure what you mean here, mate.
The Great Hairy One
2ivekht.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
> Only if you believe in the evolutionary fairy tale time frame complete
> with the caveman mythology.
Evolutionary fairy tale? Caveman mythology? Uh-huh. So, tell me then,
who painted the Australian Aboriginal cave prints in 60,000BCE?
> And your proofs for that?
I can't prove a negative. You know that mate. But looking at the
evidence, we can see that humanity did not descend from two people about
6,000 years ago.
> According to whom? And upon what evidence?
According to every actual historian on the planet mate. The evidence we
find in archaeological digs all over the world.
> I thought that you had an open mind?
I do - when presented with actual evidence.
> Where is the evidence to support your conclusions?
The simple fact that
I) humanity has been around for nearly 100,000 years
ii) humans were present on every continent except Antarctica by ~50,000
years ago
iii) humans had written records dating back to almost 4000BCE, and not
one mentions Cain, apart from the books of one small Middle Eastern
tribe
iv) many other current day humans have their own creation myths, none of
which mention Adam, Eve or Cain.
> Interestingly, near the time of the Exodus.
Yes. The Jews fled from the Egyptians. Neither of which were christian,
you know.
> At least according to the narrow minds of the radical religious left.
When was the NT written? When did Paul establish the christian church?
> And the documentation is?
When was the christian church established then?
Are you going to try to claim that the Jews were christian...?
> Revelation 13:8* And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
> whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the
> foundation of the world.
Hmm, that's fascinating. So the christian jesus-myth was slain since the
christian god-myth created the world? How does that fit in with the
Trinity?
And where do you get the whole "jesus-myth in the garden of eden" thingy
from?
> Depends upon your intrepretation of the Hebrew "tohum vav bohuw".
Are there several possible interpretations? If so, what are they?
> And your documentation that Adam did not celebrate passover which began
> the practice, later corrupted?
Adam, as I have said before, did not exist. He is a mythical being.
Humanity existed long before Adam was supposed to.
Furthermore, many cultures who had no myths of Adam and the rest of the
christian creation myth still celebrated the Spring Equinox.
> And your documentatin for your conclusion?
When was the Torah written? And by whom?
> Luke 1, starting with the Course of Abia.
Which has nothing to do with "tabranacled". Whatever "tabranacled"
actual is.
> What is gnostic about Christ tabranacling with men?
The fact that no christian I know has claimed this before.
> Tee hee hee, you seem to have a kindergarten understanding of Scripture,
> And where is this 'apple' in Scripture? You reject what you call the
> 'jesus myth' which is in Scripture but freely accept the 'apple mythology'
> which does not appear in Scripture.
Um, no. All of the book of genesis is a myth. It's a nice fairy tale,
but that's all mate.
> Somehow, you have beliefs that appear to be well at home there.
Nope. Sorry, try again. :)
> We are all ears.
See above.
> Tee hee hee, you mean lucy the chimpanzee?
Hmmm. So you reject evolution, do you? Paleontology? Archaeology?
Astronomy? Physics? Medicine? Literature? Theology?
> Only if you have a closed mind that Christianity didn't begin in the
> Garden of Eden and couln't begin until Christ was crucified the second
> time in the physical.
Actually, christianity didn't begin until around 50CE. Prior to that it
didn't exist. It really is that simple mate.
Peter Terry
"The Great Hairy One" <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceb4a3de...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> In article <mikeburt-0905051023030001@user-
> 2ivekht.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>> Tee hee hee, coming from you, I accept the false witness as a compliment.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here, mate.
>
who might just get the wrong impression. ;-)
robert bowman
> Rubbish! There is hardly a ritual or doctrine within Catholicism
> that does not find it's roots in paganism. Facts are, Roman Christianity
> became the reformation of paganism itself.
That explains my fondness for the Catholic church -- it preserves more of
the true Indo-European religious belief than the somber creations of
dyspeptic Protestants.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
The Great Hairy One
> Hey fella...careful with calling him mate, he's an American Catholic
> who might just get the wrong impression. ;-)
I'm an Aussie. We call everyone mate. If he can't hack it, that's his
problem, not mine.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
Peter Terry
"The Great Hairy One" <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote in message
> In article <4280a...@news.iprimus.com.au>, momb...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> Hey fella...careful with calling him mate, he's an American Catholic
>> who might just get the wrong impression. ;-)
>
> I'm an Aussie. We call everyone mate. If he can't hack it, that's his
> problem, not mine.
>
Peter Terry
"robert bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:1115728...@corp.com...
> Peter Terry wrote:
>
>> Rubbish! There is hardly a ritual or doctrine within Catholicism
>> that does not find it's roots in paganism. Facts are, Roman Christianity
>> became the reformation of paganism itself.
>
> That explains my fondness for the Catholic church -- it preserves more of
> the true Indo-European religious belief than the somber creations of
> dyspeptic Protestants.
>
Nightsky
wrote:
>May God Bless You
It would make more sense if you had said, "May God Bless Me".
>Michael
>GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY.
6.5% of the U. S. population dies before age 1.
>GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
Unless you have "faith", then you have no option.
>We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
If you are SO liberal, why did you vote for Bush?
Nightsky
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-0905051023030001@user-
> 2ivekht.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > Tee hee hee, coming from you, I accept the false witness as a compliment.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here, mate.
Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did
their fathers to the false prophets.
Tom
> In article <MPG.1ceb4a3de...@freenews.iinet.net.au>, The Great
> Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <mikeburt-0905051023030001@user-
>> 2ivekht.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>> > Tee hee hee, coming from you, I accept the false witness as a
>> > compliment.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean here, mate.
>
> Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did
> their fathers to the false prophets.
Tee hee hee, Burton is still at it.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-0905051035110001@user-
> 2ivekht.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > Only if you believe in the evolutionary fairy tale time frame complete
> > with the caveman mythology.
>
> Evolutionary fairy tale? Caveman mythology? Uh-huh. So, tell me then,
> who painted the Australian Aboriginal cave prints in 60,000BCE?
You mean 60,000 BC? What are the assumptions and limiting conditions
behind the conclusions of the dating technique which provided the
conclusion drawn from the evidence?
Using C-14, dinosaurs date to about 60,000 BC, but fundie evolutionists
disregard this evidence because they 'know' that they 'must have lived
much longer ago than that'. There is a lot ot tension between the
calibration assumptions of various dating techniques, change the
assumptions and the same evidence will lead one to a far different
conclusion.
>
> > And your proofs for that?
>
> I can't prove a negative.
You couldn't prove a positive.
You know that mate. But looking at the
> evidence, we can see that humanity did not descend from two people about
> 6,000 years ago.
What evidence are you looking at?
>
> > According to whom? And upon what evidence?
>
> According to every actual historian on the planet mate.
No, that is not exactly true.
>The evidence we
> find in archaeological digs all over the world.
Now you could begin to prove that statement, and the specific evidence is?
>
> > I thought that you had an open mind?
>
> I do - when presented with actual evidence.
We could begin with the actual evidence you calim proves your point, so
far you have offered, none.
>
> > Where is the evidence to support your conclusions?
>
> The simple fact that
>
> I) humanity has been around for nearly 100,000 years
come now, any fundie religious evolutionists can stretch that number much
farther back than that, all based upon tweaking the assumptions and
limiting conditions of the dating technique utilized.
> ii) humans were present on every continent except Antarctica by ~50,000
> years ago
According to what evidence relying upon what assumptions and limiting
conditions?
> iii) humans had written records dating back to almost 4000BCE, and not
> one mentions Cain,
Actually, one does.
apart from the books of one small Middle Eastern
> tribe
IOW, when the evidence doesn't prove your point, ignor the evidence.
> iv) many other current day humans have their own creation myths, none of
> which mention Adam, Eve or Cain.
So you say, the truth has been corrupted by many, but never completely
lost. My favorite is the more recent mythological invention, evolution.
>
> > Interestingly, near the time of the Exodus.
>
> Yes. The Jews fled from the Egyptians. Neither of which were christian,
> you know.
And where in the Scripture are those fleeing from Egypt called Jews?
>
> > At least according to the narrow minds of the radical religious left.
>
> When was the NT written? When did Paul establish the christian church?
The Christian ekkelesia was established in the Garden of Eden, there is
only one Ekkelesia.
>
> > And the documentation is?
>
> When was the christian church established then?
Asked and answered.
>
> Are you going to try to claim that the Jews were christian...?
How do you define Jew? The term can have two entirely different meanings,
1) adherents of the Jewish faith and/or 2) physical descendants of Judah.
People who adhere to the Talmud and the Jewish faith are not Christian,
there are probably many descendants of Judah who are Christian. BTW, the
Talmud was codified about 300 AD and the earliest writing were in Babylon
about 500 BC.
>
> > Revelation 13:8* And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
> > whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the
> > foundation of the world.
>
> Hmm, that's fascinating. So the christian jesus-myth was slain since the
> christian god-myth created the world? How does that fit in with the
> Trinity?
How do you define the Trinity? Have you always had a reading disiability?
Jesus did not say that the Lamb was slain before the creation of the
world.
>
> And where do you get the whole "jesus-myth in the garden of eden" thingy
> from?
Not myth, but you can read about it in Genesis 1-3.
>
> > Depends upon your intrepretation of the Hebrew "tohum vav bohuw".
>
> Are there several possible interpretations? If so, what are they?
1) that the earth was created void and without form
2) that the earth became void and without form.
My understanding of the Hebrew is the latter, not the former.
>
> > And your documentation that Adam did not celebrate passover which began
> > the practice, later corrupted?
>
> Adam, as I have said before, did not exist.
The only documeent in evidence says he did, what are your proofs that
invalidate the evidence?
>He is a mythical being.
BAsed upon what proofs and evidence?
> Humanity existed long before Adam was supposed to.
Based upon what proofs and evidence? You make a lot of statements without
providing any evidence.
>
> Furthermore, many cultures who had no myths of Adam and the rest of the
> christian creation myth still celebrated the Spring Equinox.
Why wouldn't they? God gave the seasons before Adam, and Adam handed that
knowledge down to all mankind, even though some of them corrupted the
knowledge.
>
> > And your documentatin for your conclusion?
>
> When was the Torah written?
Probably originally during the dispensation of conscience by Enoch as the
Israelites in Egypt knew much of the Torah long before they ever heard of
Moses Moses received the same Word through the Spirit, which doesn't
change, and physically wrote down the original of the current surviving
work, one would not have expected any major differences from the Word
preached by Enoch and parts later copied with changes by Hammarabi.
>And by whom?
You don't know? By His Holy Spirit through Moses as givin to Him by Jesus
Christ who is One with the Father.
>
> > Luke 1, starting with the Course of Abia.
>
> Which has nothing to do with "tabranacled". Whatever "tabranacled"
> actual is.
Tabranacle has to do with God tabranacling or living with men as He did
with Adam, and with the Israelites after Egypt, and the Spirit which
descended to David, and in Jesus Christ, and in my heart and in millions
of other placces. That is what the Festival of Tabrahacles is all about.
All religions of the world are a frenzy of man seeking God, Christianity
is quite the reversse, God seeking man, to tabranacle within man.
>
> > What is gnostic about Christ tabranacling with men?
>
> The fact that no christian I know has claimed this before.
Celebrate the diversity. You probably don't know many Christians, most
use the term Christmas. God tabranacled with men in the Tabranacle, but
that was only a prophesy of Him tabranacling with men in the flesh called
Yeshoua ha Mashiyack (hebrew) or in English, Jesus Christ.
>
> > Tee hee hee, you seem to have a kindergarten understanding of Scripture,
> > And where is this 'apple' in Scripture? You reject what you call the
> > 'jesus myth' which is in Scripture but freely accept the 'apple mythology'
> > which does not appear in Scripture.
>
> Um, no. All of the book of genesis is a myth. It's a nice fairy tale,
> but that's all mate.
Tee hee hee, you seem to have a kindergarten understanding of Scripture.
BTW, there is no apple anywhere in the text.
>
> > Somehow, you have beliefs that appear to be well at home there.
>
> Nope. Sorry, try again. :)
Try what again?
>
> > We are all ears.
>
> See above.
Tee hee hee, you seem to have a kindergarten understanding of Scripture.
And your proofs that the Scripture is wrong? Hint: first you must
demonstrate that you understand what Scripture said in the first place.
>
> > Tee hee hee, you mean lucy the chimpanzee?
>
> Hmmm. So you reject evolution, do you?
That mythological fairy tale? It is a great hypothesis, interesting
religious belief, but fails to raise to the level of theory. I have a
great interest in science, and why wouldn't I? Science consistently
proves the glory of God in His Creation.
>Paleontology?
I love Paleontology, don't always believe in the fairy tale evolutionary
conclusions drawn from the evidence however.
Archaeology?
I love Archaeology, don't always believe in the evolutionary fairy tale
conclusions drawn from the evidence however. Archaeology is one of the
greatest proofs of Scripture, especially the determination of Jericho
being the oldest known city, the discovery of Babylon once thought to by
mythical, etc etc etc .
> Astronomy?
I love Astronomy, don't always believe in the evolutionary fairy tale
evolutionary conclusions drawn from the evidence however.Astronomy is one
of the greatest proofs of Scripture, especially adaptations of the older
big bang theory.
>Physics?
I love Physics, don't always believe in the evolutionary fairy tale
conclusions drawn from the evidence however. Physics is one of the
greatest proofs of Scripture, especially quantum mechanics and string
theory where what is unseen is more important that what is seen.
>Medicine?
I love Medicine, don't always believe in the evolutionary fairy tale
conclusions drawn from the evidence however. Medicine is one of the
greatest proofs of Scripture, it is God's creation that heals itself,
after the fall, however, sometimes needing assistance from the local
shrubbery.
>Literature?
I love Literature, don't always believe in fairy tale evolutionary fiction.
Theology?
I don;t really like theology, I just stick to the Word of God, He wrote it
pretty well.
>
> > Only if you have a closed mind that Christianity didn't begin in the
> > Garden of Eden and couln't begin until Christ was crucified the second
> > time in the physical.
>
> Actually, christianity didn't begin until around 50CE. Prior to that it
> didn't exist. It really is that simple mate.
>
> Cheers,
> TGHO
--
Michael
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <4280a...@news.iprimus.com.au>, momb...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Hey fella...careful with calling him mate, he's an American Catholic
> > who might just get the wrong impression. ;-)
>
> I'm an Aussie. We call everyone mate. If he can't hack it, that's his
> problem, not mine.
>
> Cheers,
> TGHO
I haven't objected, I even like Kiwi's. it appears to be some one else's
problem who is compasionately worried about your inclusivity and tolerance
to diversity, mate.
Fire up the barbie.
Bob
> In article <MPG.1ceb4dac6...@freenews.iinet.net.au>, The Great
> Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <mikeburt-0905051035110001@user-
>>2ivekht.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>
>>>Only if you believe in the evolutionary fairy tale time frame complete
>>>with the caveman mythology.
>>
>>Evolutionary fairy tale? Caveman mythology? Uh-huh. So, tell me then,
>>who painted the Australian Aboriginal cave prints in 60,000BCE?
>
>
> You mean 60,000 BC? What are the assumptions and limiting conditions
> behind the conclusions of the dating technique which provided the
> conclusion drawn from the evidence?
>
> Using C-14, dinosaurs date to about 60,000 BC, but fundie evolutionists
> disregard this evidence because they 'know' that they 'must have lived
> much longer ago than that'. There is a lot ot tension between the
> calibration assumptions of various dating techniques, change the
> assumptions and the same evidence will lead one to a far different
> conclusion.
>
Sigh, another idiot who doesn't understand science makes scientific
pronouncements. Because of the length of halflife of c14, the
accuracy of dating can not go beyond 40K. To date things that
have actually fossilised, other radiodating techniques are used.
>
Bob
> In article <MPG.1ce7e276d...@freenews.iinet.net.au>, The Great
> Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <mikeburt-0705051344250001@localhost>, mike...@ix.netcom.com
>>says...
>>
>>
>>>How so? Adam walked with the Father in the cool of the evening, you can't
>>>get any better Christianity than that.
>>
>>That might be "good" christianity, but it isn't placed within a definite
>>timeframe within human history. Since we can trace human history back to
>>the Stone Age, well before christianity was developed, we can easily see
>>that paganism predates christianity.
>
>
> Only if you believe in the evolutionary fairy tale time frame complete
> with the caveman mythology.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>But all came after Cain invented pagan religious practices, what is
>
> your point?
>
>>Cain is a myth,
>
>
> And your proofs for that?
>
> and never actually existed.
>
> According to whom? And upon what evidence?
>
> He's a metaphor for nomadic
>
To give you evidence you could possiblty understand, I suggest you take
a course in biblical hebrew, and read Genesisis in the original
language. Go to your local synaguague, and the rabbi will be glad to help.
The Great Hairy One
2ivemd8.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
<big snip>
I already answered this post. See the above thread. Please do not repeat
posts.
Thank you,
The Great Hairy One
2iverao.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
> Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did
> their fathers to the false prophets.
So you're saying that if people speak good of me, that they are false
prophets? How's that work?
Cheers,
TGHO
The Great Hairy One
2ivemd8.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
> I haven't objected, I even like Kiwi's.
Kiwis are pretty cool. Although their cricket team sucks. :)
> it appears to be some one else's
> problem who is compasionately worried about your inclusivity and tolerance
> to diversity, mate.
I'm quite tolerant. And I love diversity. Cripes, mate, I live in
Sydney. Most multicultural city in the world!
> Fire up the barbie.
To wet and windy here today mate. Good day for sitting inside and
posting to the newsgroups. :)
The Great Hairy One
2ivemd8.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
> You mean 60,000 BC? What are the assumptions and limiting conditions
> behind the conclusions of the dating technique which provided the
> conclusion drawn from the evidence?
>
> Using C-14, dinosaurs date to about 60,000 BC, but fundie evolutionists
> disregard this evidence because they 'know' that they 'must have lived
> much longer ago than that'. There is a lot ot tension between the
> calibration assumptions of various dating techniques, change the
> assumptions and the same evidence will lead one to a far different
> conclusion.
Ah, dude, C-14 dating is not used to date dinosaur bones. Or anything
beyond about 30,000 years old. It's not reliable enough. Other methods
are used, and they are quite reliable at much longer time periods.
If you are going to claim that radiometric dating is not reliable, or
has major problems, you will need to prove this. Every single scientist
working in that particular field accepts that the system works, it is
accurate and we can (and do) use it to date rocks, fossils and anything
else we find of interest.
You know that if you do disprove it, you're up for a Nobel prize, right?
And a permanent place in history. For not only do you have to disprove
radiometric dating, you have to disprove the Theory of the Periodic
Table, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Radioactive
Decay. So go right for it. :)
> You couldn't prove a positive.
Actually, I could. If Cain did exist in reality, and wasn't a myth, it
would be quite possible to prove he did exist. Such as his tomb, or the
remains of the city he was claimed to have built. Or genetic data
showing that he was one of the main progenitors of modern humans. Or
ancient documents describing him or his offspring or his history.
Since we have none of this data, we can assume that he did not exist. We
can also correlate the stories in the bible to the myths of the time,
and show that the Cain-figure was actually a metaphor for the nomadic
tribes who settled down to town dwelling.
> What evidence are you looking at?
Genetic data for one. Historical data for another.
> No, that is not exactly true.
Then refute it. Provide evidence to support your claim.
> Now you could begin to prove that statement, and the specific evidence is?
Where is the city Cain is claimed to have founded? How did Cain's
descendant pre-date him, and arrive in Australia tens of thousands of
years before he was meant to exist?
> We could begin with the actual evidence you calim proves your point, so
> far you have offered, none.
I've offered plenty. If you want to disprove it, you need to provide
factual data, not hand waving and blind faith.
> come now, any fundie religious evolutionists can stretch that number much
> farther back than that, all based upon tweaking the assumptions and
> limiting conditions of the dating technique utilized.
Nope. Modern humanity, as town dwellers, farmers and early nation-states
probably originated around 10,000BCE. Read Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs
and Steel".
> According to what evidence relying upon what assumptions and limiting
> conditions?
What evidence? How about all the archaeological evidence?
> Actually, one does.
As I noted.
> IOW, when the evidence doesn't prove your point, ignor the evidence.
The writings of one tribe of humans proves nothing. Other tribes, such
as the various groups of Indians in India state that their origin is
millions of years in the past. Are we to believe them without examining
their claims?
> So you say, the truth has been corrupted by many, but never completely
> lost. My favorite is the more recent mythological invention, evolution.
Evolution is neither a myth, nor a recent invention. It's been around
since biological systems started, we just didn't understand how it
worked until recently.
> And where in the Scripture are those fleeing from Egypt called Jews?
Oh? What are they called then?
> The Christian ekkelesia was established in the Garden of Eden, there is
> only one Ekkelesia.
What does "Ekkelesia" mean? I am unfamiliar with the word.
> Asked and answered.
No. The christian church was established by Paul around 50CE. There is
ample evidence supporting this historical fact.
> How do you define Jew? The term can have two entirely different meanings,
> 1) adherents of the Jewish faith and/or 2) physical descendants of Judah.
> People who adhere to the Talmud and the Jewish faith are not Christian,
> there are probably many descendants of Judah who are Christian. BTW, the
> Talmud was codified about 300 AD and the earliest writing were in Babylon
> about 500 BC.
Jews are not christians. I should know, since I am a jew.
> How do you define the Trinity? Have you always had a reading disiability?
> Jesus did not say that the Lamb was slain before the creation of the
> world.
So the christian jesus-myth didn't say that he was slain before the
beginning of the world? First you claim that the christian jesus-myth
was slain before the beginning of the world, now you are claiming that
he wasn't?
> Not myth, but you can read about it in Genesis 1-3.
"Not myth". The garden of eden wasn't a myth. Got evidence to prove that
claim, mate? Got anything, outside the bible, that supports your claim?
Anything at all?
> 1) that the earth was created void and without form
> 2) that the earth became void and without form.
>
> My understanding of the Hebrew is the latter, not the former.
This does not answer the timeline question. There is no date location
here.
> The only documeent in evidence says he did, what are your proofs that
> invalidate the evidence?
Absolutely everything. Genetic, historical, archaeological. There is
absolutely no evidence that Adam actually existed.
You're making the claim - you provide the evidence!
> BAsed upon what proofs and evidence?
Based on all sorts of evidence - as I said above.
> Based upon what proofs and evidence? You make a lot of statements without
> providing any evidence.
Mate, read my post.
> Why wouldn't they? God gave the seasons before Adam, and Adam handed that
> knowledge down to all mankind, even though some of them corrupted the
> knowledge.
Adam. Did. Not. Exist.
If you think he did - provide some actual, objective evidence.
<snippity>
> Tabranacle has to do with God tabranacling or living with men as He did
> with Adam, and with the Israelites after Egypt, and the Spirit which
> descended to David, and in Jesus Christ, and in my heart and in millions
> of other placces. That is what the Festival of Tabrahacles is all about.
> All religions of the world are a frenzy of man seeking God, Christianity
> is quite the reversse, God seeking man, to tabranacle within man.
Look, mate, do you mean "tabernacle"?
And what has Sukkot got to do with anything?
> Celebrate the diversity. You probably don't know many Christians, most
> use the term Christmas. God tabranacled with men in the Tabranacle, but
> that was only a prophesy of Him tabranacling with men in the flesh called
> Yeshoua ha Mashiyack (hebrew) or in English, Jesus Christ.
The proper Hebraic form of the jesus-myth's name is Yeshua ben Yosef.
You are making this up, you know. It's not in the bible anywhere. And is
English your second language?
> Tee hee hee, you seem to have a kindergarten understanding of Scripture.
> And your proofs that the Scripture is wrong? Hint: first you must
> demonstrate that you understand what Scripture said in the first place.
All myths are equal mate, regardless of how they are espoused.
> That mythological fairy tale? It is a great hypothesis, interesting
> religious belief, but fails to raise to the level of theory. I have a
> great interest in science, and why wouldn't I? Science consistently
> proves the glory of God in His Creation.
You obviously have no knowledge of science if you reject evolution out
of hand. Have you actually studied science at all, or are you just
leaping to conclusions based on your religious views?
<snippity>
Michael
som...@somewhere.com wrote:
We know, and the assumptions and limiting conditions of the calibaration
of the other dating techniques are also at issue.
Michael
som...@somewhere.com wrote:
IOW, you suggest a rather liberal synagogue.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-1205050607120001@user-
> 2iverao.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did
> > their fathers to the false prophets.
>
> So you're saying that if people speak good of me, that they are false
> prophets? How's that work?
No, when all men speak well of you, remember that so did their fathers to
the false prophets.
--
Bob
scientificallly invalid claims against c14, your claim is not
in good standing.
THe psuedo-science of the so called 'creation scientist' is to
use double talk, disproved hypothesis, and lies to try to discredit
valid science. They do not understand science at all You seem to be of
that ilk. Now, if you could come up with VALID reasons for doubting
things, why, then do so.
Bob
do not understand Judaism, or anything at all about the
Tankah.. which you claim to be the new testament.
Bob
> In article <MPG.1cefd017b...@freenews.iinet.net.au>, The Great
> Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <mikeburt-1205050607120001@user-
>>2iverao.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>
>>>Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did
>>>their fathers to the false prophets.
>>
>>So you're saying that if people speak good of me, that they are false
>>prophets? How's that work?
>
>
> No, when all men speak well of you, remember that so did their fathers to
> the false prophets.
>
those false prophets.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-1305050837350001@user-
> 2ivemd8.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > You mean 60,000 BC? What are the assumptions and limiting conditions
> > behind the conclusions of the dating technique which provided the
> > conclusion drawn from the evidence?
> >
> > Using C-14, dinosaurs date to about 60,000 BC, but fundie evolutionists
> > disregard this evidence because they 'know' that they 'must have lived
> > much longer ago than that'. There is a lot ot tension between the
> > calibration assumptions of various dating techniques, change the
> > assumptions and the same evidence will lead one to a far different
> > conclusion.
>
> Ah, dude, C-14 dating is not used to date dinosaur bones. Or anything
> beyond about 30,000 years old. It's not reliable enough. Other methods
> are used, and they are quite reliable at much longer time periods.
Or at least are the conclusions dependent upon the assumptions and
limiting conditions of the calibration of those dating techniques;
however, the same problem persists, and that is the accuracy of the
assumptions.
>
> If you are going to claim that radiometric dating is not reliable, or
> has major problems, you will need to prove this. Every single scientist
> working in that particular field accepts that the system works, it is
> accurate and we can (and do) use it to date rocks, fossils and anything
> else we find of interest.
www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
We are expected to believe that the issue is settled. We are told that
there are methods by which we can determine accurately the age of this
incredible earth. Does radiometric dating provide the desperately needed
'proof' that evolutionists have long been searching for? Is it accurate
enough? Is it valid? In the next few thoughts, I seek to enlighten you to
the reality of the fallacy of radiometric dating, and answer these probing
questions.
In order to correctly understand the issue, you must come to an
understanding of the process or mechanics behind the idea of radiometric
dating. There are several methods used, but in this small article, only
two will be examined:
- The Uranium-Thorium-Lead method
- And the Potassium-Argon method
Each of these methods rely upon the common fact that the parent component
in a system (e.g., uranium) will gradually 'decay' into the daughter
component (e.g., lead). To gain an index of time since the original
formation of the system, you document the relative proportions of the two
components. Therefore, based on the certain amounts of the components in a
sample, you can tell how old the sample is.
This is all seemingly fine until you evaluate the assumptions that this
system is built upon. In order for the radiometric dating system to be
accurate, the system would:
a.) Need to be a closed system.
1. That is, that the process was not or is not affected by any outside or
inside influences. The process is unhindered in development, it is
separate from outside factors.
b.) Not have any of the daughter components present in the initial system.
2. If there existed any of the daughter components in the original
system, you would have to know that amount and incorporate it into your
calculations. Otherwise your age determination would be faulty.
c.) Have the same process rate.
3. Since the establishment of the system, the decay or process rate has
remained stable and unchanged. If it were changed, then any calculation of
the earth's age or the sample's age would be incorrect. To obtain a proper
date, you would need to compensate for the fluctuating process rate.
The main and obvious problem with these assumptions is that they are not
valid. Examine them closely.
1. Is there such a thing in nature as a closed system?
This is an ideal concept. But it is a non-existent ideal. The idea that a
system in nature could remain closed (that is, not influenced by any
outside sources) for millions or billions of years is absurd to the
highest degree.
2. Is it possible to know the original components of a system formed
billions of years ago?
According to evolutionists, there were no humans around during that time,
so the notion that we can know the original components is once again
absurd.
3. What process rate in an open system remains unchanged?
Every process in nature operates at a rate influenced by many different
factors. If one of the factors changes, the rate is altered. Any so called
'age determination' by a physical process is, once stripped down, only an
educated guess, and is most likely entirely unrelated to the actual age.
As we progress further in this evaluation, we will examine the actual
processes by which these methods work, and carefully determine their
validity and accuracy. Despite the overwhelmingly dogmatic support from
the textbook community, the methods are simply inconsistent in the answers
they put forth.
Of the dating methods that we will examine, the Uranium methods will be
the first. The Uranium method is actually a compilation of a many methods.
The function of this method is based on a chain of decay from Uranium and
its sister element Thorium, into Lead and Helium. This process is called
"alpha decay". The positively charged atoms of helium gas, otherwise known
as alpha particles, escape the nuclei of the parent atoms at rates which
have been shown to be statistically constant.
There are three decay chains in the Uranium methods:
1. Uranium 238 decays into Lead 206 plus 8 helium atoms; has a half-life
of 4.5 billion years.
2. Uranium 235 decays into Lead 207 plus 7 helium atoms; has a half life
of 0.7 billion years.
3. Thorium 232 decays into Lead 208 plus 7 helium atoms; has a half life
of 14.1 billion years.
The crucial problem with these methods, in accordance to the invalid
assumptions, is the fact that Uranium minerals NEVER exist in a closed
system, only and always in open systems. Their reliability is commented on
by Henry Faul:
"Uranium and lead both migrate (in shales) in geologic time, and detailed
analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained with them. Here
again much chemical activity is known to take place and widely diverging
ages can be measured on samples from the same spot."
Unless it is absolutely known that the system has always been a closed
system, the dates provided are meaningless. Evelyn Driscoll said:
"If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and
potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But
they haven't."
Another factor to consider is that the Uranium decay rates may not be
stable, but variable in nature. Dr. Fred Jueneman deals with this:
"Being so close, the anisotropic neutrino flux of the super-explosion must
have had the peculiar characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks.
This would knock our Carbon-14, Potassium-Argon, and Uranium-Lead dating
measurements into a cocked hat. The age of prehistoric artifacts, the age
of the earth, and that of the universe would be thrown into doubt."
Yet another factor to take into view is that the daughter products were
most likely present from the beginning. There is no way possible to know
whether or not the daughter components were actually absent from the
original system. This possibility is evident in the case of modern
volcanic eruptions. Sidney P. Clementson performed detailed studies on
modern volcanic rock, and endeavored to obtain their radiometric ages. All
of the uranium-lead ages he produced for the volcanic rock he studied were
vastly older than the rock's true age. A majority of the tested rocks put
forth ages of over a billion years, when in fact it was known that the
rocks had been formed in very recent times.
Clementson stated that:
"Calculated ages give no indication whatever of the age of the host rocks."
Who would readily accept a method of dating when it is known and proven
to be wildly inaccurate? Why should Uranium methods be assumed correct on
rocks of an unknown age, when it is known that the methods are incorrect
on rocks of a known age? Is it just plain ignorance of the facts? Or
blatant acceptance of obvious fallacies? It will not be admitted, in fact
most likely denied, but the true method of dating which is always
consulted is that of the Geologic Column (see article entitled, "Come, Let
Us Reason In Circles Together"). This quote supports my point:
"The most reasonable age can be selected only after careful consideration
of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and
paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations."
Potassium-Argon method:
The most widely used method for dating rocks is the Potassium-Argon
method. Found in igneous and sedimentary rocks, Potassium 40 minerals
decay along the lines of "electron-capture" (the capture of an orbital
electron by the nucleus). The daughter component is Argon 40, and the
process has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Also, simultaneously, using
the "beta decay" (emission of an electron and a neutrino) Potassium 40
decays into Calcium 4.
Problems with Potassium-Argon:
- As with the majority of the other methods, Potassium-Argon is
calibrated to Uranium-Lead, which we have seen to be a faulty system. Any
age given by the Potassium-Argon methods will be incorrect as it is
matched with an incorrect system. Therefore, it in itself is a faulty
dating method.
- The decay process is an open system, and as Argon 40 is a gas,
migration in and out of a Potassium mineral is quite common. Therefore any
date achieved in this method will be in the margin of error because of a
modulating amount of daughter component. This quote is support to my
point:
"Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for
potassium-argon dating. We have analyzed several devitrified glasses of
known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave
virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that
devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit."
Potassium itself is a mobile element:
"As much as 80 percent of the potassium in a small sample of an iron
meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours."
So if the actual contents and potassium are not concrete in existence,
then it seems foolish to rely upon such a dating for accurate results.
I could go on and on relating boring facts. The main fact is this: All
these are facts about the dating systems. They are simply not magical
formulas proving an old earth. There will be further postings about other
dating methods. In the meantime, make sure you make yourself acquainted
with the article, "Come, Let Us Reason In Circles Together," dealing with
the subject of the Geologic Column.
>
> You know that if you do disprove it, you're up for a Nobel prize, right?
No, one would be up for a nobel prize if he could prove what is not yet proven.
> And a permanent place in history. For not only do you have to disprove
> radiometric dating, you have to disprove the Theory of the Periodic
> Table,
Not really, the assumptions and limiting conditions assumed for the
calibration of the dating system have no effect on the Periodic Table.
the Theory of Quantum Mechanics
Tee hee hee, not sure that you could prove that one. which quamtum
mechanics theory are you refering to?
>and the Theory of Radioactive
> Decay.
No, just the assumptions and limiting conditions used in the calibration
of the decay readings.
>So go right for it. :)
Alerady asked and answered.
>
> > You couldn't prove a positive.
>
> Actually, I could. If Cain did exist in reality, and wasn't a myth, it
> would be quite possible to prove he did exist.
You mean like a written document?
>Such as his tomb,
Perhaps, but there are many people of history for which their 'tomb'
location is unknown.
or the
> remains of the city he was claimed to have built.
Most assume that it was Babel, thought to be a mythical city as late as
the age of Neopolian, until archeology undercovered it.
Or genetic data
> showing that he was one of the main progenitors of modern humans.
Some say that the 'common ancestor' is feasible to prove.
Or
> ancient documents describing him or his offspring or his history.
Already have that.
>
> Since we have none of this data,
Not have specific data does not invalidate a hypothesis, and we do have
specific documents, you just don't like them.
>we can assume that he did not exist.
But that is an assumption of commission, not a proof.
We
> can also correlate the stories in the bible to the myths of the time,
> and show that the Cain-figure was actually a metaphor for the nomadic
> tribes who settled down to town dwelling.
Or we could correlate the myths of the time to the accuracy of the
Biblical stories.
>
> > What evidence are you looking at?
>
> Genetic data for one. Historical data for another.
What genetic data do you have to invalidate Cain? And what historical
data invalidates the Scripture?
>
> > No, that is not exactly true.
>
> Then refute it. Provide evidence to support your claim.
Already asked and answered.
>
> > Now you could begin to prove that statement, and the specific evidence is?
>
> Where is the city Cain is claimed to have founded?
Who is the specific and original founder of Jericho? who is the specific
and original founder of Babel? or of Sumner, Ur of the Caldes and a host
of other cities?
How did Cain's
> descendant pre-date him,
Didn't say that they did.
>and arrive in Australia tens of thousands of
> years before he was meant to exist?
Who said that they did?
>
> > We could begin with the actual evidence you calim proves your point, so
> > far you have offered, none.
>
> I've offered plenty. If you want to disprove it, you need to provide
> factual data, not hand waving and blind faith.
All you have provided is hand waving and the blind faith of denial.
>
> > come now, any fundie religious evolutionists can stretch that number much
> > farther back than that, all based upon tweaking the assumptions and
> > limiting conditions of the dating technique utilized.
>
> Nope. Modern humanity, as town dwellers, farmers and early nation-states
> probably originated around 10,000BCE. Read Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs
> and Steel".
10,000 BC? Not all that inconsistent with Biblical history and well
withing the error of even the unprovable assumptions of the calibration.
>
> > According to what evidence relying upon what assumptions and limiting
> > conditions?
>
> What evidence? How about all the archaeological evidence?
there is a lot, however, none particularly discredits Scripture, in fact,
a great amount of Archological work validates Scripture.
>
> > Actually, one does.
>
> As I noted.
>
> > IOW, when the evidence doesn't prove your point, ignor the evidence.
>
> The writings of one tribe of humans proves nothing.
So you say, is that a solid basis to ignor it just because you don't like it?
Other tribes, such
> as the various groups of Indians in India state that their origin is
> millions of years in the past. Are we to believe them without examining
> their claims?
Tee hee hee, only the Hebrew text is in agreement with a scientific
beginning, the Rig Veda has been discredited having not a 'beginning' and
is therefore, inconsistent with current science.
>
> > So you say, the truth has been corrupted by many, but never completely
> > lost. My favorite is the more recent mythological invention, evolution.
>
> Evolution is neither a myth, nor a recent invention. It's been around
> since biological systems started, we just didn't understand how it
> worked until recently.
Tee hee hee, you are right on the invention date of the evolution myth, it
was a religious belief in Babylon, and probably even further back than
that.
>
> > And where in the Scripture are those fleeing from Egypt called Jews?
>
> Oh? What are they called then?
You don't know? THEY are never called Jews. Read the Scripture, they
were not called Jews in the Hebrew text.
>
> > The Christian ekkelesia was established in the Garden of Eden, there is
> > only one Ekkelesia.
>
> What does "Ekkelesia" mean? I am unfamiliar with the word.
It refers to the Bride of Christ, which may or may not be consistent with
the church.
>
> > Asked and answered.
>
> No. The christian church was established by Paul around 50CE. There is
> ample evidence supporting this historical fact.
No, the ekkelesia was founded in the Garden of Eden, Christ was merely a
reformation established along with a new covenant.
>
> > How do you define Jew? The term can have two entirely different meanings,
> > 1) adherents of the Jewish faith and/or 2) physical descendants of Judah.
> > People who adhere to the Talmud and the Jewish faith are not Christian,
> > there are probably many descendants of Judah who are Christian. BTW, the
> > Talmud was codified about 300 AD and the earliest writing were in Babylon
> > about 500 BC.
>
> Jews are not christians. I should know, since I am a jew.
Are you of the Jewish faith, or are you a physical descendant of Judah?
I never said that those of the Jewish faith were Christian.
>
> > How do you define the Trinity? Have you always had a reading disiability?
> > Jesus did not say that the Lamb was slain before the creation of the
> > world.
>
> So the christian jesus-myth didn't say that he was slain before the
> beginning of the world?
Actually, it does, who do you think that the Tree of Life was?
First you claim that the christian jesus-myth
> was slain before the beginning of the world, now you are claiming that
> he wasn't?
No, I said was slain from the foundation, not before the foundation.
>
> > Not myth, but you can read about it in Genesis 1-3.
>
> "Not myth". The garden of eden wasn't a myth. Got evidence to prove that
> claim, mate?
Equal to your evidence that it was a myth.
Got anything, outside the bible, that supports your claim?
> Anything at all?
The Word of God would seem sufficient for most.
>
> > 1) that the earth was created void and without form
> > 2) that the earth became void and without form.
> >
> > My understanding of the Hebrew is the latter, not the former.
>
> This does not answer the timeline question. There is no date location
> here.
The timeline is not provided in Scripture, only the reference to 'the
beginning'. BTW, time is relative, not linear. Haven't you read about
Einstien and his legacy?
>
> > The only documeent in evidence says he did, what are your proofs that
> > invalidate the evidence?
>
> Absolutely everything. Genetic,
How so, particularly and specifically?
>historical,
How so, particularly and specifically?
>archaeological
How so, particularly and specifically?
>. There is
> absolutely no evidence that Adam actually existed.
Neither is there sufficient evidencce to overcome the weight of the
testimony to the contrary.
>
> You're making the claim - you provide the evidence!
Read starting at Genesis, affirmed by Moses, affirmed by Christ, affirmed
by the prophets, the writers of the Psalms and a host of others.
>
> > BAsed upon what proofs and evidence?
>
> Based on all sorts of evidence - as I said above.
but what exactly specifically and particularly?
>
> > Based upon what proofs and evidence? You make a lot of statements without
> > providing any evidence.
>
> Mate, read my post.
I did, still looking for the specific and particular evidince you
provided. A lot of hand waving and blind faith in other people's opinion,
but where is the evidence?
>
> > Why wouldn't they? God gave the seasons before Adam, and Adam handed that
> > knowledge down to all mankind, even though some of them corrupted the
> > knowledge.
>
> Adam. Did. Not. Exist.
Click you heels together three times and say, He didn't exist, he didn't
exist, he didn't exist. Might just transport you to Oz if you are wearing
the Ruby Slippers.
>
> If you think he did - provide some actual, objective evidence.
Already have, you just don't believe it, nor have you offered any evidence
with specificity and particularlity that invalidates it.
>
> <snippity>
>
> > Tabranacle has to do with God tabranacling or living with men as He did
> > with Adam, and with the Israelites after Egypt, and the Spirit which
> > descended to David, and in Jesus Christ, and in my heart and in millions
> > of other placces. That is what the Festival of Tabrahacles is all about.
> > All religions of the world are a frenzy of man seeking God, Christianity
> > is quite the reversse, God seeking man, to tabranacle within man.
>
> Look, mate, do you mean "tabernacle"?
OK.
>
> And what has Sukkot got to do with anything?
Everything, if you understand the Hebrew text.
>
> > Celebrate the diversity. You probably don't know many Christians, most
> > use the term Christmas. God tabranacled with men in the Tabranacle, but
> > that was only a prophesy of Him tabranacling with men in the flesh called
> > Yeshoua ha Mashiyack (hebrew) or in English, Jesus Christ.
>
> The proper Hebraic form of the jesus-myth's name is Yeshua ben Yosef.
Actually, the correct name is Yeshoua ha Mashiyack ben YHVH Elohym.
>
> You are making this up, you know. It's not in the bible anywhere. And is
> English your second language?
Tee hee hee, actually it is in the Bible everywhere.
>
> > Tee hee hee, you seem to have a kindergarten understanding of Scripture.
> > And your proofs that the Scripture is wrong? Hint: first you must
> > demonstrate that you understand what Scripture said in the first place.
>
> All myths are equal mate, regardless of how they are espoused.
But you have yet to prove that it is a myth.
>
> > That mythological fairy tale? It is a great hypothesis, interesting
> > religious belief, but fails to raise to the level of theory. I have a
> > great interest in science, and why wouldn't I? Science consistently
> > proves the glory of God in His Creation.
>
> You obviously have no knowledge of science if you reject evolution out
> of hand.
I actually have a lot of knowledge of science, evolution is a good
hypothesis, but the evidence fails to raise the hypothesis to a theory,
much less a fact.
Have you actually studied science at all, or are you just
> leaping to conclusions based on your religious views?
Yes, I have studied evolution sufficiently to discren that it fails to
meet the requirements of a theory contrary to the leap of logic based upon
the blind faith of the religious views of evolutionists.
Michael
Your claim is noted, but since you used failed to address the assumptions
and limiting conditions of the calibration technique to support c14, your
claim is not in good standing.
THe psuedo-science of the so called 'evolution scientist' is to
use double talk, disproved hypothesis, and lies to try to discredit
valid science. They do not understand science at all You seem to be of
that ilk. Now, if you could come up with VALID reasons to arrirm the
uniformatarian but unproven assumptions of C-14 calibration, we are
listening.
Michael
Tee hee hee, I never claimed that the Tankah was the new testament,
although the books are out of order, it is a pretty good representation of
the Old Testament. Am I wrong?
Michael
Checking with alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian,
alt.religion.christian.lutheran, alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, such a statement is insensitive,
intolerant, and sounds like something a Christophobic troll might say.
What is your proof that Jesus, Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew are false prophets?
Tom
Burton, you know so little science it is dangerous. What difference would it
make to the creationist position if all C-14 dates were incorrect? Would it
change the age of the earth? No. Would it change the age of the universe?
No. So just what do you gain?
Tom
Tee hee hee yourself, you asshole.
Bob
>
> Checking with alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
> alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian,
> alt.religion.christian.lutheran, alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,
> alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, such a statement is insensitive,
> intolerant, and sounds like something a Christophobic troll might say.
>
> What is your proof that Jesus, Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew are false prophets?
>
Because they used lies and mistranslations, made such claims as 'there
are those who will not taste death before the second coming'.. almost
2000 years ago, and the second coming isn't here yet.
Hey, if you don't want the lies pointed out, you might not want to post
in alt.atheism.
Bob
the 'Old Testament' is a mistranslated version whose distortions about
the meanings found in the tankah make it totally worthless.
Michael
> Michael wrote:
> >
> > Checking with alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
> > alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian,
> > alt.religion.christian.lutheran, alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,
> > alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, such a statement is insensitive,
> > intolerant, and sounds like something a Christophobic troll might say.
> >
> > What is your proof that Jesus, Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew are false prophets?
> >
>
> Because they used lies and mistranslations,
And your proofs that they lied and mistranslated? Or is this just your opinion.
made such claims as 'there
> are those who will not taste death before the second coming'..
What is wrong with that? Paul is absolutely correct.
almost
> 2000 years ago, and the second coming isn't here yet.
Depends upon what you are expecting to happen.
>
> Hey, if you don't want the lies pointed out, you might not want to post
> in alt.atheism.
So far, no lies have been pointed out.
Michael
Really, I have several Old Testaments and a copy of Tanakh both in English
and Hebrew. A comparison of the Hebrew and Jewish texts and the OT makes
the OT appear pretty reliable to me. What is specifically and
particularly mistranslated in your opinion? Upon what evidence do you
draw the conclusion that the OT is worthless and the quite comparable, if
not identical, Tanakh is more accurate?
Michael
So you say.
What difference would it
> make to the creationist position if all C-14 dates were incorrect?
What difference would it make to the evolutionist position of all c-14
dates were incorrect?
Would it
> change the age of the earth? No. Would it change the age of the universe?
> No. So just what do you gain?
Honesty. BTW, C-14 is not the only dating systems that relies upon
unproven assumptions and limiting conditions in the calibration of the
conclusions.
Michael
Coming from you, that can only be accepted as a compliment. Thanks, tom.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
Florovsky EaFath4c (v7 ClxWx) Buchervertriebsansalt FL9490 1987 ISBN
3-905238-07-1 (Orig Paris 1928-31 lect) [Florovsky taught at svots.edu,
hchc.edu and harvard.edu]
[St Gregory the Theologian of Nazianzus, 1/3 Great Hierarchs]
p109 "We derive something useful for our orthodoxy even from the worldly
science.. Everyone who has a mind will recognize that learning is our highest
good.. also worldly learning, which many Christians incorrectly abhor.. those
who hold such an opinion are stupid and ignorant. They want everyone to be
just like themselves, so that the general failing will hide their own
imperfections, and their ignorance will not be exposed." These words were
spoken by Gregory at Basil's funeral
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Fooey on GIU,{MS,X}Windows 4 Bimbos] [Cigar smoke belongs in veg food group]
Tom
You believe in mythology and speak of honesty?? The 'calibration of the
conclusions', just what are you attempting to say here?
Have you ever heard of an isochron? Are you aware that the calibration of
C-14 dating totally eliminates the need for assumptions? No, you haven't
changed in the least since the last time I read your ignorant crap. Why
don't you read "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple, a real
scientist, and learn why dating methods are universally accepted by
geologists, paleontologists, and physicists around the world. Christian,
Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Confucian, Buddhist.....scientists from all faiths
around the world. Then take a look at the pitiful group of "creation
scientists" and tell us again just why all of the dating methods in science,
every damn one of them, is totally wrong just because your ignorant
creationist fundamentalist beliefs conflict with them.
You ignorant jerk!!
Tom
Anytime you ignorant ass, as you remember I can compliment you until hell
freezes over and I'll love every minute of it!
Tom
> Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <mikeburt-1305050837350001@user-
>> 2ivemd8.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>> > You mean 60,000 BC? What are the assumptions and limiting conditions
>> > behind the conclusions of the dating technique which provided the
>> > conclusion drawn from the evidence?
>> >
>> > Using C-14, dinosaurs date to about 60,000 BC, but fundie evolutionists
>> > disregard this evidence because they 'know' that they 'must have lived
>> > much longer ago than that'. There is a lot ot tension between the
>> > calibration assumptions of various dating techniques, change the
>> > assumptions and the same evidence will lead one to a far different
>> > conclusion.
>>
>> Ah, dude, C-14 dating is not used to date dinosaur bones. Or anything
>> beyond about 30,000 years old. It's not reliable enough. Other methods
>> are used, and they are quite reliable at much longer time periods.
>
> Or at least are the conclusions dependent upon the assumptions and
> limiting conditions of the calibration of those dating techniques;
Say what??? In attempt to appear intellectual, Mr. Tee hee hee talks in
doublespeak. See if you can parse that sentence for us, Mr. Tee hee hee.
> however, the same problem persists, and that is the accuracy of the
> assumptions.
Oh, you mean assumptions like the sun will rise tomorrow.
>> If you are going to claim that radiometric dating is not reliable, or
>> has major problems, you will need to prove this. Every single scientist
>> working in that particular field accepts that the system works, it is
>> accurate and we can (and do) use it to date rocks, fossils and anything
>> else we find of interest.
>
> www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
Who the hell is Jonathan A. Drake???? By what authority is he a practicing
geologist?
> We are expected to believe that the issue is settled. We are told that
> there are methods by which we can determine accurately the age of this
> incredible earth.
It is, without a doubt settled among real scientists. There is absolutely no
evidence that it isn't correct. If you check the credentials of those who
criticize radiometric dating you will find that, without exception, they are
all creationist fundamentalists. Liars for Gawd, I like to call them. They
lie and then fools like Burton pick up the lies and run with them.
> Does radiometric dating provide the desperately needed
> 'proof' that evolutionists have long been searching for?
"Proof" of what?? Why would 'evolutionists' be interested in radiometric
dating? I thought 'evolutionists' were biologists.
> Is it accurate
> enough? Is it valid? In the next few thoughts, I seek to enlighten you to
> the reality of the fallacy of radiometric dating, and answer these probing
> questions.
Then this idiot raises questions that the world of science has known about
for years and has dealt with for years. Yeah, they are real 'probing'
questions
alright :-.)
> In order to correctly understand the issue, you must come to an
> understanding of the process or mechanics behind the idea of radiometric
> dating. There are several methods used, but in this small article, only
> two will be examined:
Which he evidently doesn't.
> - The Uranium-Thorium-Lead method
> - And the Potassium-Argon method
Well, so much for Mr. Drake's knowledge. All of the 'discussions' below are
rendered useless because this moron took two methods that are not similar
and tried to compare them. For starters Mr. Tee hee hee, the K-Ar method as
Dalrymple states, "is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or
no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope.
Now I could go on and tell you why this is so and then you could see why Mr.
Drake has no idea what the hell he is saying, or you can look up the
scientific facts on K-Ar dating and learn for yourself. I chose the latter.
Bob
because of the out of context quotes, and mistranslations that certain
christian groups use to try to 'prove' Jesus there.. you know.. like
mistranslating "LIKE A LION" to be pierced, and ALMAH to mean virgin,
and taking such verses as Isaiah 53 out of context to try to prove a
god/man where none exists.
Michael
No, I just don't believe in the mythology of evolution as truth.
The 'calibration of the
> conclusions', just what are you attempting to say here?
That the calibration of the technique used to arrive at the conclusion
involve intricate and unproven assumptions and limiting conditions.
> Have you ever heard of an isochron? Are you aware that the calibration of
> C-14 dating totally eliminates the need for assumptions?
Tee hee hee, and what was the C-14 concentration in the world millions of
years ago, even 6000 years ago? Good try, but two laboratories using the
same technique on the same specimin often give results orders of
magnitutes apart, some even unbelievable.
No, you haven't
> changed in the least since the last time I read your ignorant crap.
Coming from you, I can only accept this as a compliment, merely a false
witness and ad hominem without supporting documentation. So thanks for
the compliment.
Why
> don't you read "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple, a real
> scientist,
And you defination of a 'real scientist' is one who agrees with you?
and learn why dating methods are universally accepted by
> geologists, paleontologists, and physicists around the world.
I never doubted the dating methods, I just asked questions which can not
be answered about the assumptions and limiting conditions behind their
calibration.
Christian,
> Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Confucian, Buddhist.....scientists from all faiths
> around the world.
But, not all.
Then take a look at the pitiful group of "creation
> scientists"
IOW, another ad hominem without documentation.
>and tell us again just why all of the dating methods in science,
> every damn one of them, is totally wrong just because your ignorant
> creationist fundamentalist beliefs conflict with them.
You seem to have a reading disability. I never doubted the dating
methods, I just asked questions which can not be answered about the
assumptions and limiting conditions behind their calibration.
>
> You ignorant jerk!!
Coming from you, I can only accept such a false witness as a compliment.
Thanks, Tom.
Michael
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-160...@192.168.1.105...
> > In article <MPG.1cf097594...@freenews.iinet.net.au>, The Great
> > Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <mikeburt-1305050837350001@user-
> >> 2ivemd8.dialup.mindspring.com>, mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >>
> >> > You mean 60,000 BC? What are the assumptions and limiting conditions
> >> > behind the conclusions of the dating technique which provided the
> >> > conclusion drawn from the evidence?
> >> >
> >> > Using C-14, dinosaurs date to about 60,000 BC, but fundie evolutionists
> >> > disregard this evidence because they 'know' that they 'must have lived
> >> > much longer ago than that'. There is a lot ot tension between the
> >> > calibration assumptions of various dating techniques, change the
> >> > assumptions and the same evidence will lead one to a far different
> >> > conclusion.
> >>
> >> Ah, dude, C-14 dating is not used to date dinosaur bones. Or anything
> >> beyond about 30,000 years old. It's not reliable enough. Other methods
> >> are used, and they are quite reliable at much longer time periods.
> >
> > Or at least are the conclusions dependent upon the assumptions and
> > limiting conditions of the calibration of those dating techniques;
>
> Say what??? In attempt to appear intellectual, Mr. Tee hee hee talks in
> doublespeak. See if you can parse that sentence for us, Mr. Tee hee hee.
1) any conclusion draw from any dating technique requires
2) calibration of the reading and
3) assumptions such as has the uniformatarian nature of the base over
unobserved time
>
>
>
> > however, the same problem persists, and that is the accuracy of the
> > assumptions.
>
> Oh, you mean assumptions like the sun will rise tomorrow.
There is no guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, one large comet and
it is all over. No, the assumption that c-14 has been constant since the
creation of the earth for starters. That unproven assumption is vital to
any conclusion drawn from any measurements.
>
>
> >> If you are going to claim that radiometric dating is not reliable, or
> >> has major problems, you will need to prove this. Every single scientist
> >> working in that particular field accepts that the system works, it is
> >> accurate and we can (and do) use it to date rocks, fossils and anything
> >> else we find of interest.
> >
> > www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
>
> Who the hell is Jonathan A. Drake???? By what authority is he a practicing
> geologist?
Who the hell are you and by what authority are you practicing as a 'scientist'?
IOW, TOM can't address the issues Mr. Drake raises, so he prefers to
discredit the witness with ad hominem. It doesn't matter who Mr. Drake
is, the issue is the issue he raises.
snipped undocumentation argumentation and ad hominem attacks. Ooops,
nothing left.
Michael
som...@somewhere.com wrote:
And what is your documentation that I am bearing false witness?
mainly
> because of the out of context quotes, and mistranslations that certain
> christian groups use to try to 'prove' Jesus there.. you know.. like
> mistranslating "LIKE A LION" to be pierced, and ALMAH to mean virgin,
> and taking such verses as Isaiah 53 out of context to try to prove a
> god/man where none exists.
Those are perhaps conclusions of the text, but they are certainly not
innacuracies between the texts, which are identical. Your problem seems
to be Christophobia, your assertion that the texts are different is a
false witness, if this is all the evidence you can offer.
BTW as to the conclusions, a large number of those of the Jewish faith
agree disagree with what you judge to be out of context quotes and
mistranslations of the Hebrew Text to be reliable and in agreement with
Christians, some are even rabbis.
Have you ever considered attanding a diversity class? Celebrate the diversity.
Tom
Sorry Burton, radiometric datings do not require calibration. What creation
science book are you reading? You mean assumptions like the constancy of
radioactive decay? Looking over your reply it doesn't appear that you had
three bullet points, you just used on sentence and made three points from it
:-).
>> > however, the same problem persists, and that is the accuracy of the
>> > assumptions.
>>
>> Oh, you mean assumptions like the sun will rise tomorrow.
> There is no guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, one large comet and
> it is all over. No, the assumption that c-14 has been constant since the
> creation of the earth for starters. That unproven assumption is vital to
> any conclusion drawn from any measurements.
Mr. Tee hee hee, we left C-14 dating above when we all agreed that fossil
dating didn't use C-14 dating. We are talking about radiometric dating now.
If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow we won't be concerned with the 'accuracy of
the assumptions', now will we?
>> >> If you are going to claim that radiometric dating is not reliable, or
>> >> has major problems, you will need to prove this. Every single
>> >> scientist
>> >> working in that particular field accepts that the system works, it is
>> >> accurate and we can (and do) use it to date rocks, fossils and
>> >> anything
>> >> else we find of interest.
>> >
>> > www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
>>
>> Who the hell is Jonathan A. Drake???? By what authority is he a
>> practicing
>> geologist?
> Who the hell are you and by what authority are you practicing as a
> 'scientist'?
> IOW, TOM can't address the issues Mr. Drake raises, so he prefers to
> discredit the witness with ad hominem. It doesn't matter who Mr. Drake
> is, the issue is the issue he raises.
No, in other words you put forth Jonathan Drake as support for your ideas
and I certainly have the right to ask for his credentials if I am to accept
his word. I certainly didn't use an ad hom against Drake, I just ask for his
credentials. Hell Mr. Tee hee hee, I didn't expect you to present any
credentials for him.
> snipped undocumentation argumentation and ad hominem attacks. Ooops,
> nothing left.
Of course, there is plenty left. You were just faced with a fact that you
couldn't deny and dishonestly clipped my scientific reply to your garbage.
Now let's restore the portion that you clipped like the coward that you are:
{> We are expected to believe that the issue is settled. We are told that
As everyone can plainly see, I stated a scientific fact that blew right over
Mr. Drake's head and you evidently couldn't dispute or refute it either.
Look Mr. Tee hee hee, if you want to discuss science and dating methods I am
more than ready to do so. We can't, however, have a discussion if you clip
the discussion points, okay? Now either answer the charge or keep your
scientifically illiterate mouth shut!
Tom
Perhaps you would care to tell me of the calibration of radiometric dating
techniques for these methods.
>> Have you ever heard of an isochron? Are you aware that the calibration of
>> C-14 dating totally eliminates the need for assumptions?
> Tee hee hee, and what was the C-14 concentration in the world millions of
> years ago, even 6000 years ago?
Who cares Mr. Tee hee hee, you haven't enough scientific knowledge of the
subject to understand what I'm saying. Try this Mr. Tee hee hee, a
calibration of C-14 dating levels using bristlecone pines carries back 9,000
years. An object is dated at 8,000 years after calibration. You give me one
reason that the measurement of 8,000 years is incorrect.
Now you can answer the question, have you ever heard of an isochron and do
you understand them :-))). Hey man, I asked that last part of the preceding
sentence just for funsies. It was a rhetorical question :-).
> Good try, but two laboratories using the
> same technique on the same specimin often give results orders of
> magnitutes apart, some even unbelievable.
That has nothing to do with the examples I gave.
Now you can give some examples of these vast errors.
I'll tell you what would be unbelievable Mr. Tee hee hee, if a radiometric
date was ever given as 6,000 years.
> >No, you haven't
>> changed in the least since the last time I read your ignorant crap.
>
> Coming from you, I can only accept this as a compliment, merely a false
> witness and ad hominem without supporting documentation. So thanks for
> the compliment.
Facts always counter an ad hom charge Mr. Tee hee hee. It is along the same
lines as truth is a perfect defense. Your posts provide all of the
documentation that is needed.
> Why
>> don't you read "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple, a real
>> scientist,
>
> And you defination of a 'real scientist' is one who agrees with you?
No, my definition of a real scientist is one who is educated in his field
and who practices science in his field. If the term 'practicing science is
new to you you can do a search on it.
>> and learn why dating methods are universally accepted by
>> geologists, paleontologists, and physicists around the world.
>
> I never doubted the dating methods, I just asked questions which can not
> be answered about the assumptions and limiting conditions behind their
> calibration.
The questions that you presented from Mr. Drake can't be answered because
the statement upon which he bases his questions is wrong. Are you so stupid
that you can't see this??? Oops, I guess this was another rhetorical
question :-))).
Of course these questions can and are answered, people like you just ignore
the answers. Don't make yourself a liar by making statements like the one in
your first sentence above.
>> Christian,
>> Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Confucian, Buddhist.....scientists from all faiths
>> around the world.
>
> But, not all.
You couldn't get unanimity in any large group for any reason.
>> Then take a look at the pitiful group of "creation
>> scientists"
>
> IOW, another ad hominem without documentation.
No, there is no "IOW" about it, Review the credentials of the creation
scientists and tell me who is practicing science in their field!
>>and tell us again just why all of the dating methods in science,
>> every damn one of them, is totally wrong just because your ignorant
>> creationist fundamentalist beliefs conflict with them.
>
> You seem to have a reading disability. I never doubted the dating
> methods, I just asked questions which can not be answered about the
> assumptions and limiting conditions behind their calibration.
Liar, I have dealt with you many times in the past Mr. Tee hee hee and you
certainly doubt the accuracy of the methods and the dates they reach. Don't
make us all do a 'google' just to see what a liar you are.
>> You ignorant jerk!!
> Coming from you, I can only accept such a false witness as a compliment.
> Thanks, Tom.
No problem, you ignorant ass, I'll keep the compliments rolling, just like I
did in the previous NG's before you picked up your wounded ass and left in
the middle of the night.
Michael
Really? Sorry, but all measurement devices and schemes require
calibration, even things as insensitive as a butcher's scale.
What creation
> science book are you reading?
What evolutionists pseudo science book are you reading?
You mean assumptions like the constancy of
> radioactive decay?
No, constancy as to the concentration of radioactive material and external
exposure issues.
Looking over your reply it doesn't appear that you had
> three bullet points, you just used on sentence and made three points from it
> :-).
Looks like three to me, it was you who couldn't understand them without
breaking them down into small pieces.
>
> >> > however, the same problem persists, and that is the accuracy of the
> >> > assumptions.
> >>
> >> Oh, you mean assumptions like the sun will rise tomorrow.
>
> > There is no guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, one large comet and
> > it is all over. No, the assumption that c-14 has been constant since the
> > creation of the earth for starters. That unproven assumption is vital to
> > any conclusion drawn from any measurements.
>
> Mr. Tee hee hee, we left C-14 dating above when we all agreed that fossil
> dating didn't use C-14 dating.
We know, it gives the 'wrong' answers.
We are talking about radiometric dating now.
> If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow we won't be concerned with the 'accuracy of
> the assumptions', now will we?
Then why did you bring it up?
>
>
> >> >> If you are going to claim that radiometric dating is not reliable, or
> >> >> has major problems, you will need to prove this. Every single
> >> >> scientist
> >> >> working in that particular field accepts that the system works, it is
> >> >> accurate and we can (and do) use it to date rocks, fossils and
> >> >> anything
> >> >> else we find of interest.
> >> >
> >> > www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
> >>
> >> Who the hell is Jonathan A. Drake???? By what authority is he a
> >> practicing
> >> geologist?
>
> > Who the hell are you and by what authority are you practicing as a
> > 'scientist'?
>
> > IOW, TOM can't address the issues Mr. Drake raises, so he prefers to
> > discredit the witness with ad hominem. It doesn't matter who Mr. Drake
> > is, the issue is the issue he raises.
>
> No, in other words you put forth Jonathan Drake as support for your ideas
No, I quoted a person with an opinion regarding an issue, you can agrue or
agree with the issue, but instead you chose to attack his character.
> and I certainly have the right to ask for his credentials if I am to accept
> his word.
Then, what, asking for a second time, are your credentials?
I certainly didn't use an ad hom against Drake,
Let me get this straight, you failed to address the issue and attacked his
credentials to avoid the issue? Tee hee hee, dream on.
I just ask for his
> credentials. Hell Mr. Tee hee hee, I didn't expect you to present any
> credentials for him.
We also note that you failed to provide your credentials.
>
>
> > snipped undocumentation argumentation and ad hominem attacks. Ooops,
> > nothing left.
>
> Of course, there is plenty left. You were just faced with a fact that you
> couldn't deny and dishonestly clipped my scientific reply to your garbage.
Tee hee hee, where was the scientific reply?
> Now let's restore the portion that you clipped like the coward that you are:
>
> {> We are expected to believe that the issue is settled. We are told that
> > there are methods by which we can determine accurately the age of this
> > incredible earth.
>
> It is, without a doubt settled among real scientists.
And what are the prejudices of these 'real scientists?"
There is absolutely no
> evidence that it isn't correct.
Yet you fail to provide any.
If you check the credentials of those who
> criticize radiometric dating you will find that, without exception, they are
> all creationist fundamentalists.
Sounds like you are prejudiced against people with opinions differeng from
yours. Rather than attacking their 'credibility', what are your proofs
other than what you offer that they are wrong?
>Liars for Gawd,
Tee hee hee, sounds like an ad hominem attack on their character lacking
any documentation with respect to the issues they raised. this is
beginning to appear to be a modus operandi for you.
>I like to call them.
IOW, you enjoy ad hominem attacks.
>They
> lie and then fools like Burton pick up the lies and run with them.
MOdus Operandi noted.
>
>
> > Does radiometric dating provide the desperately needed
> > 'proof' that evolutionists have long been searching for?
>
> "Proof" of what?? Why would 'evolutionists' be interested in radiometric
> dating? I thought 'evolutionists' were biologists.
IOW, since biologists, in your opinion, don't use radiometric dating, they
have no ability to determine a date for any fossil? You are undercuttiny
your own arguments.
>
> > Is it accurate
> > enough? Is it valid? In the next few thoughts, I seek to enlighten you to
> > the reality of the fallacy of radiometric dating, and answer these probing
> > questions.
>
> Then this idiot
Modus operandi noted again.
>raises questions that the world of science has known about
> for years and has dealt with for years. Yeah, they are real 'probing'
> questions alright :-.)
but the issue is the answers to the questions, which you fail to address.
>
>
> > In order to correctly understand the issue, you must come to an
> > understanding of the process or mechanics behind the idea of radiometric
> > dating. There are several methods used, but in this small article, only
> > two will be examined:
>
> Which he evidently doesn't.
You would have to go to the site, you can do some first hand research,
can't you?
>
> > - The Uranium-Thorium-Lead method
> > - And the Potassium-Argon method
>
>
> Well, so much for Mr. Drake's knowledge. All of the 'discussions' below are
> rendered useless because this moron
Modus aperandi noted again.
took two methods that are not similar
> and tried to compare them.
Not what I am seeing.
For starters Mr. Tee hee hee, the K-Ar method as
> Dalrymple states, "is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or
> no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope.
But only if you assume uniformatarianism, a definate creation starting
point may invalidate that assumption.
>
> Now I could go on and tell you why this is so
But that might require you to stop your modus operandi and really say
something meaningful.
and then you could see why Mr.
> Drake has no idea what the hell he is saying, or you can look up the
> scientific facts on K-Ar dating and learn for yourself. I chose the latter.}
But based upon what you have shared, the is no documentation in evidence
that you understand anything.
>
> As everyone can plainly see,
Plainly? Where? I see assertions, opinions, but no evidence.
I stated a scientific fact
No, you stated an opinion shared by many scientists.
that blew right over
> Mr. Drake's head and you evidently couldn't dispute or refute it either.
tee hee hee, have you always had delusions of grander?
>
> Look Mr. Tee hee hee, if you want to discuss science and dating methods I am
> more than ready to do so.
But what are your qualifications and credentials? So far, there is no
evidence that you know anything.
We can't, however, have a discussion if you clip
> the discussion points, okay? Now either answer the charge or keep your
> scientifically illiterate mouth shut!
But if you are not qualified to talk about the subject, who cares? You
restored the snips and still haven't said anything--which is why the
meaningless comments were snipped in the first place.
Tom
Yes, really.
> Sorry, but all measurement devices and schemes require
> calibration, even things as insensitive as a butcher's scale.
Good, then you should have no trouble at all in naming five or six. You can
do that can't you, Mr. Tee hee hee?
>> What creation
>> science book are you reading?
> What evolutionists pseudo science book are you reading?
I have been reading "Gravity" by James Hartle. It is an introduction to
general relativity. You should try it sometime. Perhaps when you finish your
Jack Chick comic books.
>> You mean assumptions like the constancy of
>> radioactive decay?
>
> No, constancy as to the concentration of radioactive material and external
> exposure issues.
What does the concentration of radiometric dating have to do with anything?
As to external exposure I ahve to assume that you refer to ouside influence,
however, mass spectrometers have been improved to the point that the
precision of the measurements that could be introduced by any geologic
factors.
>> Looking over your reply it doesn't appear that you had
>> three bullet points, you just used on sentence and made three points from
>> it
>> :-).
> Looks like three to me, it was you who couldn't understand them without
> breaking them down into small pieces.
Hey Mr. Tee hee hee, you're the one who broke them down, not me.
>> >> > however, the same problem persists, and that is the accuracy of the
>> >> > assumptions.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, you mean assumptions like the sun will rise tomorrow.
>>
>> > There is no guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, one large comet
>> > and
>> > it is all over. No, the assumption that c-14 has been constant since
>> > the
>> > creation of the earth for starters. That unproven assumption is vital
>> > to
>> > any conclusion drawn from any measurements.
>>
>> Mr. Tee hee hee, we left C-14 dating above when we all agreed that fossil
>> dating didn't use C-14 dating.
> We know, it gives the 'wrong' answers.
Another unsupported assertion by that wizard of science, Michael (Mr. Tee
hee hee) Burton.
>> We are talking about radiometric dating now.
>> If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow we won't be concerned with the 'accuracy
>> of
>> the assumptions', now will we?
> Then why did you bring it up?
You're the one that introduced the possible demise of the sun, you
illiterate moron.
>>
>> >> >> If you are going to claim that radiometric dating is not reliable,
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> has major problems, you will need to prove this. Every single
>> >> >> scientist
>> >> >> working in that particular field accepts that the system works, it
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> accurate and we can (and do) use it to date rocks, fossils and
>> >> >> anything
>> >> >> else we find of interest.
>> >> >
>> >> > www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
>> >>
>> >> Who the hell is Jonathan A. Drake???? By what authority is he a
>> >> practicing
>> >> geologist?
>>
>> > Who the hell are you and by what authority are you practicing as a
>> > 'scientist'?
>>
>> > IOW, TOM can't address the issues Mr. Drake raises, so he prefers to
>> > discredit the witness with ad hominem. It doesn't matter who Mr. Drake
>> > is, the issue is the issue he raises.
>>
>> No, in other words you put forth Jonathan Drake as support for your ideas
> No, I quoted a person with an opinion regarding an issue, you can agrue or
> agree with the issue, but instead you chose to attack his character.
I realize that this will be a bolt out of the blue for you Mr. Tee hee hee,
but if you use a source you buy it :-). I certainly didn;t attack his
character you ignorant fool. Not only do you not know science but it appears
you don't know logic.
>> and I certainly have the right to ask for his credentials if I am to
>> accept
>> his word.
>
> Then, what, asking for a second time, are your credentials?
I didn't put forth a position paper, are you aware of that? Don't answer, it
was a rhetorical question. I quoted Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple who is perhaps
the most recognized geologist in the world. Dr. Dalrymple was the Research
Geologist at the United States Geological Survey at Menlo Park CA. He is
currently at Oregon State University and is a member of the National Academy
of Science.
> I certainly didn't use an ad hom against Drake,
> Let me get this straight, you failed to address the issue and attacked his
> credentials to avoid the issue? Tee hee hee, dream on.
I most certainly did address the issue. It isn't my fault that you are too
stupid to read it. I also didn't attack his credentials, I asked for them,
You really are a dumb fool, aren't you? No, I don't have to dream, we can
all read it here. We can also see that you failed to address my point but
what else is new with you?
>> I just ask for his
>> credentials. Hell Mr. Tee hee hee, I didn't expect you to present any
>> credentials for him.
>
> We also note that you failed to provide your credentials.
I told you, I didn't present a paper.
>> > snipped undocumentation argumentation and ad hominem attacks. Ooops,
>> > nothing left.
>>
>> Of course, there is plenty left. You were just faced with a fact that you
>> couldn't deny and dishonestly clipped my scientific reply to your
>> garbage.
>
> Tee hee hee, where was the scientific reply?
Tee hee hee, right here:
Well, so much for Mr. Drake's knowledge. All of the 'discussions' below are
rendered useless because this moron took two methods that are not similar
and tried to compare them. For starters Mr. Tee hee hee, the K-Ar method as
Dalrymple states, "is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or
no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope.
>> Now let's restore the portion that you clipped like the coward that you
>> are:
>>
>> {> We are expected to believe that the issue is settled. We are told that
>> > there are methods by which we can determine accurately the age of this
>> > incredible earth.
>>
>> It is, without a doubt settled among real scientists.
>
> And what are the prejudices of these 'real scientists?"
Prejudices only go so far, Mr. Tee hee hee, unless of course you are an
ignorant creationist like you and then prejudice is all you have. Eventually
the evidence is so strong that it overcomes all prejudices with the
exception of the "gawd" believers.
>> There is absolutely no
>> evidence that it isn't correct.
> Yet you fail to provide any.
You god damn fool you're the one who is saying it is wrong! It is up to you
to provide the evidence.
You know, I went back several years and looked up our old threads and I
can't see wasting that much time on you again. I will, however, counter
every scientific fallacy you attempt to put forth.
>> If you check the credentials of those who
>> criticize radiometric dating you will find that, without exception, they
>> are
>> all creationist fundamentalists.
>
> Sounds like you are prejudiced against people with opinions differeng from
> yours. Rather than attacking their 'credibility', what are your proofs
> other than what you offer that they are wrong?
Buddy, they are the ones saying that all radiometric daring methods are
wrong, it is up to them to provide this evidence. I told you once that
Dalrymple's book more than counters these ignorant fools.
>>Liars for Gawd,
> Tee hee hee, sounds like an ad hominem attack on their character lacking
> any documentation with respect to the issues they raised. this is
> beginning to appear to be a modus operandi for you.
What issues, you god damn moron?? Your buddy, Drake, couldn't get past the
first paragraph before his assertions fell apart. Go back and read where
they did fall apart, moron.
>>I like to call them.
>
> IOW, you enjoy ad hominem attacks.
Oh yes, when dealing with lying creationists like you and them it is a
pleasure. It is a shame and disgrace that in the 21st century we have
scientific illiterates such as the creationists attempting to destroy basic
science.
>>They
>> lie and then fools like Burton pick up the lies and run with them.
> MOdus Operandi noted.
Yes, and ignorance of the subject also noted Mr. Tee hee hee.
>> > Does radiometric dating provide the desperately needed
>> > 'proof' that evolutionists have long been searching for?
>> "Proof" of what?? Why would 'evolutionists' be interested in radiometric
>> dating? I thought 'evolutionists' were biologists.
> IOW, since biologists, in your opinion, don't use radiometric dating, they
> have no ability to determine a date for any fossil? You are undercuttiny
> your own arguments.
Biologists don't use radiometric dating, you damn fool. Paleontologists and
geologists date fossils, you imbecilic moron. Do you know anything about
science?
>> > Is it accurate
>> > enough? Is it valid? In the next few thoughts, I seek to enlighten you
>> > to
>> > the reality of the fallacy of radiometric dating, and answer these
>> > probing
>> > questions.
>>
>> Then this idiot
>
> Modus operandi noted again.
>
>>raises questions that the world of science has known about
>> for years and has dealt with for years. Yeah, they are real 'probing'
>> questions alright :-.)
>
> but the issue is the answers to the questions, which you fail to address.
I destroyed the basic premise of Drake from his first paragraph. Mr. Tee hee
hee, you must learn to read for comprehension.
>> > In order to correctly understand the issue, you must come to an
>> > understanding of the process or mechanics behind the idea of
>> > radiometric
>> > dating. There are several methods used, but in this small article, only
>> > two will be examined:
>>
>> Which he evidently doesn't.
>
> You would have to go to the site, you can do some first hand research,
> can't you?
To the site?? Why? You didn't copy the file with accuracy? Let us examine
his statement:
Referring to the K-Ar method he says. " Not have any of the daughter
components present in the initial system."
Dr. Dalrymple says. "K-Ar method "is the only decay scheme that can be used
with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope.
Is that enough first hand research?
>> > - The Uranium-Thorium-Lead method
>> > - And the Potassium-Argon method
>>
>>
>> Well, so much for Mr. Drake's knowledge. All of the 'discussions' below
>> are
>> rendered useless because this moron
>
> Modus aperandi noted again.
Sorry Mr. Tee hee hee, you didn't read far enough to realize the defense of
the truth as an absolute defense.
> took two methods that are not similar
>> and tried to compare them.
>
> Not what I am seeing.
Then you can't see very far, can you?
>> For starters Mr. Tee hee hee, the K-Ar method as
>> Dalrymple states, "is the only decay scheme that can be used with little
>> or
>> no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope.
>
> But only if you assume uniformatarianism, a definate creation starting
> point may invalidate that assumption.
Not so! Why don't you go read about the method, you ignorant ass and try it
from a science book this time!
>> Now I could go on and tell you why this is so
> But that might require you to stop your modus operandi and really say
> something meaningful.
No, I just don't feel like doing your research for you. You have been in
these NG's for at least eight years and from what I have seen you have made
absolutely no attempt to educate yourself!
> >and then you could see why Mr.
>> Drake has no idea what the hell he is saying, or you can look up the
>> scientific facts on K-Ar dating and learn for yourself. I chose the
>> latter.}
>
> But based upon what you have shared, the is no documentation in evidence
> that you understand anything.
You like that word "documentation", don't you? It is too bad that you don't
use it.
>> As everyone can plainly see,
> Plainly? Where? I see assertions, opinions, but no evidence.
Quoting Dalrymple.
> I stated a scientific fact
> No, you stated an opinion shared by many scientists.
No, it is a scientific fact. Just because you can't understand it isn't my
problem.
>> that blew right over
>> Mr. Drake's head and you evidently couldn't dispute or refute it either.
> tee hee hee, have you always had delusions of grander?
Tee hee hee, you didn't refute it then either. Guess you can't do it, huh
:-)?
>> Look Mr. Tee hee hee, if you want to discuss science and dating methods I
>> am
>> more than ready to do so.
>
> But what are your qualifications and credentials? So far, there is no
> evidence that you know anything.
There is ample evidence that I know more than you and Drake.
> >We can't, however, have a discussion if you clip
>> the discussion points, okay? Now either answer the charge or keep your
>> scientifically illiterate mouth shut!
>
> But if you are not qualified to talk about the subject, who cares? You
> restored the snips and still haven't said anything--which is why the
> meaningless comments were snipped in the first place.
> May God Bless You
> Michael
I'm sure gawd puked with that one.
Bob
No, as a matter of fact, the text is NOT identical. Psalm 22 in
particular, as well as Isaiah 7:14. Purposeful mistranslation.
The Great Hairy One
says...
> No, when all men speak well of you, remember that so did their fathers to
> the false prophets.
1) Not all men speak well of me,
2) What's a "false prophet"?
3) How do we tell whom their fathers spoke to and what they said?
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
The Great Hairy One
says...
> Ah yes, the false prophets Jesus, Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew.. you mean
> those false prophets.
They would have had to exist to actually have been a prophet - only Saul
actually existed as far as we know!
The Great Hairy One
mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
Gidday Mike,
> Or at least are the conclusions dependent upon the assumptions and
> limiting conditions of the calibration of those dating techniques;
> however, the same problem persists, and that is the accuracy of the
> assumptions.
>
> www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
<snip news article>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh man, that was funny. I don't think I've read a more pitiful critique
of radiometric dating in years. The limited and child-like understanding
of science, the lack of knowledge and the kindergarden level of
comprehension was just astounding.
Mike, if that is your level of science, I can only say - go and get a
real education. At an honest and proper university. Then come back and
debate with me.
> No, one would be up for a nobel prize if he could prove what is not yet proven.
<Giggles> Hey Mike, you know that there is no proof in science right? If
your mate there at "True Authority" could come up with a better theory
to explain what we see, then he could get a Nobel Prize. Although I
think he needs to finish Primary School first. ;)
<snippity>
> You mean like a written document?
Yep. One that could be verified. Unlike the bible.
> Perhaps, but there are many people of history for which their 'tomb'
> location is unknown.
Of course. However there is also much evidence to show that these people
actually existed, like Gengiz Khan.
> Most assume that it was Babel, thought to be a mythical city as late as
> the age of Neopolian, until archeology undercovered it.
You mean Al Hillah, which was established in 1101CE?
Try again, mate. :)
> Some say that the 'common ancestor' is feasible to prove.
Oh really? Who, exactly? Name some names, mate. And I mean people who
actually work and study genetics, not some of your "well educated"
friends.
> Already have that.
Nope. You have offered one, the bible, which is not reliable. How about
some Sumarian writings? Or some ancient Chinese writings?
> Not have specific data does not invalidate a hypothesis, and we do have
> specific documents, you just don't like them.
Specific document"s"? Pural? Name the others, please.
> Or we could correlate the myths of the time to the accuracy of the
> Biblical stories.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! The bible?? Accurate???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!
> What genetic data do you have to invalidate Cain?
All of it.
> And what historical data invalidates the Scripture?
All of it, when it comes to Cain.
> Already asked and answered.
Uh-huh. Nice imaginary world you have there mate. :)
> Who is the specific and original founder of Jericho? who is the specific
> and original founder of Babel? or of Sumner, Ur of the Caldes and a host
> of other cities?
Considering that Cain was meant to be a major mythical figure, you'd
think the inhabitants of the city might just record that... But never
mind!
> Who said that they did?
Well, all the evidence points to the fact that Aboriginals were living
in Australia at least 40,000 years ago. You can try to refute it if you
want. Still itching to get that Nobel Prize, mate? ;)
> All you have provided is hand waving and the blind faith of denial.
*wave wave* Don't knock yourself out with your flapping. ;)
> 10,000 BC? Not all that inconsistent with Biblical history and well
> withing the error of even the unprovable assumptions of the calibration.
All over the world? In hundreds of places at once?
> there is a lot, however, none particularly discredits Scripture, in fact,
> a great amount of Archological work validates Scripture.
Sure, since the bible actually mentions places that exist. <rolls eyes>
> So you say, is that a solid basis to ignor it just because you don't like it?
You're a funny man. :)
> Tee hee hee, only the Hebrew text is in agreement with a scientific
> beginning, the Rig Veda has been discredited having not a 'beginning' and
> is therefore, inconsistent with current science.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!! Oh, mate, no one has made me laugh so hard in years! Thanks.
:) Consistent with science - oh, that's *funny*.
> Tee hee hee, you are right on the invention date of the evolution myth, it
> was a religious belief in Babylon, and probably even further back than
> that.
<blink blink>
I think I need to try these drugs you are on. The hallucinations appear
to be magnificent.
> You don't know? THEY are never called Jews. Read the Scripture, they
> were not called Jews in the Hebrew text.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!! Next time I'm
at Synagogue, I'll tell the Rabbi that. He'll probably laugh harder than
me. :)
> It refers to the Bride of Christ, which may or may not be consistent with
> the church.
Oooooh, is that like the Bride of Frankenstein?
> No, the ekkelesia was founded in the Garden of Eden, Christ was merely a
> reformation established along with a new covenant.
So your particular version of the christian jesus-myth died, didn't die,
was a tree and got married in the garden of eden?
<snippo>
> Actually, the correct name is Yeshoua ha Mashiyack ben YHVH Elohym.
Speak Hebrew, do you? :)
> Tee hee hee, actually it is in the Bible everywhere.
I call Bible Bullshit.
> But you have yet to prove that it is a myth.
<Yawn>
> I actually have a lot of knowledge of science, evolution is a good
> hypothesis, but the evidence fails to raise the hypothesis to a theory,
> much less a fact.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
AHAHAHHAHA!!!
Let's see if you can spot your glaring errors in the sentence above. $50
says you can't. ;)
> Yes, I have studied evolution sufficiently to discren that it fails to
> meet the requirements of a theory contrary to the leap of logic based upon
> the blind faith of the religious views of evolutionists.
Oh, man!!!! Now, your post made me laugh, but this last bit actually
made me laugh so hard, I hurt myself.
So, Doctor, when are you publishing your papers to disprove evolution?
What journal are they going to be in? I'd love to see that.
Hey, Mike, that was a hilarious post. :) Good to see comedy is still an
important part of religion! :)
Cheers,
TGHO
The Great Hairy One
mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
> There is no guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, one large comet and
> it is all over.
What, one large comet and the sun explodes? Earth turns to dust? How
does that stop the sun "rising"?
> No, the assumption that c-14 has been constant since the
> creation of the earth for starters.
Ah! I see what you are saying! So, the speed of light going to change
next? H2O only a recent "invention"? Gravity didn't work until the whole
apple event?
> That unproven assumption is vital to any conclusion drawn from any measurements.
<Snigger>
> Who the hell are you and by what authority are you practicing as a 'scientist'?
My the authority of my multiple degrees, dude. Obtained from actual
universities, not religious degree mills. So cough up. What's Drake's
credentials?
--
The Great Hairy One
Hey, Tom, I'm beginning to think that you were correct at the beginning
of this thread!
Cheers,
TGHO
The Great Hairy One
mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
> Honesty. BTW, C-14 is not the only dating systems that relies upon
> unproven assumptions and limiting conditions in the calibration of the
> conclusions.
Hey, I have a question - what, going by your methods, actually is the
age of the Earth?
The Great Hairy One
> Those are perhaps conclusions of the text, but they are certainly not
> innacuracies between the texts, which are identical.
Did you just say that the TaNKaH is identical in English and Hebrew...?
Michael
So you say, specifically and particularly where and how?
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-1605050909420001@localhost>, mike...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
>
> > No, when all men speak well of you, remember that so did their fathers to
> > the false prophets.
>
> 1) Not all men speak well of me,
In a world fallen to sin, that can be a good thing.
> 2) What's a "false prophet"?
One who bears false witness.
> 3) How do we tell whom their fathers spoke to and what they said?
History.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <vL4ie.4671$mt....@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rm...@hvc.rr.com
> says...
>
> > Ah yes, the false prophets Jesus, Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew.. you mean
> > those false prophets.
>
> They would have had to exist to actually have been a prophet - only Saul
> actually existed as far as we know!
I would love to see your documentation.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-160...@192.168.1.105>,
> mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> Gidday Mike,
Gidday, mate.
>
> > Or at least are the conclusions dependent upon the assumptions and
> > limiting conditions of the calibration of those dating techniques;
> > however, the same problem persists, and that is the accuracy of the
> > assumptions.
> >
> > www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
>
> <snip news article>
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Oh man, that was funny.
I though you would enjoy it. I enjoy reading the comics at alt.talk
origins as well.
I don't think I've read a more pitiful critique
> of radiometric dating in years. The limited and child-like understanding
> of science, the lack of knowledge and the kindergarden level of
> comprehension was just astounding.
Perhaps you could provide a more 'educated' explanation of what is
kindergarten in the article rather than abject and undocumented redicule.
>
> Mike, if that is your level of science, I can only say - go and get a
> real education. At an honest and proper university. Then come back and
> debate with me.
So far, you have presented little to debate. BTW, what are your
credentials that would demonstrate that you have anything beyond a
kindergarten understanding?
>
> > No, one would be up for a nobel prize if he could prove what is not
yet proven.
>
> <Giggles> Hey Mike, you know that there is no proof in science right?
True, but laws are more reliable that theories which are more reliable
that a hypothesis, like evolution.
If
> your mate there at "True Authority" could come up with a better theory
> to explain what we see, then he could get a Nobel Prize. Although I
> think he needs to finish Primary School first. ;)
Your judgement, it would carry more weight if you could address the issues
rather than his character, however.
>
> <snippity>
>
> > You mean like a written document?
>
> Yep. One that could be verified. Unlike the bible.
The 'Bible' was verified by Christ, what are you looking for?
>
> > Perhaps, but there are many people of history for which their 'tomb'
> > location is unknown.
>
> Of course. However there is also much evidence to show that these people
> actually existed, like Gengiz Khan.
There is far more evidence that Christ existed than Tactitus.
>
> > Most assume that it was Babel, thought to be a mythical city as late as
> > the age of Neopolian, until archeology undercovered it.
>
> You mean Al Hillah, which was established in 1101CE?
No, Babel which existed much longer before Babylon.
>
> Try again, mate. :)
No need to. Personally, I think it was Jericho.
>
> > Some say that the 'common ancestor' is feasible to prove.
>
> Oh really? Who, exactly? Name some names, mate.
A fundie evolution source says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Mitochondrial Eve
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An artist's impression [complete with evolutionary prejudices as to what
she looked like] of Mitochondrial Eve who probably [which means that is
the current afro-centric perspective] lived in Africa, about 150,000 years
ago [based upon the assumptions and limiting conditions of the dating
mechanism].
A comparison of the mitochondrial DNA of humans from many races and
regions suggests that all of these DNA sequences have evolved
[evolutionary prejudice noted, it is equally likely that the DNA shares a
common Creator instead] molecularly from a common ancestor [or commmon
Creator] sequence. Under the assumption [which means they don't really
know] that an individual inherits mitochondria only from one's mother,
this finding implies [which means that they really don't know] that all
living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers
have dubbed Mitochondrial Eve. Based on the molecular clock technique of
correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift [based upon the
assumptions of clock time -time is actually relative, not linear-and the
old evolutionists fundie genetic drift hypothesis], Eve is believed to
have lived about 150,000 years ago (148,000 BC). Phylogeny suggests she
lived in Africa. [Both of which are undocumentable opinions]
>And I mean people who
> actually work and study genetics, not some of your "well educated"
> friends.
>
> > Already have that.
>
> Nope. You have offered one, the bible, which is not reliable.
According to what standards and why does it fail in your judgement?
How about
> some Sumarian writings? Or some ancient Chinese writings?
How about it? Abraham was from Ur and carried all of Genesis before his
time from Sumaria. China came after Babel.
>
> > Not have specific data does not invalidate a hypothesis, and we do have
> > specific documents, you just don't like them.
>
> Specific document"s"? Pural? Name the others, please.
Tactitus and Josephus for two, but you probably believe that they were
tampered with and unreliable to suite certain prejudices.
>
> > Or we could correlate the myths of the time to the accuracy of the
> > Biblical stories.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! The bible?? Accurate???
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!
The Bible, Inaccurate????? where and how specifically and particularly?
>
> > What genetic data do you have to invalidate Cain?
>
> All of it.
That is your opinion, that is not data.
>
> > And what historical data invalidates the Scripture?
>
> All of it, when it comes to Cain.
That is your opinion, that is not data.
>
> > Already asked and answered.
>
> Uh-huh. Nice imaginary world you have there mate. :)
Tee hee heee, you mean like your assertion that all the data says, but you
fail to provide?
>
> > Who is the specific and original founder of Jericho? who is the specific
> > and original founder of Babel? or of Sumner, Ur of the Caldes and a host
> > of other cities?
>
> Considering that Cain was meant to be a major mythical figure,
At least according to your prejudices.
you'd
> think the inhabitants of the city might just record that... But never
> mind!
So who did the people of Jericho record the founder was?
>
> > Who said that they did?
>
> Well, all the evidence points to the fact that Aboriginals were living
> in Australia at least 40,000 years ago.
According to what dating technique and what assumptions and limiting
conditions were used in the dating calibration?
You can try to refute it if you
> want.
You didn't give enough detail to support the assertion.
>Still itching to get that Nobel Prize, mate? ;)
Tee hee hee, perhaps we can co-author a paper.
>
> > All you have provided is hand waving and the blind faith of denial.
>
> *wave wave* Don't knock yourself out with your flapping. ;)
Tee hee hee, I never do that.
>
> > 10,000 BC? Not all that inconsistent with Biblical history and well
> > withing the error of even the unprovable assumptions of the calibration.
>
> All over the world? In hundreds of places at once?
Pretty consistent with Scripture, eh?
>
> > there is a lot, however, none particularly discredits Scripture, in fact,
> > a great amount of Archological work validates Scripture.
>
> Sure, since the bible actually mentions places that exist. <rolls eyes>
At one time, the Bible was discredited for mentioning places no one ever
heard of, until archealogy found them.
>
> > So you say, is that a solid basis to ignor it just because you don't
like it?
>
> You're a funny man. :)
Hey, always ready for a beer and a laugh with someone from Oz.
>
> > Tee hee hee, only the Hebrew text is in agreement with a scientific
> > beginning, the Rig Veda has been discredited having not a 'beginning' and
> > is therefore, inconsistent with current science.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!! Oh, mate, no one has made me laugh so hard in years! Thanks.
> :) Consistent with science - oh, that's *funny*.
I used to think that as well, so what, IYO, is inconsistent with science?
>
> > Tee hee hee, you are right on the invention date of the evolution myth, it
> > was a religious belief in Babylon, and probably even further back than
> > that.
>
> <blink blink>
>
> I think I need to try these drugs you are on. The hallucinations appear
> to be magnificent.
Tee hee hee, I was about to say the same about you, either that or the
down under thinking.
>
> > You don't know? THEY are never called Jews. Read the Scripture, they
> > were not called Jews in the Hebrew text.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!! Next time I'm
> at Synagogue, I'll tell the Rabbi that. He'll probably laugh harder than
> me. :)
He will stop laughing when he finds that the Hebrew texts do not mention
the word Jew in Moses day. Only about 2 references use the term to
describe descendants of Judah. then in babylon, when the first writings of
the Talmud were begun, the Jewish faith (most of the folks in Babylon were
from Judea and not Israel) is mentioned separate from race, and the New
Testament in Judea uses the word as a religious belief quite freely.
>
> > It refers to the Bride of Christ, which may or may not be consistent with
> > the church.
>
> Oooooh, is that like the Bride of Frankenstein?
No, quite the opposite, Frankenstiens bride was made by man, The Bride of
Christ is made by God, one living stone at a time.
>
> > No, the ekkelesia was founded in the Garden of Eden, Christ was merely a
> > reformation established along with a new covenant.
>
> So your particular version of the christian jesus-myth died, didn't die,
> was a tree and got married in the garden of eden?
Not my particular version, there is only one version. No the marriage is
yet to come.
>
> <snippo>
>
> > Actually, the correct name is Yeshoua ha Mashiyack ben YHVH Elohym.
>
> Speak Hebrew, do you? :)
Some.
>
> > Tee hee hee, actually it is in the Bible everywhere.
>
> I call Bible Bullshit.
Are you trying to shock us? We are used to Christophobes on this
newsgroup, we get a new troll a week, so you will have to do better than
that.
>
> > But you have yet to prove that it is a myth.
>
> <Yawn>
Documenting the reasons for your assertion too tiring to take on?
>
> > I actually have a lot of knowledge of science, evolution is a good
> > hypothesis, but the evidence fails to raise the hypothesis to a theory,
> > much less a fact.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
> AHAHAHHAHA!!!
Tee hee hee, now you wake up?
>
> Let's see if you can spot your glaring errors in the sentence above. $50
> says you can't. ;)
You are on mate, what is the glaring error? Please provide the defination
for science, evolution, hypothesis, evidence, fact, and theory that you
are using.
>
> > Yes, I have studied evolution sufficiently to discren that it fails to
> > meet the requirements of a theory contrary to the leap of logic based upon
> > the blind faith of the religious views of evolutionists.
>
> Oh, man!!!! Now, your post made me laugh, but this last bit actually
> made me laugh so hard, I hurt myself.
Tee hee hee, you are a real knee slapper as well, mate.
>
> So, Doctor, when are you publishing your papers to disprove evolution?
> What journal are they going to be in? I'd love to see that.
Don't have to, it is a religious belief in crisis.
>
> Hey, Mike, that was a hilarious post. :) Good to see comedy is still an
> important part of religion! :)
No need to be dour, my Father enjoys laughter.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-180...@192.168.1.105>,
> mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > There is no guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, one large comet and
> > it is all over.
>
> What, one large comet and the sun explodes? Earth turns to dust? How
> does that stop the sun "rising"?
You are not very scientific, are you. the sun doesn't really rise, that is
an idiom which is not true, scientifically.
>
> > No, the assumption that c-14 has been constant since the
> > creation of the earth for starters.
>
> Ah! I see what you are saying! So, the speed of light going to change
> next?
Certain quamtum mechanics theories have challenged the unproven hypothesis
of Einstein as to the constant speed of light, certinly in different
reference planes.
>H2O only a recent "invention"?
No, God seems to have invented that quite a long time age.
>Gravity didn't work until the whole
> apple event?
Tee hee hee, we still do not know what gravity is, specifically and
particularly. We do know how to measure it, at least in this reference
plane. We use electricity as well, and still don't understand that much
either.
>
> > That unproven assumption is vital to any conclusion drawn from any
measurements.
>
> <Snigger>
>
> > Who the hell are you and by what authority are you practicing as a
'scientist'?
>
> My the authority of my multiple degrees, dude.
And the evidenc of that is?
>Obtained from actual
> universities, not religious degree mills. So cough up. What's Drake's
> credentials?
So far, you still haven't given yours.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-170...@192.168.1.105>,
> mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
> > Honesty. BTW, C-14 is not the only dating systems that relies upon
> > unproven assumptions and limiting conditions in the calibration of the
> > conclusions.
>
> Hey, I have a question - what, going by your methods, actually is the
> age of the Earth?
1) depends upon which method I use
2) there are seveal different methods which result in different
conclusions depending upon the assumptions and limiting conditions of the
method
3) Factually, I don't know which one is the best estimate as of this time
4) Revealed Scripture as a method provides that the earth was created and
based upon the Hebrew in Genesis 1:2, there is no way to estimate the age
of the earth as revealed by God, only that it was created, which is the
relevant point of the text.
Michael
Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mikeburt-180...@192.168.1.105>,
> mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > Those are perhaps conclusions of the text, but they are certainly not
> > innacuracies between the texts, which are identical.
>
> Did you just say that the TaNKaH is identical in English and Hebrew...?
Both use the same identical Hebrew texts, why would the same text be
different? There are two different Hebrew texts, but there are pretty
consistent.
Bob
>>
>>No, as a matter of fact, the text is NOT identical. Psalm 22 in
>>particular, as well as Isaiah 7:14. Purposeful mistranslation.
>
>
> So you say, specifically and particularly where and how?
>
Yes, the hebrew "K'iro" in psalm 22 is not 'Pierced', and is not
a 'precuros' to Jesus.
Almah in Isaiah 7:14 is not virgin, and is not a precusor to Jesus.
If you read Isaiah IN CONTEXT, you will see that Isaiah is talking
about his own wife and son.
Bob
> In article <MPG.1cf7050cb...@freenews.iinet.net.au>, The Great
> Hairy One <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <mikeburt-180...@192.168.1.105>,
>>mike...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>
>>>Those are perhaps conclusions of the text, but they are certainly not
>>>innacuracies between the texts, which are identical.
>>
>>Did you just say that the TaNKaH is identical in English and Hebrew...?
>
>
> Both use the same identical Hebrew texts, why would the same text be
> different? There are two different Hebrew texts, but there are pretty
> consistent.
>
Purposeful mistranslations, that is how.
Tom
"The Great Hairy One" <the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf703b3e...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
Hi TGHO,
Welcome back after your absence. Yes, I dealt with this fool a couple of
years ago. I found that he is totally illiterate in matters of science and
is quite immature. His use of large words( many of which don't exist) shows
the lack of self confidence that he has in his position. I found an old
thread yesterday where he used his first "tee hee hee" on me. I kept trying
to get his age because this sounded like a sure fire teen-ager to me. Alas,
he is an adult, at least chronologically.
Tom