History of the Earth

25 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 10:02:47 AM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
Brock and I have been discussing the age of the Earth, among other
things. I pointed out that if one believed Genesis literally,
including the Noah's Ark story, that one must therefore disbelieve the
modern science of geology, as described in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

Brock asked me for more details for this supposed inconsistency, hence
this post. For starters, let's switch wikipedia articles to the more
specific one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
literally true, this article is completely wrong. There is not one
single part of it that is consistent with Genesis. From the formation
of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.

So, rather than go through the article paragraph by paragraph saying
"Here's another part of Earth's natural history that is not consistent
with Genesis" I would like to ask Brock to read this article and tell
me how _he_ reconciles this view of reality with his own. Are these
scientists all mistaken about what the evidence shows? Are they
lying? Have they been duped by talking snakes? How is it that the
vast majority of geologists, even the Christian ones, believe the
Earth is 4.5 billion years old?

- Bob T

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 1:18:52 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
because they are not captivated by the literal interpretation of the
bible? it seems parties on both sides of the aisle cant seem to move
on from the fact that the bible should not be taken literally. novel
idea i guess, although it seems like a broken record to me ...

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 1:46:34 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 10:18 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> because they are not captivated by the literal interpretation of the
> bible? it seems parties on both sides of the aisle cant seem to move
> on from the fact that the bible should not be taken literally.

Hey, genius. Arguing that it is absurd to take the Bible literally
does not mean that atheists take the Bible literally.

> novel
> idea i guess, although it seems like a broken record to me ...

Nah, I think it's just some idiotic misunderstanding on your part.

> On Feb 5, 10:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Brock and I have been discussing the age of the Earth, among other
> > things.  I pointed out that if one believed Genesis literally,
> > including the Noah's Ark story, that one must therefore disbelieve the
> > modern science of geology, as described in:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
>
> > Brock asked me for more details for this supposed inconsistency, hence
> > this post.  For starters, let's switch wikipedia articles to the more
> > specific one:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
>
> > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> > literally true, this article is completely wrong.  There is not one
> > single part of it that is consistent with Genesis.  From the formation
> > of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> > age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> > of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.
>
> > So, rather than go through the article paragraph by paragraph saying
> > "Here's another part of Earth's natural history that is not consistent
> > with Genesis" I would like to ask Brock to read this article and tell
> > me how _he_ reconciles this view of reality with his own.  Are these
> > scientists all mistaken about what the evidence shows?  Are they
> > lying?  Have they been duped by talking snakes?  How is it that the
> > vast majority of geologists, even the Christian ones, believe the
> > Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
>

> > - Bob T- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 2:52:38 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
ummm ... if you dont relate to it literally, why do you make such a
fuss about the wording of the book? why do you ridicule it so much?
sorta silly and childish, no?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 3:00:20 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 11:52 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ummm ... if you dont relate to it literally, why do you make such a
> fuss about the wording of the book? why do you ridicule it so much?
> sorta silly and childish, no?

LL: Not at all, as long as there is a substantial number of people who
do--and who also are insistently, persistently and loudly vocal about
it. People who make ridiculous statements should be ridiculed.


********************

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 4:17:21 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 5, 11:52 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ummm ... if you dont relate to it literally, why do you make such a
> fuss about the wording of the book?

Pointing out absurdities does not equal making a fuss about the
wording of a book. Since people are willing to bind, torture, and kill
over this book, I think that pointing out the absurdities of the book
is performing a public service.

> why do you ridicule it so much?

One person's ridicule is another person's satire. Satire has a fine
tradition. I can understand why you would object, since you are a
target of the satire, but that's no reason to stop, since satire is an
effective and non-violent way of changing people's minds.

> sorta silly and childish, no?

Public service is not silly and childish.

Daniel T.

<daniel_t@earthlink.net>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 6:56:02 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 5, 1:18 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> because they are not captivated by the literal interpretation of the
> bible? it seems parties on both sides of the aisle cant seem to move
> on from the fact that the bible should not be taken literally. novel
> idea i guess, although it seems like a broken record to me ...

It seems to me that once someone accepts that the Bible can't be taken
literally, that it must be interpreted and some parts discarded, the
primacy of the Bible must also be denied. In other words, the Bible
becomes no better or worse than any other work of art.

Art Grey

<artgreydanus@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 7:09:52 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
Hi Bob T. I am not necessarily arguing for a young
earth but there are some problems that scientists
must address such as intact DNA from supposedly
ancient layers of rock being found.

On 2월6일, 오전12시02분, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> Brock and I have been discussing the age of the Earth, among other
> things. I pointed out that if one believed Genesis literally,
> including the Noah's Ark story, that one must therefore disbelieve the
> modern science of geology, as described in:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

Intact DNA of "ancient" species have been found in
"old" geological layers. This is a great surprise.

http://www.icr.org/article/5148/

also see:

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2009/11NOV09/051109/_muscle.html

so there is observable evidence that the supposed rocks may
not be as old as claimed to be since it is supposedly not
feasible for DNA, i.e. organic material to survive for so long.

The earth could be billions of years old before v.4 of genesis one
and then God could have quickly enacted the 7 "days" of
Genesis so there is more to the record than atheists may
realize.

>
> Brock asked me for more details for this supposed inconsistency, hence
> this post. For starters, let's switch wikipedia articles to the more
> specific one:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
>
> To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> literally true, this article is completely wrong. There is not one
> single part of it that is consistent with Genesis. From the formation
> of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.

It is clear that many geological landforms, such as
Niagara Falls may be only thousands, not millions of
years old.

Simon Ewins

<sjewins@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 7:18:28 PM2/5/10
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
[Art Grey]

> It is clear that many geological landforms, such as
> Niagara Falls may be only thousands, not millions of
> years old.

Niagara falls began about 12,000 years ago. Millions is ridiculous,
nobody has ever suggested millions of years. Hell millions of years ago
the area was covered by a sea.

The Falls began just after the Wisconsin glacier cover retreated.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a
spiritual life."
[Buddha]

Think

<teddybear2@bellsouth.net>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 7:29:45 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 5, 3:00 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:52 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ummm ... if you dont relate to it literally, why do you make such a
> > fuss about the wording of the book? why do you ridicule it so much?
> > sorta silly and childish, no?
>
> LL: Not at all, as long as there is a substantial number of people who
> do--and who also are insistently, persistently and loudly vocal about
> it. People who make ridiculous statements should be ridiculed.
>
> ********************


They want to teach it as science!! Our local school board spent
thousands of dollars first affixing a label saying evolution was "only
a theory" and then removing them. A complete waste of money simply
because of the ignorance of both science and the law. I can think of
a few ways that money could have been better spent.

Think

<teddybear2@bellsouth.net>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 7:34:10 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 5, 6:56 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> It seems to me that once someone accepts that the Bible can't be taken
> literally, that it must be interpreted and some parts discarded, the
> primacy of the Bible must also be denied.  In other words, the Bible
> becomes no better or worse than any other work of art.


Well that's a matter of opinion. It's really not very good art or
literature. The fact that so many take it literally and want to teach
it as science just adds injury to insult. When you think about it,
the bible is basically an insult to humanity. Just how low does one
have to feel before it can be viewed as uplifting?

Think

<teddybear2@bellsouth.net>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 7:47:59 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 5, 7:09 pm, Art Grey <artgreyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bob T. I am not necessarily arguing for a young
> earth but there are some problems that scientists
> must address such as intact DNA from supposedly
> ancient layers of rock being found.
>
> On 2월6일, 오전12시02분, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > Brock and I have been discussing the age of the Earth, among other
> > things. I pointed out that if one believed Genesis literally,
> > including the Noah's Ark story, that one must therefore disbelieve the
> > modern science of geology, as described in:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
>
> Intact DNA of "ancient" species have been found in
> "old" geological layers. This is a great surprise.
>
> http://www.icr.org/article/5148/
>
> also see:
>
> http://www.ucd.ie/news/2009/11NOV09/051109/_muscle.html
>
> so there is observable evidence that the supposed rocks may
> not be as old as claimed to be since it is supposedly not
> feasible for DNA, i.e. organic material to survive for so long.

No Art, the surprise is that organic proteins could be preserved for
that long a time. It doesn't throw the dating of the rocks into
question. And it confirms that dinosaurs were probably the ancestors
of chickens!

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins
http://tinyurl.com/2nex4r

Assuming that the skeptics don't discover something amiss.

Dig we must!!

> The earth could be billions of years old before v.4 of genesis one
> and then God could have quickly enacted the 7 "days" of
> Genesis so there is more to the record than atheists may
> realize.

You'd acquire more knowledge if you could discover why you go to such
great lengths to cling to this old myth.

Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 7:52:54 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 4:09 pm, Art Grey <artgreyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bob T. I am not necessarily arguing for a young
> earth but there are some problems that scientists
> must address such as intact DNA from supposedly
> ancient layers of rock being found.
>

> On 2월6일, 오전12시02분, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > Brock and I have been discussing the age of the Earth, among other
> > things. I pointed out that if one believed Genesis literally,
> > including the Noah's Ark story, that one must therefore disbelieve the
> > modern science of geology, as described in:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
>
> Intact DNA of "ancient" species have been found in
> "old" geological layers. This is a great surprise.
>
> http://www.icr.org/article/5148/

In this article, the ICR claims that scientists have found "fresh" DNA
in ancient rocks. That's not true. What they have found, is
dessicated ancient DNA that only survived so long because it was deep
inside bones that fossilized.

By the way, the Institute for Creation Research is not exactly a
reliable source for information.

>
> also see:
>
> http://www.ucd.ie/news/2009/11NOV09/051109/_muscle.html
>
> so there is observable evidence that the supposed rocks may
> not be as old as claimed to be since it is supposedly not
> feasible for DNA, i.e. organic material to survive for so long.

Well, no, not really. We know how old the rocks are based on several
reliable and overlapping dating methods, and the DNA found is no
fresher than one might expect. It turns out that it makes a great
deal of difference _how_ you open these ancient fossils and look
inside.


>
> The earth could be billions of years old before v.4 of genesis one
> and then God could have quickly enacted the 7 "days" of
> Genesis so there is more to the record than atheists may realize.

If Genesis is an allegorical story that's not literally true, I have
no problem with it. As I said above, even if God explained exactly
how He created the universe and how long it took, the ancient
Israelites never would have understood Him.

>
> > Brock asked me for more details for this supposed inconsistency, hence
> > this post. For starters, let's switch wikipedia articles to the more
> > specific one:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
>
> > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> > literally true, this article is completely wrong. There is not one
> > single part of it that is consistent with Genesis. From the formation
> > of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> > age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> > of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.
>
> It is clear that many geological landforms, such as
> Niagara Falls may be only thousands, not millions of years old.

Niagara Falls is thought to be about ten thousand years old, but so
what? The Grand Canyon is millions of years old. According to
Biblical literalists, _nothing_ is as old as ten thousand years, let
alone millions.

- Bob T


>
>
> > So, rather than go through the article paragraph by paragraph saying
> > "Here's another part of Earth's natural history that is not consistent
> > with Genesis" I would like to ask Brock to read this article and tell
> > me how _he_ reconciles this view of reality with his own. Are these
> > scientists all mistaken about what the evidence shows? Are they
> > lying? Have they been duped by talking snakes? How is it that the
> > vast majority of geologists, even the Christian ones, believe the
> > Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
>

Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 7:58:45 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

I'm not so sure that's true. What if God really exists, but
communication between Him and humans is difficult for some reason? Or
maybe He was perfectly clear about what He said, but the humans just
misunderstood him? Let's suppose that God really did use the Big Bang
and evolution to create us. How would He go about explaining that to
Bronze Age shepherds?

- Bob T

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 10:34:18 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 11:52 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ummm ... if you dont relate to it literally, why do you make such a
> fuss about the wording of the book? why do you ridicule it so much?
> sorta silly and childish, no?

Observer

If you had just a little education you would understand that Atheists
reject not only the existence of a god but the hideously ignorant crap
of the bible wherein such stupidity was created. Those who criticize
the ignorance thereof are doing so to illustrate that no rational god
thing could be responsible for such stupidity.

Damn E you are an ignorant fuck !


Psychonomist

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 10:43:38 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 3:56 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Observer

Art ? Art? I don't see no art.

The bible is hideous superstitious filth.


Stuff it where the sun don't shine!

Why would you subject your mind to such destructive misanthropic trash
are so in need of the sadomasochism thereof that you torture your mind
with such filth?

Work of art in deed?


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha


Psychonomist

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 10:49:54 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

Observer
What if frogs had pockets ? would they carry pistols to keep the
snakes off of their asses?

And how would they explain that to those who reject the 2nd amendment?

Psychonomist
>
> - Bob T

A Query

<djb226@uow.edu.au>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 11:46:30 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 6, 2:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> Brock and I have been discussing the age of the Earth, among other
> things.  I pointed out that if one believed Genesis literally,
> including the Noah's Ark story, that one must therefore disbelieve the
> modern science of geology

Hmm, as a Christian i would say that I do take the Bible literally,
which would include the Genesis creation account. By "literally" I
mean "at face value", taking into consideration literary
characteristics. For example, if I come across Psalm 69:1-2 which says
"Save me, O God, for the waters have come up to my neck, where there
is no foothold. I have come into the deep waters; the floods engulf
me" (TNIV), I would certainly say that I take this Psalm "literally".
But this does not mean I think David is describing a near-drowning
experience. Of course, it is obvious that David is employing metaphor
here in order to emphasise his desperate situation, in this case, his
feeling of being overwhelmed by his enemies. Am I taking the passage
"literally"? Of course. In fact, if I interpreted it without
considering David's use of metaphor, I would be guilty of ignorance,
and I would be distorting the David's original intention in writing
the passage.

Perhaps there are some parallels here with the Genesis creation
account. If we take into consideration the literary purpose of the
text, then I think there can be little doubt that there exists no
contradiction between the creation account and modern science. Genesis
1:1-2:3 is a clearly poetic introduction that emphasises the purpose
of creation, the *why* of human existence. Through the use of
repetition and a deliberately climactic structure, this passage
accentuates the guiding hand of God in creation and its culmination in
the creation of humankind. In interpreting this passage I'm taking it
quite literally, that is, at it's face value. As with the passage in
Psalms, if we simply ignore the poetic nature of the text, and treat
it rather as a scientific description, we will come out with a very
distorted picture of what the text is claiming.

Therefore, I see no reason to think that one must disbelieve anything
established in modern science if one takes the Genesis account at face
value.

<snip>

A Query

<djb226@uow.edu.au>
unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 11:53:33 PM2/5/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
I agree entirely, and I can't understand the position of people who
claim to be Christian yet hold to a liberal interpretation of the
Bible. Core Christian doctrines, for example, the resurrection of
Jesus Christ, rest on the historical claims of the Bible. If one
suggests that "the bible should not be taken literally", does that
mean we discard this Christ from Christianity? If we did so, what
remained would not be Christianity. I think you make an extremely
important point here, and I'm glad you brought it up!

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 6:09:47 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
ummm ... the people who made those 'ridiculous' statements died
thousands of years ago. if you feel the need, as you obviously do, you
should invent a time machine and go back and ridicule them face to
face ... no?

On Feb 5, 3:00 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 6:11:51 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
let me get this straight ... people, in the name of xtianity, bind,
torture and kill people these days do they? hmmm ... got any news
articles pointing this out?

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 6:18:36 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
Bob T,

IF all the world were paper
And all the sea was ink,
And all the trees were bread and cheese,
What would we have to drink?

If is such a small word and is used for one
of the biggest cop-outs for christians; the
whole dogma of christianity is built on if's
and buts and may-be's. When are you going
to realise that IF you constantly rely on IF,
you will never know reality. Or is reality what
you find so difficult to face?

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 6:28:45 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
one may not want to throw out a piece of art because it has a blemish
or two. besides, the bible contains parables and has been translated
multiple times. hey, i dont buy that the bible is the inspired word of
'god' and am simply suggesting that others may want to move on from
attacking those who believe in it. just a thought, and if they dont,
no biggy

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 6:30:01 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
i agree ... fight the establishment and good for you. although, i do
not feel that will be accomplished here, do you?

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 6:33:30 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
if it is blatantly ignorant, move on. why is crucifying xtians so
important to you, other than the fact that you are a mean 'non-
spirited' shell of humanity, and are simply taking out your self hate
on others?

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 6:52:16 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
A Query,

Hmm, as an Atheist I would say that you appear to need
urgent psychiatric assessment. It is obvious that your
approach to works of fictitious writings of ancient and
mythological origins, has so unbalanced any sense of
logical reasoning as to make all communication performed
by your fingers, for our delectation, as translations from
your mind, quite illogical and the mundane inadequacy
of so called christianity has so overwhelmed your mind
in the belief of the rubbish you spew out through the
medium of your computer, as to make of you a laughing-
stock, akin to an idiot. You would do well to get some
urgent psychological help.

For your future reading I can thoroughly recommend
Aesops Fables also a book of mythology, (so it's bound
to appeal,) but one that at least does not pretend to be
anything other than it is and incidently, much of it
was plagerized for use in the biblical text which has
so ruinously tampered with your sanity.

I tend to refer to it as the insanity in christianity.

TLC

<tlc.terence@googlemail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 7:04:40 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
e_space, Why not also look at some christian sects in the West.

If we were a village you would be our Idiot!

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-8/episode-1/

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 7:17:38 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
if youre a genius, i am thankful to be an idiot ;^-}

On Feb 6, 7:04 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> e_space,   Why not also look at some christian sects in the West.
>
> If we were a village you would be our Idiot!
>

> http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-8/...

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 7:22:16 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
e_space,

I find your defense of the indifensible quite grotesque.

I submit that Obs' observations are less to do with self/hatred
and more to do with hatred of a malicious and dispicable
religious organisation that has corrupted and continues to
corrupt and deceive millions of the human race.

I urge him and others of a like mind in atheism, to bring their
very heart nerve and sinew to bear in the condemnation
of this rotten, murderous and bloody, religious atrocity,
that goes by the name of christianity and Islam.

No words or thoughts can sufficiently express the magnitude
of the harm perpetrated by the joint, repulsive dogmas waged
as a scurge on the world at large for the sake of religious
supremacy. You should think twice and twice again before
you criticise an honest man for speaking his piece, I admire
him and hope he will continue to lay bear the false teachings
of religion in all its nafarious guises. We enjoy freedom of
thought and freedom of speach and you nor anyone will
take that from us, much as you may wish not to hear or
bear the truth we tell. Time you thought of the harm that
religion promotes every day.

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 7:39:45 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
if one is a reasonable person, they may consider compassion as an
avenue to deal with those that they simply disagree with, not call
their belief 'filthy superstition' and refer to them as uneducated,
etc, etc, etc. you know, actually feel sorry for them, rather than to
attempt to crucify them at every opportunity?

slobserver is a vile hater of all that doesnt fit in with his
determinations of what is right. one cannot treat people the way he
does unless there are some serious personal issues. imo, his self
loathing motivates him to spew forth obscenity laden bile against any
poor theist he bumps into.

his hatred of xtianity should be aimed at the hierarchy, not the
people who follow some of its tenets, dont you think? if you like his
posting style, i have to wonder about the pain of your reality ...

Trance Gemini

<trancegemini7@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:25:40 AM2/6/10
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:11 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
let me get this straight ... people, in the name of xtianity, bind,
torture and kill people these days do they? hmmm ... got any news
articles pointing this out?

On Feb 5, 4:17 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:52 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ummm ... if you dont relate to it literally, why do you make such a
> > fuss about the wording of the book?
>
> Pointing out absurdities does not equal making a fuss about the
> wording of a book. Since people are willing to bind, torture, and kill
> over this book, I think that pointing out the absurdities of the book
> is performing a public service.

--
-------------------------
"Belief shuts the mind and inquiry opens it." --Observer

Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."  -- H.L. Mencken.

Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet."  ~Joseph Joubert


Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:26:07 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

I think you've missed something - I am arguing with a person who
_does_ take Genesis literally, talking snakes and all.

- Bob T
>
> <snip>

Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:28:57 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 6, 3:18 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Bob T,
>
> IF all the world were paper
> And all the sea was ink,
> And all the trees were bread and cheese,
> What would we have to drink?
>

Beer, duh.

> If is such a small word and is used for one
> of the biggest cop-outs for christians; the
> whole dogma of christianity is built on if's
> and buts and may-be's. When are you going
> to realise that IF you constantly rely on IF,
> you will never know reality. Or is reality what
> you find so difficult to face?

Um, you seem to have missed the fact that I'm an atheist. I'm just
pointing out that even if there really is a Jehovah, that still
doesn't mean that the Genesis stories are literally true.

- Bob T


>
> On Feb 6, 12:58 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:56 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 1:18 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > because they are not captivated by the literal interpretation of the
> > > > bible? it seems parties on both sides of the aisle cant seem to move
> > > > on from the fact that the bible should not be taken literally. novel
> > > > idea i guess, although it seems like a broken record to me ...
>
> > > It seems to me that once someone accepts that the Bible can't be taken
> > > literally, that it must be interpreted and some parts discarded, the
> > > primacy of the Bible must also be denied.  In other words, the Bible
> > > becomes no better or worse than any other work of art.
>
> > I'm not so sure that's true.  What if God really exists, but
> > communication between Him and humans is difficult for some reason?  Or
> > maybe He was perfectly clear about what He said, but the humans just
> > misunderstood him?  Let's suppose that God really did use the Big Bang
> > and evolution to create us.  How would He go about explaining that to
> > Bronze Age shepherds?
>

Trance Gemini

<trancegemini7@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:29:13 AM2/6/10
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:
e_space,

I find your defense of the indifensible quite grotesque.

I submit that Obs' observations are less to do with self/hatred
and more to do with hatred of a malicious and dispicable
religious organisation that has corrupted and continues to
corrupt and deceive millions of the human race.

I urge him and others of a like mind in atheism, to bring their
very  heart nerve and sinew to bear in the condemnation
of this rotten, murderous and bloody, religious atrocity,
that goes by the name of christianity and Islam.

No words or thoughts can sufficiently express the magnitude
of the harm perpetrated by the joint, repulsive dogmas waged
as a scurge on the world at large for the sake of religious
supremacy. You should think twice and twice again before
you criticise an honest man for speaking his piece, I admire
him and hope he will continue to lay bear the false teachings
of religion in all its nafarious guises. We enjoy freedom of
thought and freedom of speach and you nor anyone will
take that from us, much as you may wish not to hear or
bear the truth we tell. Time you thought of the harm that
religion promotes every day.

Well said Lawrey.

Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:31:26 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

Oddly enough, however, that person has not yet replied to this thread.

Hey, Brock - have you been following along? How old is the Earth,
buddy?

- Bob T
>
> - Bob T
>
>
>
>
>
> > <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:44:58 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 6, 3:11 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> let me get this straight ... people, in the name of xtianity, bind,
> torture and kill people these days do they? hmmm ... got any news
> articles pointing this out?

Besides the examples that TLC and Trance pointed out people are being
killed by Christians in Africa as witches.

"Witch hunts still occur today. Witch-hunts against children were
reported by the BBC in 1999 in the Congo[18] and in Tanzania, where
the government responded to attacks on women accused of being witches
for having red eyes.[19] A lawsuit was launched in 2001 in Ghana,
where witch-hunts are also common, by a woman accused of being a witch.
[19] Witch-hunts in Africa are often led by relatives seeking the
property of the accused victim.

Other instances of moral panic in the modern West have some
similarities to the earlier witch-hunts. Notably, the hysteria
surrounding Satanic ritual abuse, prominent in the United States,
Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere during the 1980s, employed
much of the same occult and conspiratorial imagery."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

But my point is really that it is a slippery slope from religious rule
to an Inquisition. If atheists were to shut up as per your bleatings,
and silently let the Baptists rule in North America (for instance) as
per their mandate - you know, "God's Government" - it wouldn't be
very many generations before yet another set of infidels would be
burned at the stake.

Once again, your policy of "not learning from others" is paying off.

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 9:11:56 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 5, 2:52 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ummm ... if you dont relate to it literally, why do you make such a
> fuss about the wording of the book?

It might be the thumpers of the book whom they're after, rather than
the book itself. Consider this question: If the British Indian
government didn't take the Thugs' religious beliefs literally, why did
they make a fuss about Thugs?

> why do you ridicule it so much?

Can you hypothesize why these are ridiculed so much?
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/hindu-gods-as-butt-of-ridicule/
If they're not being ridiculed, then where can toilet seats and
underwear with images of Jesus and Mary and crosses be found for sale?

> sorta silly and childish, no?

Does St. Paul seem silly and childish to ridicule to Jupiter etc. as
Belial? If Christian missionaries don't take voodoo seriously, does it
seem silly and childish for them to ridicule it?

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 9:37:56 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 6, 4:39 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> if one is a reasonable person, they may consider compassion as an
> avenue to deal with those that they simply disagree with, not call
> their belief 'filthy superstition' and refer to them as uneducated,
> etc, etc, etc. you know, actually feel sorry for them, rather than to
> attempt to crucify them at every opportunity?

Ummm...you can't tell the difference between criticizing and
crucifying? Cristicism IS humane, genius.

> slobserver is a vile hater of all that doesnt fit in with his
> determinations of what is right.

Translation: you are the target of his criticism, since you are
religious, and since you are a pathological narcissist you react to
his criticism with rage:

"People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated
and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these
dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any
slight criticism, real or imagined."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

> one cannot treat people the way he
> does unless there are some serious personal issues.

Telling people they are uneducated when they are uneducated doesn't
mean someone has a "serious personal issue."

> imo, his self
> loathing motivates him to spew forth obscenity laden bile against any
> poor theist he bumps into.

How on earth can you conclude that Observer is "self loathing,"
Sigmund?

> his hatred of xtianity should be aimed at the hierarchy, not the
> people who follow some of its tenets, dont you think?

Who is supporting the hierarchy? Where does the future hierarchy come
from?

> if you like his
> posting style, i have to wonder about the pain of your reality ...

Ummm...your "style" is to act like a twelve year old with ADD, so
who's talking?

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 10:49:52 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
its not slobs criticism of me that im talking about subgenius. you
must be bald with all of those low flying objects zipping over your
head. in case you missed it, i respond to his treatment of those who
promote religion, understand? of course not. you have blinders on to
the words of your ilk, while nit picking at every little thing you
disagree with from the other side. must take a long time to get to
your destination exclusively driving down one way streets huh? ;^-]

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 11:33:06 AM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 6, 7:49 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> its not slobs criticism of me that im talking about subgenius.

Oh right. You're valiantly protecting the others. I forgot. How
noble.

> you
> must be bald with all of those low flying objects zipping over your
> head. in case you missed it, i respond to his treatment of those who
> promote religion, understand?

You can say that, but I don't believe it for a second. You're a
pathological narcissist. Of course it's all about you. When Observer
criticizes the religious he criticizes you, even though you delude
yourself into thinking that you're defending the weak. You're really
just deeply offended - and enraged - because he is criticizing you.

"People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated
and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these
dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any
slight criticism, real or imagined."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

> of course not. you have blinders on to


> the words of your ilk, while nit picking at every little thing you
> disagree with from the other side.

He's right, however; you are uneducated. You even take great pride in
being uneducated.

> must take a long time to get to
> your destination exclusively driving down one way streets huh?  ;^-]

Whatever that means.

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 2:20:55 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
Bob T.

Sorry Bob, I should not have dived in so quickly,
it is that word "if", that so often appears to offer
solice to religious minds bent on making a false claim.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 3:04:37 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
e_space

So let us ignore the brutality and corruption which is so endemic
in both christianity and islam. You say we must feel sorry for all
those who follow their leaders in religion and who whilst following
their leaders attempt to spread the false lies and deceitful
teaching to the young and innocent in society and encouraging
them too to do likewise.

You say we must show compassion, I say we show compassion
where it is deserved.

Religion is a result of bad education and those that conive here
to spread their appaling ignorance deserve all the critique we
give them. They do know what they do and they still insist on
doing it in the name of their disgusting ideology of a religion.

It is worse than filth and to the contrary, Obs' is far too soft.
You can wash filth OFF! But the stench and degrading infamy
of the false religion espoused by christianity and islam,
tarnishes everyone who accepts it, it marks them out as
unclean and tainted with religious psychological clap-trap.

There is no pain in reality, which tells me you are way from
it.

Free thinkers do not waste the little time they have on this
earth in fear of retribution and hell-fire, nor yet are they so
gullible as to believe in a heavenly paradise in some false
reality.

I will live on much longer than you even if I die before you,
but not because of some magical or superstitious belief,
but because when I die, my body will be at the disposal of
Cambridge University Medical Students, who will use it for
medical research and further teaching and my bones will
assist for years and years to come in the teaching of other
students. What lives on are my genes which help develop
my children and their memory of me.

I enjoy a sense pleasure in the knowledge that I will be
of some use to the world I have had the priviledge to live in.

In parting, if the hierachy had no followers, there would be
no hierachy, so yes the followers are as bad as the people
they follow; for like them they spread the dreadful decease
that is religion and take on its putrid stench in the
distribution of it to others of ignorance.

xeno

<69blacklab@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 3:07:41 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 4:09 pm, Art Grey <artgreyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The earth could be billions of years old before v.4 of genesis one
> and then God could have quickly enacted the 7 "days" of
> Genesis so there is more to the record than atheists may
> realize.

Since all species evolve it's absurd to insist that one just popped
into existence, fully developed, out of the box.
Human beings had ancestors as well as their own history of
development. Why would some god bother to plant this evidence? Once
society figures out that considering having faith for its own sake as
a virtue is absurd, we can move on.

[http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/
timeline.html]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution]


>
>
>
> > Brock asked me for more details for this supposed inconsistency, hence
> > this post.  For starters, let's switch wikipedia articles to the more
> > specific one:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
>
> > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> > literally true, this article is completely wrong.  There is not one
> > single part of it that is consistent with Genesis.  From the formation
> > of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> > age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> > of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.
>

> It is clear that many geological landforms, such as
> Niagara Falls may be only thousands, not millions of
> years old.

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 3:42:28 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 6, 3:07 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 4:09 pm, Art Grey <artgreyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The earth could be billions of years old before v.4 of genesis one
> > and then God could have quickly enacted the 7 "days" of
> > Genesis so there is more to the record than atheists may
> > realize.
>
> Since all species evolve

Do they all evolve into other species? Is it conceivable that in the
future, there will be multiple species descended from homo sapiens? If
so, is it also conceivable that none of these species will be homo
sapiens; i.e., that homo sapiens will die out to be replaced by
descendant species?

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 3:47:40 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 6, 3:33 am, e_[space] <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if it is blatantly ignorant, move on.

Observer
Atheists will move on when the threat to humanity has subsided.

[space]


why is crucifying xtians so
> important to you, other than the fact that you are a mean 'non-
> spirited' shell of humanity, and are simply taking out your self hate
> on others?


Observer
It is not self hatred ,you stupid fuck it is hatred of the ignorance
which has caused so many bloody wars, been the source of so many
horrible acts of tyranny , mass murder,and the conquest of a world
made to kneel at the alter of such sadomasochistic filth and the
blatant interference with the progress of science imposed by this
hideously monstrous psychosis. Of course your self imposed isolation
from any meaningful education has blinded you to such as it has to all
of the actualities of the world in which you live.

It is not our intent to crucify other than the espousal of ignorant
filth which can and will , if left to its own means ,destroy humanity.


I am quite happy with who I am and delighted that there are others who
can see through this hateful sadomasochistic filth of religion. Your
inability to do so further isolates you from the intelligentsia of
this world and allocates you and those like you to the dung heap of
primitive, savage , superstitious filth wherein there are mythical
creatures mysterious spirits and all manor of metaphysical nonsense
for you to engage your pitiful , inadequate and disgusting little mind
as it hides from any possibility of enlightenment.

No my stupid friend it is not we who hate but those who refuse to
acknowledge the actualities as understood through the application of
critical thought applied to scientific method and as applied to
scientifically verifiable substantiated data. You don't understand the
science and so deny the value thereof.

You ignorant bastards who reject reality in favor of your psychosis
which embraces spirits and ghost and who knows what , that is purely
fictive and for which no scientifically verifiable data can be found
are in denial of the beauty of such actuality because you are too
fucking stupid/ignorant to understand the function , the beauty and
dependability of scientific method and critical thought.

If you would experience love of the universe and its creatures the
first requisite is to understand the actualities there of. You display
your hatred by refusing to learn and thus have become misanthropic
vermin .


Psychonomist

Think

<teddybear2@bellsouth.net>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 5:46:55 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
If you're going to preach compassion, it makes sense to be
compassionate.

philosophy

<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 6:07:18 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 7, 8:46 am, Think <teddybe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> If you're going to preach compassion, it makes sense to be
> compassionate.

Totally agree. I'd take it a step further. In the christian bible it
talks of two commandments only, and they are both based on
"love". Now, if one is the be sympathetic to christianity, it does
seem sensible to respond in "love", rather than whinging and
whining and name calling someone who has a different opinion
of you, than you have of yourself.
It also makes sense to develop self to the extent that one can
become an example that others would wish to follow - or am
I totally wrong?

Think

<teddybear2@bellsouth.net>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 7:48:45 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
You got it right. At some point someone has to break the cycle or the
cycle will continue. But our lizard brain doesn't always want to
comply with our rational mind. The hope for the future depends on our
being willing to use the layer with all those folds in it. And the
trillions and trillions of synapses that can devise a better plan than
the old fight or flight lizard brain. But we'll never get there if we
keep worshiping the more primitive and less civilized psychology
that's expressed in the bible. So the compassionate thing to do is to
recognize the fear and anxiety generated by the lizard brain and then
suggest alternatives for achieving a more hopeful and realistic
future. Fanciful myths have served their purpose reducing anxiety
about death. But we also have to consider how to reduce suffering.
The religious "arms race" to populate the planet with adherents to
their own sect can't continue unabated. We've already started to
reach the finite limits of our natural resources. Helping raise the
level of education has a trade off, it reduces the number who cling to
primitive and superstitious beliefs. That's a trade off I'm willing
to promote. Over 40% of the US population believes that humans were
created pretty much in our current form less than 10,000 years ago.
It's nearly that in Great Britain when you toss in the old earth
creationists who credit intelligent design. Worse yet, religious
groups can easily obtain tax exempt status and use that advantage to
spread their nonsense. Which means we are subsidizing ignorance.

Think

<teddybear2@bellsouth.net>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 7:55:23 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 5, 7:58 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

> I'm not so sure that's true.  What if God really exists, but
> communication between Him and humans is difficult for some reason?  Or
> maybe He was perfectly clear about what He said, but the humans just
> misunderstood him?  Let's suppose that God really did use the Big Bang
> and evolution to create us.  How would He go about explaining that to
> Bronze Age shepherds?
>
> - Bob T


Well if we presume it was just a matter of attempting to reach humans
at their current level of understanding than we should have gotten an
e-mail, text message or phone call from the almighty with an up to
date explanation. If there is an alleged god who wants to be
understood then it would follow that such a being would be far more
communicative. In the old days he allegedly appeared as a pillar of
fire. If he could do that then, he could certainly send an e-mail
now.

Yet all we seem to get is SPAM. ;-)

Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:18:07 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

I think you're mistaken here. You know how old people are inept with
new technology - well, there's nobody older than God. He's still
trying to get a grip on this newfangled papyrus thing.

- Bob T

philosophy

<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:55:04 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 7, 10:48 am, Think <teddybe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>But we also have to consider how to reduce suffering.
> The religious "arms race" to populate the planet with adherents to
> their own sect can't continue unabated.  We've already started to
> reach the finite limits of our natural resources.  Helping raise the
> level of education has a trade off, it reduces the number who cling to
> primitive and superstitious beliefs.  That's a trade off I'm willing
> to promote.  

I totally agree. My attitude actually goes to the fact that if a
person "chooses" to baptize their child/children into a "faith", then
that family should have to pay a tax on every third child upwards -
not to the church, but to the government. Having more children than
just replenishing self, is actually antisocial.

> Over 40% of the US population believes that humans were
> created pretty much in our current form less than 10,000 years ago.
> It's nearly that in Great Britain when you toss in the old earth
> creationists who credit intelligent design.  Worse yet, religious
> groups can easily obtain tax exempt status and use that advantage to
> spread their nonsense.  Which means we are subsidizing ignorance.

Agreed.

Max

<assent@pcfin.net>
unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 10:46:42 PM2/6/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
e_space,

What of Nazism? Should I apply the same mandate of compassion that you
prescribe to an institutional totalitarian regime that it is/was?
Who's doctrine is for unquestioned and slavish obedience.

"if one is a reasonable person, they may consider compassion as an
avenue to deal with those that they simply disagree with, not call
their belief 'filthy superstition' and refer to them as uneducated,
etc, etc, etc. you know, actually feel sorry for them, rather than to
attempt to crucify them at every opportunity?"

You must understand e_space, that religion, particularly in it's
institutional form, is something that must be fought against.

No, not maybe a three line article on page 42 of a national daily, but
fought against. In vigorous ways, in effective ways and it must be
unrelenting.

Art Grey

<artgreydanus@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 5:28:20 AM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
The preservation of DNA and soft tissues being intact without
being chemically altered is unheard of prior to these findings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fossils

read this article. there is no mention of DNA preservation
except for the resin fossils. these gave rise
tohe highly sensationalized possibility of the
Jurassic Park Movie .

On 2월7일, 오전5시07분, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 4:09 pm, Art Grey <artgreyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The earth could be billions of years old before v.4 of genesis one
> > and then God could have quickly enacted the 7 "days" of
> > Genesis so there is more to the record than atheists may
> > realize.
>
> Since all species evolve it's absurd to insist that one just popped
> into existence, fully developed, out of the box.
> Human beings had ancestors as well as their own history of
> development. Why would some god bother to plant this evidence? Once
> society figures out that considering having faith for its own sake as
> a virtue is absurd, we can move on.
>
> [http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/
> timeline.html]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution]

Many of these are arbitrary. Consider this:

www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm

6. Sinking logs looked like aged forests in just 10 years

Apparently changes in fossilization can occur more
rapidly than thought previously

>
>
>
>
>
> > > Brock asked me for more details for this supposed inconsistency, hence
> > > this post. For starters, let's switch wikipedia articles to the more
> > > specific one:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
>
> > > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> > > literally true, this article is completely wrong. There is not one
> > > single part of it that is consistent with Genesis. From the formation
> > > of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> > > age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> > > of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.
>
> > It is clear that many geological landforms, such as
> > Niagara Falls may be only thousands, not millions of
> > years old.
>
> > > So, rather than go through the article paragraph by paragraph saying
> > > "Here's another part of Earth's natural history that is not consistent
> > > with Genesis" I would like to ask Brock to read this article and tell
> > > me how _he_ reconciles this view of reality with his own. Are these
> > > scientists all mistaken about what the evidence shows? Are they
> > > lying? Have they been duped by talking snakes? How is it that the
> > > vast majority of geologists, even the Christian ones, believe the
> > > Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
>
> > > - Bob T- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- 원본 텍스트 숨기기 -
>
> - 원본 텍스트 보기 -

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 6:47:35 AM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 8:53 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> I agree entirely, and I can't understand the position of people who
> claim to be Christian yet hold to a liberal interpretation of the
> Bible.

Observer
I Can't understand the position of people who
claim to be Christian.
They follow the mindless teachings of criminal stupidity of whom
Thomas Jefferson said.

Observer
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and
doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and
such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of
other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause,
to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New
Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded
from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of
very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick
out diamonds from dunghills.

End quote

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Why not try dealing with the product of scientific method so that you
can have some idea as to the value of what you discern?

Using scientific method is the only way to provide consistently
reliable and dependable data by which to determine accurate
prognosis' .

The superstitious filth of the bible only provides for a tracking of
the malevolence of the a fictive past.


Core Christian doctrines, for example, the resurrection of
> Jesus Christ, rest on the historical claims of the Bible. If one
> suggests that "the bible should not be taken literally",


Observer
What a fucking load of crap are you mad? The New testament is the most
completely stupid story ever told for the manipulation of the idiots
of the world.

does that
> mean we discard this Christ from Christianity? If we did so, what
> remained would not be Christianity. I think you make an extremely
> important point here, and I'm glad you brought it up!


Observer
You are indeed a shit for brains that such should seam realistic to
you.

Thy to learn to learn . Only that which is reveled by scientific
method is useful and dependable . Please argue with me if you dare.

Start by providing scientifically verifiable substantiating data for
the existence of or any act of any god ever.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha


Psychonomist

Psychonomist
>
> On Feb 6, 10:56 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 1:18 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > because they are not captivated by the literal interpretation of the
> > > bible? it seems parties on both sides of the aisle cant seem to move

> > > on from the fact that the bible should not be taken literally. novel


> > > idea i guess, although it seems like a broken record to me ...
>

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 8:08:53 AM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
if you are educated, you sure didnt learn much about civility and,
like a typical bully, you get all offensive when someone reflects your
attitude back to you. the last comment means that an atheist can say
anything they want, all they get from you is a chuckle. a theist says
one little thing that you dont agree with and your little mind
explodes with anger. biased responses, something like driving down a
one way street. sorry your massive education didnt allow you to
understand that.

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 8:22:59 AM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
let me get this straight. according to your deduction, you are
responsible for all activity of your political party, should they be
elected into office? even if this were true, it is different than
religion because xtians believe in jesus, not the pope, who they do
not get a chance to vote for. doesnt make much sense to me. there are
a lot of xtians who are embarassed by the actions of the hierarchy,
but still believe in 'god' and therefore will not leave their
religion.

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 8:24:12 AM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
i am very comassionate thankyou. if a bully changes his/her ways, i
will not treat them as they treat others. besides, im never as mean as
they are, more sassy maybe ;^-]

> > posting style, i have to wonder about the pain of your reality ...- Hide quoted text -

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 8:25:10 AM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
true, and that would be quite novel around here wouldnt it?

On Feb 6, 6:07 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 8:27:58 AM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
so one should despise germans in general because of hitler?

i agree about fighting institutional religion, but that cannot be done
here.

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 11:09:18 AM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 7, 6:47 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I Can't understand the position of people who claim to be Christian.
> They follow the mindless teachings of  criminal  stupidity  of whom
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and
> doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and
> such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of
> other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause,
> to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine.

Skeptics' analyses of the gospels are even more divergent from each
other than the gospels are from each other - as divergent as "Jesus
didn't exist", "Jesus was good but not divine", "Jesus was neither
good nor divine". Do Christians therefore have a right, from that
cause, to entertain much doubt about what parts of skeptics'
pontifications are genuine?

> In the New
> Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded
> from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of
> very inferior minds.

Which parts do you think have proceeded from an extraordinary man?

> It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick
> out diamonds from dunghills.

If it is easy to separate the true and false part parts, why do
different skeptics' analyses differ so greatly?

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:01:20 PM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 7, 5:08 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if you are educated, you sure didnt learn much about civility

It's not uncivil to point out that someone's uneducated when they
are.

> and, like a typical bully, you get all offensive when someone reflects your
> attitude back to you.

It's not bullying to ask for evidence when someone makes extraordinary
claims like "god exists."

> the last comment means that an atheist can say
> anything they want, all they get from you is a chuckle.

Why would I disagree with Obeserver when I agree with him? And how do
you conclude that I think it's funny when people are uneducated?

> a theist says
> one little thing that you dont agree with and your little mind
> explodes with anger.

I disagree that the spread of a dangerous delusion is "one little
thing."

> biased responses, something like driving down a
> one way street. sorry your massive education didnt allow you to
> understand that.

It was your cryptic sentence that didn't allow me to understand what
you meant, and I'm sorry that your pathological narcissism prevents
you from ever blaming yourself for anything.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

Think

<teddybear2@bellsouth.net>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 3:16:20 PM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
Being less mean is not necessarily being compassionate. Show me where
you have made any attempt to try to understand what underlies some of
the frustration and anger being expressed by atheists. You're
basically just mimicking their behavior. It's like spanking a child
to teach them not to hit others. It just doesn't make any sense.
You're just not qualified to be the arbiter of good behavior.

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 3:46:46 PM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
i spank gently in comparison to others, and compared to how i
could ... call them love taps ... or not. <shrug>

im not trying to raise a child, these are all supposedly adults that
take temper tantrums and call people names. i typically display this
'behaviour' only with those with ongoing attitudes that are not going
to change, no matter how i respond to them ...

what can i say, im a brat so like i said, sue me

> > they are, more sassy maybe  ;^-]- Hide quoted text -

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 4:07:01 PM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 7, 12:46 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i spank gently in comparison to others, and compared to how i
> could ... call them love taps ... or not. <shrug>
>
> im not trying to raise a child, these are all supposedly adults that
> take temper tantrums and call people names. i typically display this
> 'behaviour' only with those with ongoing attitudes that are not going
> to change, no matter how i respond to them ...
>
> what can i say, im a brat so like i said, sue me

Rather, you are a pathological narcissist and while you claim to be
defending others from name calling, you are really just enraged
because atheists and theists alike criticize your deification of your
own ego, and you are fighting this battle by proxy. You are simply in
a permanent narcissistic rage, as described below:

"Common to malignant narcissism is narcissistic rage. Narcissistic
rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury (when the narcissist feels
degraded by another person, typically in the form of criticism). When
the narcissist's grandiose sense of self-worth is perceivably being
attacked by another person, the narcissist's natural reaction is to
rage and pull-down the self-worth of others (to make the narcissist
feel superior to others). It is an attempt by the narcissist to soothe
their internal pain and hostility, while at the same time rebuilding
their self worth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism

> On Feb 7, 3:16 pm, Think <teddybe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Being less mean is not necessarily being compassionate.  Show me where
> > you have made any attempt to try to understand what underlies some of
> > the frustration and anger being expressed by atheists.  You're
> > basically just mimicking their behavior.  It's like spanking a child
> > to teach them not to hit others.  It just doesn't make any sense.
> > You're just not qualified to be the arbiter of good behavior.
>
> > On Feb 7, 8:24 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > i am very comassionate thankyou. if a bully changes his/her ways, i
> > > will not treat them as they treat others. besides, im never as mean as
> > > they are, more sassy maybe  ;^-]- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Max

<assent@pcfin.net>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 6:58:51 PM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
I despise the German who 'still' believes in Hitler
I find compassion with the German who now rejects Hitler

But if a German continues to support an evil regime, they are no
longer a passive, benign player...no. They must take responsibility
for their beliefs and actions.

And besides, I was talking of the institution itself. Nazism. Just
like the Catholic church....an institution.

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 8:39:55 PM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 7, 8:09 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"


<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:47 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I Can't understand the position of people who claim to be Christian.
> > They follow the mindless teachings of  criminal  stupidity  of whom
> > Thomas Jefferson said:
> > The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and
> > doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and
> > such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of
> > other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause,
> > to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine.
>
> Skeptics' analyses of the gospels are even more divergent from each
> other than the gospels are from each other - as divergent as "Jesus
> didn't exist", "Jesus was good but not divine", "Jesus was neither
> good nor divine". Do Christians therefore have a right, from that
> cause, to entertain much doubt about what parts of skeptics'
> pontifications are genuine?
>
> > In the New
> > Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded
> > from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of
> > very inferior minds.
>
> Which parts do you think have proceeded from an extraordinary man?

Observer

I think that none proceeded from an extraordinary man but apparently
Thomas Jefferson did, considering the times in which he lived and the
great contribution to rationality provided by his rewrite of the new
testament his was a mind in transition from the debilitating darkness
of hideous superstitious filth to that of a truly enlightened fully
human being.


>
> > It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick
> > out diamonds from dunghills.
>
> If it is easy to separate the true and false part parts, why do
> different skeptics' analyses differ so greatly?

Observer

Why is it that the majority of the worlds population believe in the
existence of a god thing for which there exists no scientifically
verifiable substantiating data, And why is it that so few of the
worlds population understand the the wonder of scientific method and
the fact that data derived therefrom is the only data with such
consistently dependable and useful information enabling accurate
forecasts/ prognostications.
The answer , of course , lies in the fact that humanity is composed of
an uneducated majority of gigantic proportions.

In thinking through the above be sure to remember the principles of
scientific method .

Quote

Steps of the Scientific Method Detailed Help for Each Step

Ask a Question: The scientific method starts when you ask a question
about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or
Where?

And, in order for the scientific method to answer the question it must
be about something that you can measure, preferably with a number.


Your Question
Do Background Research: Rather than starting from scratch in putting
together a plan for answering your question, you want to be a savvy
scientist using library and Internet research to help you find the
best way to do things and insure that you don't repeat mistakes from
the past.

Background Research Plan
Finding Information
Bibliography
Research Paper
Construct a Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess about how
things work:
"If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen."

You must state your hypothesis in a way that you can easily measure,
and of course, your hypothesis should be constructed in a way to help
you answer your original question.


Variables
Variables for Beginners
Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Your experiment tests
whether your hypothesis is true or false. It is important for your
experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure
that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other
conditions the same.

You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure
that the first results weren't just an accident.


Experimental Procedure
Materials List
Conducting an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: Once your experiment is
complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if
your hypothesis is true or false.

Scientists often find that their hypothesis was false, and in such
cases they will construct a new hypothesis starting the entire process
of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their
hypothesis was true, they may want to test it again in a new way.


Data Analysis & Graphs
Conclusions
Communicate Your Results: To complete your science fair project you
will communicate your results to others in a final report and/or a
display board. Professional scientists do almost exactly the same
thing by publishing their final report in a scientific journal or by
presenting their results on a poster at a scientific meeting.

End quote

Taken from

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

A students site so as to keep it simple.


Do I claim that no errors can be made in the process of applying
scientific method or in the critical thought applied thereto , not no,
but hell no I make no such claim. Rather the fact is that when an
error occurs we have a method by which test and retest to discern what
error has occurred.


We must remember that our object is to move from greater to lesser
ignorance in as much as absolut objective knowledge is an
impossibility accept as relates to ones one existence.

It is the codification or our fictions that lead to manufacturing new
fictions which are more closely in line with the actualities we wish
to represent by our mental models thereof.

I wish you well

Regards

Psychonomist

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 8:57:51 PM2/7/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 6, 3:52 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> A Query,
>
> Hmm, as an Atheist I would say that you appear to need
> urgent psychiatric assessment. It is obvious that your
> approach to works of fictitious writings of ancient and
> mythological origins, has so unbalanced any sense of
> logical reasoning as to make all communication performed
> by your fingers, for our delectation, as translations from
> your mind, quite illogical and the mundane inadequacy
> of so called christianity has so overwhelmed your mind
> in the belief of the rubbish you spew out through the
> medium of your computer, as to make of you a laughing-
> stock, akin to an idiot. You would do well to get some
> urgent psychological help.
>
> For your future reading I can thoroughly recommend
> Aesops Fables also a book of mythology, (so it's bound
> to appeal,) but one that at least does not pretend to be
> anything other than it is and incidently, much of it
> was plagerized for use in the biblical text which has
> so ruinously tampered with your sanity.
>
> I tend to refer to it as the insanity in christianity.

Observer

Bravo ! Bravo !

You nailed this poor clod and all like him to your barn door.

He is simply an arrogant/ignorant oaf with out the capacity to deal
with the psychosis which has eaten away his decaying mind.

All such should be required to study scientific method 'till they
understand , at least the rudiments thereof.

Once again Bravo!

Best regards

Psychonomist


>
> On Feb 6, 4:46 am, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:


>
> > On Feb 6, 2:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > > Brock and I have been discussing the age of the Earth, among other
> > > things.  I pointed out that if one believed Genesis literally,
> > > including the Noah's Ark story, that one must therefore disbelieve the
> > > modern science of geology
>

> > Hmm, as a Christian i would say that I do take the Bible literally,
> > which would include the Genesis creation account. By "literally" I
> > mean "at face value", taking into consideration literary
> > characteristics. For example, if I come across Psalm 69:1-2 which says
> > "Save me, O God, for the waters have come up to my neck, where there
> > is no foothold. I have come into the deep waters; the floods engulf
> > me" (TNIV), I would certainly say that I take this Psalm "literally".
> > But this does not mean I think David is describing a near-drowning
> > experience. Of course, it is obvious that David is employing metaphor
> > here in order to emphasise his desperate situation, in this case, his
> > feeling of being overwhelmed by his enemies. Am I taking the passage
> > "literally"? Of course. In fact, if I interpreted it without
> > considering David's use of metaphor, I would be guilty of ignorance,
> > and I would be distorting the David's original intention in writing
> > the passage.
>
> > Perhaps there are some parallels here with the Genesis creation
> > account. If we take into consideration the literary purpose of the
> > text, then I think there can be little doubt that there exists no
> > contradiction between the creation account and modern science. Genesis
> > 1:1-2:3 is a clearly poetic introduction that emphasises the purpose
> > of creation, the *why* of human existence. Through the use of
> > repetition and a deliberately climactic structure, this passage
> > accentuates the guiding hand of God in creation and its culmination in
> > the creation of humankind. In interpreting this passage I'm taking it
> > quite literally, that is, at it's face value. As with the passage in
> > Psalms, if we simply ignore the poetic nature of the text, and treat
> > it rather as a scientific description, we will come out with a very
> > distorted picture of what the text is claiming.
>
> > Therefore, I see no reason to think that one must disbelieve anything
> > established in modern science if one takes the Genesis account at face
> > value.
>
> > <snip>

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 4:27:49 AM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
e_space,

I'm afraid you are not going to get anything straight if you
are so easily convinced that politics and religion are comparable.

People who believe in archaic pagan god/s and the religions
derived therefrom, are not necessarilly criticized for the
leaders of the church they follow, but the religion the church
follows and the ridiculuos beliefs that follow from the false
teachings that the hierarchy espouses on behalf of the religion.
It is the stupidity of the beliefs that the followers of the church
pass on and feel obliged to support as dogma, to their children,
and anyone else who will listen that is wrong.

It is the belief that there is such a thing as a god, even though
no such thing has ever been shown and the irresponsible
teachings then (to add insult to injury) of preaching the
supposed and imaginary word of a the imaginary god/s
as truth and factual from a man wriiten book which is
revered as somehow being holy. Such banal stupidity is
incomprehensible.

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 4:43:13 AM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
Obs',

Hello! my friend, I trust all is as well with you and yours,
as can be expected. Glad to see you are still giving
your all and scoring home runs. I follow your work with
appreciation of the effort and expertise you so vigorously
employ to adavantage and wish you well.

> > > <snip>- Hide quoted text -

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 6:03:11 AM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
in which case i concur

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 6:09:12 AM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
belief is a strange mistress. even atheists have belief, say in
science, and have been consequently hoodwinked many times throughout
history. most xtians are born into their religion, and/or are just
trying to get a little comfort in a stressful life. certainly science
wont offer them that, except in pill form.

many people throught history have believed in a higher 'being',
probably mostly due to awe of nature, or maybe because of incidents of
premonition, or other such unexplained feelings. maybe when science
can replace these things, or at least explain them, religious people
will move on ... then again, maybe not.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 8:13:09 AM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Feb 6, 10:46 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> e_space,
>
> What of Nazism? Should I apply the same mandate of compassion that you
> prescribe to an institutional totalitarian regime that it is/was?
> Who's doctrine is for unquestioned and slavish obedience.
>
> "if one is a reasonable person, they may consider compassion as an
> avenue to deal with those that they simply disagree with, not call
> their belief 'filthy superstition' and refer to them as uneducated,
> etc, etc, etc. you know, actually feel sorry for them, rather than to
> attempt to crucify them at every opportunity?"
>
> You must understand e_space, that religion, particularly in it's
> institutional form, is something that must be fought against.

Then, why does there seem to be a conspicuous absence of rationalists
fighting against Zorastrianism or Bahai'ism? It seems that this might
be because rationalists prefer to pick on religions that have
followers well known to damn other religions or other ways of life.

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 9:21:34 AM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
i have had several articles posted bashing the rc's. i completely
agree that going after the hierarchy is important, and i do so, but
not fervently. i also reserve most of my objection to xtianity to the
vaulted michaelangelo dripping ceilings of such.

On Feb 8, 8:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 9:32:18 AM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
e_space,

Well this much we agree, that belief is the master-mistress
of religion.

At least science is open to correction when it ere's.

You do however, as has already been said, lack a simple
certain educational nonce, or you would know that NOBODY
is born with a religion, it has to be taught and or inculcated.

Please do not misconstrue our criticism of you or anyone
who simply seeks solice in an idea promoted by a belief.

It is the promulgation of a false belief that so distasteful
and despised by atheism as a rule. You may think what
you like, you are perfectly entitled to, and good luck to you,
but if you then start spreading falsehoods, you are then
entitled to our criticism and we will condemn you with all
the verbal disparagement that that entitlement brings
about and upon you and make no mistake our displeasure
knows no bounds.

I submit you are either very naive if you think that the beliefs
of which you speak are brought about by "the awe of nature,"
you are quite simply badly informed or unable to comprehend.

It is immediately obvious that you are not on line with this
at all, nor are our attempts you enlighten you doing you
any favours in understanding so let's try once more by
making a clear statement of fact. Many people through
the ages believe in a higher being because they have been
FASLELY taught that such exist. Premonitions are driven
by emotional-psychological elements in the individual's
make up, dependant upon their beliefs.

It was the unexplained natural events in our origins that
resulted in the beliefs of possible unknown gods as a
simple answer to ignorant mans understanding at our
beginning in the early developement of man.

Why were there floods?
Why do we get ill and suffer?
Why do we die?
Why do we have droughts?
What makes it thunder?
Why do we have flash fires?
Where does all the water in the sea come from.
Where did we come from.
How were/are we made.
Of what are we made.

These and many many more questions bothered ealrly man
and in his search for answers, devined that some
superhuman, mysterious, as yet unknown and very powerful
being must be responsible, had to be responsible, and thus
god/s, many, many gods at first were the only sensible
answer that was understandable to them at that time.

Does this make sense to you and can we move on a little
from here, to tell you how gods and religions developed?

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 11:12:43 AM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 3:09 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> belief is a strange mistress. even atheists have belief, say in
> science, and have been consequently hoodwinked many times
> throughout history.

Please list the many times that people have been hoodwinked by science
throughout history.

> most xtians are born into their religion, and/or are just
> trying to get a little comfort in a stressful life. certainly science
> wont offer them that, except in pill form.

If it weren't for science you wouldn't have any leisure time to not be
spreading your bleatings over any internet. Before science life was
short and grim. Thanks to science we live longer with less stress, on
the whole. It is hypocritical of you to take advantage of what science
has given you while being so dismissive (and ignorant) of it.

> many people throught history have believed in a higher 'being',
> probably mostly due to awe of nature, or maybe because of incidents of
> premonition, or other such unexplained feelings.

Actually, people believe because they fear death and would rather
delude themselves into believing a magic man is going to save them
than face reality. Others, like you, make it even more delusional by
adding a Narcissistic Personality Disorder to the equation. Still
others add schizophrenia or sociopathy. Most believers are simply the
victims of childhood indoctrination, and many drop their superstitions
as they grow older. All belief is rationally explained as a
psychological defect of some sort or another, due to the lack of valid
evidence (what you melodramatically call "unexplained feelings," for
example).

> maybe when science
> can replace these things, or at least explain them, religious people
> will move on ... then again, maybe not.

Science in no way is in the business of comforting people with
delusions. It leaves that task to con artists like you.

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 11:53:03 AM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
education has nothing to do with the comment about being 'born into
it', its a common expression? never hoid or it huh? i do realize that
when one is born they typically have the instinct to like breasts, and
that opting for a religion, or not, is really not genetically
inherent. wise huh?

you may be motivated by despise, i am not. i was subjected to religion
more than most here, and i did not buy into it. i dont hold any
animosity for them for leading me down the path until i clued in,
however. i am simply suggesting that those who feel hate, despise,
disdain, or are simply aggravated by anything, should lighten up a
little. getting ones point across doesnt require smashing ones
opponent to smithereens.

as far as the rest of your post is concerned ... nothing you could
possibly tell me would come close to enlightening me. actually, i
think you make the atmosphere quite dark. your spiritual voidness
guarantees that for me.

i am a simple spirit. i do not read works of philosophy, science, or
really anything. pretty good at the new york crossword puzzle
though ;^-] ... i really have little interest in any of it, and
until you have any idea of ongoing spiritual joy, you may revel in
your knowledge gathering prowess as you wish. my attraction to what
you find important is remote to the nth degree, so if you can swing
it, please promote your kindergarten wiseness in a more productive
direction where it may be appreciated ... although i cant quite
imagine that happening ;^-]

Brock

<brockorgan@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 12:39:16 PM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 10:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> literally true, this article is completely wrong.  

Specifically, Why?

> From the formation
> of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.

I consider the comparison ill-formed. There is no specific single and
formal thing called the "scientific view"[1].

Regards,

Brock

[1] one is reminded of the humorous situation that says ask 10
economists "how" and notes one is likely to not get one but dozens of
competing economic models exploring hundreds of different variables.
All of which contain significant preconditions and limitations.

Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 12:55:49 PM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 9:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 10:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> > literally true, this article is completely wrong.  
>
> Specifically, Why?

Because Genesis, taken literally, describes an Earth that is only a
few thousand years old. The Earth is much older than that. Genesis
describes a global flood during human history that did not happen.


>
> > From the formation
> > of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> > age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> > of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.
>
> I consider the comparison ill-formed.  There is no specific single and
> formal thing called the "scientific view"[1].

I've got to hand it to you, Brock - you have an endless supply of non-
answers.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [1] one is reminded of the humorous situation that says ask 10
> economists "how" and notes one is likely to not get one but dozens of
> competing economic models exploring hundreds of different variables.
> All of which contain significant preconditions and limitations.

This is a terrible and misleading analogy. If you interview 10
geologists and ask them how old the Earth is, each and every one will
give you an answer that contradicts Genesis. If you interview 10
anthropologists and ask them if the human species originated from a
single couple a few thousand years ago, each and every one will give
you an answer that contradicts Genesis. And, just to diversify the
topic a bit, if you interview 10 historical linguists and ask them
about the origins of human language, each and every one of them will
give you an answer that contradicts Genesis.

So, Brock, without quibbling, can you tell me how you reconcile the
scientific consensus that Noah's Flood never occurred with your
literal reading of Genesis? Are all these geologists lying, confused
or what?

- Bob T

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 1:30:50 PM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 6, 5:55 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 10:48 am, Think <teddybe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >But we also have to consider how to reduce suffering.
> > The religious "arms race" to populate the planet with adherents to
> > their own sect can't continue unabated.  We've already started to
> > reach the finite limits of our natural resources.  Helping raise the
> > level of education has a trade off, it reduces the number who cling to
> > primitive and superstitious beliefs.  That's a trade off I'm willing
> > to promote.  
>
> I totally agree.  My attitude actually goes to the fact that if a
> person "chooses" to baptize their child/children into a "faith", then
> that family should have to pay a tax on every third child upwards -
> not to the church, but to the government. Having more children than
> just replenishing self, is actually antisocial.
>
> > Over 40% of the US population believes that humans were
> > created pretty much in our current form less than 10,000 years ago.
> > It's nearly that in Great Britain when you toss in the old earth
> > creationists who credit intelligent design.  Worse yet, religious
> > groups can easily obtain tax exempt status and use that advantage to
> > spread their nonsense.  Which means we are subsidizing ignorance.


LL: These are also the people in the US who vote against and rail
against universal health care--in fact, they'll vote against any kind
of social program.


*************************************************
>
> Agreed.

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 1:45:50 PM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 5:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"


<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:46 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > e_space,
>
> > What of Nazism? Should I apply the same mandate of compassion that you
> > prescribe to an institutional totalitarian regime that it is/was?
> > Who's doctrine is for unquestioned and slavish obedience.
>
> > "if one is a reasonable person, they may consider compassion as an
> > avenue to deal with those that they simply disagree with, not call
> > their belief 'filthy superstition' and refer to them as uneducated,
> > etc, etc, etc. you know, actually feel sorry for them, rather than to
> > attempt to crucify them at every opportunity?"
>
> > You must understand e_space, that religion, particularly in it's
> > institutional form, is something that must be fought against.
>
> Then, why does there seem to be a conspicuous absence of rationalists
> fighting against Zorastrianism or Bahai'ism? It seems that this might
> be because rationalists prefer to pick on religions that have
> followers well known to damn other religions or other ways of life.

LL: For the simple reason that there are few Baha'is and Zoroastrians
and we are not continually harassed by their preachings. Christians
and Christianity are ubiquitous, persistemt and loud, besides being
irrational.

*******.

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 1:49:16 PM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 8:53 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> education has nothing to do with the comment about being 'born into
> it', its a common expression? never hoid or it huh? i do realize that
> when one is born they typically have the instinct to like breasts, and
> that opting for a religion, or not, is really not genetically
> inherent. wise huh?
>
> you may be motivated by despise, i am not. i was subjected to religion
> more than most here, and i did not buy into it. i dont hold any
> animosity for them for leading me down the path until i clued in,
> however. i am simply suggesting that those who feel hate, despise,
> disdain, or are simply aggravated by anything, should lighten up a
> little. getting ones point across doesnt require smashing ones
> opponent to smithereens.
>
> as far as the rest of your post is concerned ... nothing you could
> possibly tell me would come close to enlightening me. actually, i
> think you make the atmosphere quite dark. your spiritual voidness
> guarantees that for me.
>
> i am a simple spirit.


LL: Ah, yes. You've hit the nail on the head.

************************

> > > > > > > his hatred of xtianity...
>
> read more »

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 1:52:54 PM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 9:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 5, 10:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> > literally true, this article is completely wrong.  
>
> Specifically, Why?
>
> > From the formation
> > of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> > age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> > of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.
>
> I consider the comparison ill-formed.  There is no specific single and
> formal thing called the "scientific view"[1].


LL: There is a rational view, though, and it takes into consideration
that any scientific precept can be overturned by further evidence.
Unfortunately, that's not the case with a religious view.

>
Brock: [1] one is reminded of the humorous situation that says ask 10
> economists "how" and notes one is likely to not get one but dozens of
> competing economic models exploring hundreds of different variables.
> All of which contain significant preconditions and limitations.

LL Economics is not a physical science. It's probably a misnomer to
call it a science at all.

*******************************************

Brock Organ

<brockorgan@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 4:55:53 PM2/8/10
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 8, 9:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 10:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>>
>> > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
>> > literally true, this article is completely wrong.
>>
>> Specifically, Why?
>
> Because Genesis, taken literally, describes an Earth that is only a
> few thousand years old.

Are you sure?

> Genesis
> describes a global flood during human history that did not happen.

But here I consider the danger that you simply beg the question. What
is your specific assertion that indicates a contradiction?

>> I consider the comparison ill-formed.  There is no specific single and
>> formal thing called the "scientific view"[1].
>
> I've got to hand it to you, Brock - you have an endless supply of non-
> answers.

Or as I've noted, the concept makes clear that your comparison is
reminiscent of the legal case of "Apples v Oranges". ;p

>> [1] one is reminded of the humorous situation that says ask 10
>> economists "how" and notes one is likely to not get one but dozens of
>> competing economic models exploring hundreds of different variables.
>> All of which contain significant preconditions and limitations.
>
> This is a terrible and misleading analogy.

Not at all. It shows the fallacy of labeling "scientific view" as if
it were one specific and particular thing.

> If you interview 10
> geologists and ask them how old the Earth is, each and every one will
> give you an answer that contradicts Genesis.

And give you an answer that is in some measure competing with each
other. And give you perhaps a different answer over time. Unlike
your claim, there simply is no single, specific "scientific view".

>  If you interview 10
> anthropologists and ask them if the human species originated from a
> single couple a few thousand years ago, each and every one will give
> you an answer that contradicts Genesis.  And, just to diversify the
> topic a bit, if you interview 10 historical linguists and ask them
> about the origins of human language, each and every one of them will
> give you an answer that contradicts Genesis.

And yet you cannot name one specific contradiction. I consider that
I've identified the fallacy of specificity adequately.

> So, Brock, without quibbling, can you tell me how you reconcile the
> scientific consensus that Noah's Flood never occurred with your
> literal reading of Genesis?  Are all these geologists lying, confused
> or what?

Scientific consensus is neither scientific, nor consensus.

As Michael Crichton notes:

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus."[1]

And later:

"This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

Brock Organ

<brockorgan@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 5:06:16 PM2/8/10
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:52 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I consider the comparison ill-formed.  There is no specific single and
>> formal thing called the "scientific view"[1].
>
>
> LL: There  is a rational view, though,

Again, the claim fails specificity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

If there is "a rational view", it is quite clear that there is another
competing "rational view", and another, until one faces the
significant danger that the term is simply confused with personal
aesthetic. :)

> Brock:  [1] one is reminded of the humorous situation that says ask 10
>> economists "how" and notes one is likely to not get one but dozens of
>> competing economic models exploring hundreds of different variables.
>> All of which contain significant preconditions and limitations.
>
> LL Economics is not a physical science. It's probably a misnomer to
> call it a science at all.

One notes the distinction arbitrary and affected. The bounded nature
of scientific modelling, with its clear and specific limitations,
affects so many sciences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

In particular, I'm mindful of what Gordon Clark indicated so well:

"Science, the history of science, and the philosophy of science are
... so inextricably fused or confused that it is impossible to draw
definite boundaries between them. Yet some people believe that the
boundaries are most distinct and obvious. ... Scientists frequently
think that their results spring directly and solely from
experimentation quite apart from philosophic speculation and metaphysics."

http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?products_id=127

So, a scientism that presumes secular humanism, for example, by which
to give meaning and value to observations and results is not tenable
because of the limitations of the philosophical presuppositions
presumed.

Regards,

Brock

Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 5:25:18 PM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 1:55 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 9:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 10:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> >> > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> >> > literally true, this article is completely wrong.
>
> >> Specifically, Why?
>
> > Because Genesis, taken literally, describes an Earth that is only a
> > few thousand years old.
>
> Are you sure?

Well, that's what Bishop Ussher calculated. He counted up all the
elapsed time in the Bible and came up with a date of Creation in
October of 4004 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

I think the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. How old do you
think the Earth is?


>
> > Genesis
> > describes a global flood during human history that did not happen.
>
> But here I consider the danger that you simply beg the question.  What
> is your specific assertion that indicates a contradiction?

If there had been a global flood as described in the Bible, the after-
effects would be obvious to geologists. In fact, as I have mentioned
before, the first scientific geologists were British Christians who
were quite suprised to find no geological signs of Noah's Flood.


>
> >> I consider the comparison ill-formed.  There is no specific single and
> >> formal thing called the "scientific view"[1].
>
> > I've got to hand it to you, Brock - you have an endless supply of non-
> > answers.
>
> Or as I've noted, the concept makes clear that your comparison is
> reminiscent of the legal case of "Apples v Oranges".  ;p

Yet another non-answer.


>
> >> [1] one is reminded of the humorous situation that says ask 10
> >> economists "how" and notes one is likely to not get one but dozens of
> >> competing economic models exploring hundreds of different variables.
> >> All of which contain significant preconditions and limitations.
>
> > This is a terrible and misleading analogy.
>
> Not at all.  It shows the fallacy of labeling "scientific view" as if
> it were one specific and particular thing.

<sigh> Another non-answer. It's a figure of speech, Brock, just
assume that every time I refer to the "scientific view" I mean the
mainstream consensus of modern science, agreed to in broad outline by
the vast majority of scientists in that field. Your flippant example
of economists overlooks the fact that economics is a field of study
marked by professional dissension, but geology is not.


>
> > If you interview 10
> > geologists and ask them how old the Earth is, each and every one will
> > give you an answer that contradicts Genesis.
>
> And give you an answer that is in some measure competing with each
> other.  And give you perhaps a different answer over time.  Unlike
> your claim, there simply is no single, specific "scientific view".

Another non-answer - you're amazing. Despite your prevarication, it
remains a fact that the mainstream geological picture of Earth's
history is not consistent with Noah's Flood. Do you believe these
geologists are lying, mistaken, or what?


>
> >  If you interview 10
> > anthropologists and ask them if the human species originated from a
> > single couple a few thousand years ago, each and every one will give
> > you an answer that contradicts Genesis.  And, just to diversify the
> > topic a bit, if you interview 10 historical linguists and ask them
> > about the origins of human language, each and every one of them will
> > give you an answer that contradicts Genesis.
>
> And yet you cannot name one specific contradiction.  I consider that
> I've identified the fallacy of specificity adequately.

Another non-answer - you are truly a master.


>
> > So, Brock, without quibbling, can you tell me how you reconcile the
> > scientific consensus that Noah's Flood never occurred with your
> > literal reading of Genesis?  Are all these geologists lying, confused
> > or what?
>
> Scientific consensus is neither scientific, nor consensus.

Another non-answer.
>
> As Michael Crichton notes:

Michael Crichton was a novelist, not a scientist. Now you're avoiding
answering by proxy.

Here are some more questions for you to dodge: in that article on the
Age of the Earth, it mentioned that the non-avian dinosaurs died out
65 million years ago. Do you agree? Paleontologists claim that
tyrannasours were carnivorous. Are they mistaken?

- Bob T

Simon Ewins

<sjewins@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 8:04:36 PM2/8/10
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
[Brock Organ]

>> Because Genesis, taken literally, describes an Earth that is only a
>> few thousand years old.
>
> Are you sure?
>
>> Genesis
>> describes a global flood during human history that did not happen.
>
> But here I consider the danger that you simply beg the question. What
> is your specific assertion that indicates a contradiction?

Let's use the Bible to calculate the date of the flood.

Let's look at the Biblical dates. I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years passed
from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the first
temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the covenant
with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. The chapters of
Genesis after the flood account give the periods in years that passed
between the births of various individuals from Noah to Abraham, giving a
period of 390 years from the flood to the covenant with Abraham. Thus,
according to the Bible, the Flood took place 1300 years before Solomon
began construction of the first temple.

Unfortunately, the building of the first temple can be dated to 950 BCE
+- some small delta, by similar analysis in the other direction, placing
the flood around 2250 BCE.

Again unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records
dating well back before 2250 BCE (the Great Pyramid, for example dates
to the 26th century BCE, 300 years before the Biblical date for the
Flood). There is no sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood
around 2250 BCE. More importantly the Great Pyramid shows no signs of
water damage or being immersed in water 300 years after construction.

Therefore, either we have to reject the historicity of the Flood
account; accept the historicity of the Flood account, but explain away
the clear Biblical dating of the event; or accept the Biblical account
and chronology, and reject the massive amount of written and
archaeological evidence establishing the chronology of history in the
near East.

Now some incredible numbers from a post by Dr. Marty Leipzig (Geologist)
on HOLYSMOKE 09-02-99.

First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet,
and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the
equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is
calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the
Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a
radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result,
because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a
general idea about the amounts involved.

So, here are the calculations:

First, Everest

V= 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometers (1.09151x102 km3)

Now, the Earth at sea level

V = 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
= 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometers (1.08698x1012 km3)

The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed
to just cover the Earth:
4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometers (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put
into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometers.

This is one helluva lot of water.

For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't
forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of
ice present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of
water necessary.

Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much
weight do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1
gram/cubic centimeter (by definition)...so,

4.252x1009 km3 of water,
X 106 (= cubic meters),
X 106 (= cubic centimeters),
X 1 g/cm3 (= grams),
X 10-3 (= kilograms),

equals 4.525E+21 kg.

Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many
times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets
covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake
of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance
(the latest and greatest) was 10,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an
average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in
some areas [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at
the ablating edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals
1.00E+07 km3 of ice.

Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of
water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all
that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222%
[...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths)
percent of the water needed for the flood.

Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years
before present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP
flood event.

Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding
the supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the
crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly
rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in
places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimeters/year. Sea level was
also lowered some 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water
in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets
(geologists call this glacioeustacy).

Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated
terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated
during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged
interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by
geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines,
rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged
fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage.
Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found
everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although
extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only
0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and
EASILY recognizable and measurable effects on the lands.

Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly
much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale;
has exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence.

Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...?

Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere.
Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an
additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the
point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's
gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the
atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our
atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood
waters; and it boils off into space.

Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In
fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores)
which can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and
relative gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the
Pleistocene, far more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange
that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter
gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off
first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with
heavier gasses (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive
extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these
cores.

Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the
other claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense.

Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth
of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or
5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915'
(5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to
accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted
additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth.
The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and
above the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional
4.525 x 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour
(i.e., clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times
greater than standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the
latent heat released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would
be enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to
approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F).

Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the
water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the
globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly
stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There
is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall.

Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we
have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a
mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the
Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which
is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is
converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat
released is immense:

Potential energy:
E=M*g*H, where
M = mass of water,
g = gravitational constant and,
H = height of water above surface.

Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40
days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x
1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily.
Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is
1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to
radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times
number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159*
((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s.

Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215
joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan-
Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)

E (normal) = 215
E (increase) = 391,935.0958
T (normal) = 280.


Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.

The temperature would thus rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33
F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that
anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also,
the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min;
and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep.

Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.

It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible.
Only fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
[James Thurber]

Art Grey

<artgreydanus@hotmail.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 9:50:25 PM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
There is verifiable evidence that the high mountain ranges
such as the Himalayas and the Alps, reached their
present heighths much more recently than is supposed
by many.

The biblical records were slightly older than 2250 BC, you are not
accounting for such things as the change in calendars from Justinian
to
Gregorian; from 360 days to 365. Also we have not fully delved into
the biblical record and this will take some time.

> 1.73584 x 1025 ...

All of these figures are mute because many of us believe the present
day mountain ranges were much lower at the time of the flood.

In the Himalayas, for example, H. de Terra of Carnegie Institute and
T.T. Paterson of Harvard found human relics; "paleolithic fossils" at
Kashmir . They argue that the Himalayas reached their present
heighth in recent times after the Ice Age. " Studies on the Ice Age
in India and Associated Human Cultures." page 223.

Their work was echoed by Swiss geologist Arnold Heim, "Throne
of the Gods: An Account of the First Swiss Expedition to the
Himalayas." He also says the mountain passes of the Himalayas
must have risen 3000 ft. or more in the age of modern man
reaching their present heighths in historical times."...however
fantastic changes so extensive may seem to a modern geologist."

Presence of early man and massive mammal deposits can be
found also in the high caves and passes of the Alps. There are
massive overthrusts of underlying layers on to the tops of
pre-existing mountains that could only have been accomplished
under catastrophic conditions. Example is the cavern of
Drachenloch deep in the heart of the glacial country, south of
Ragaz.

"Many of them (mountains) are composed of tangentially
compressed and overthrust rocks that indicate scores of miles
of circumferential shortening in the Earth's crust." F.K. Mather
Harvard, Biography of the Earth,Science.

Other example is Chief Mountain in Montana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Mountain

Another aspect is that much of the water came from inside
the earth, not just from rain or a fog-like canopy.
Genesis says, "God opened the fountains of the deep" or
another version is "The underground waters burst forth".


>
> 추가 정보 >>

Bob T.

<bob@synapse-cs.com>
unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 10:22:12 PM2/8/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 6:50 pm, Art Grey <artgreyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There is verifiable evidence that the high mountain ranges
> such as the Himalayas and the Alps, reached their
> present heighths much more recently than is supposed
> by many.

Is there? I don't believe you. Got a link?

- Bob T

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 1:08:22 AM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 1:43 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Obs',
>
> Hello! my friend, I trust all is as well with you and yours,
> as can be expected. Glad to see you are still giving
> your all and scoring home runs. I follow your work with
> appreciation of the effort and expertise you so vigorously
> employ to adavantage and wish you well.

Observer
Thank you Kindly, I appreciate that very much.

Psychonomist

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 2:00:36 AM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 2:06 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:52 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I consider the comparison ill-formed.  There is no specific single and
> >> formal thing called the "scientific view"[1].
>
> > LL: There  is a rational view, though,
>
> Again, the claim fails specificity:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
>
> If there is "a rational view", it is quite clear that there is another
> competing "rational view", and another, until one faces the
> significant danger that the term is simply confused with personal
> aesthetic. :)

LL: What are the competing rational views?


>
> > Brock:  [1] one is reminded of the humorous situation that says ask 10
> >> economists "how" and notes one is likely to not get one but dozens of
> >> competing economic models exploring hundreds of different variables.
> >> All of which contain significant preconditions and limitations.
>
> > LL Economics is not a physical science. It's probably a misnomer to
> > call it a science at all.
>

Brock: One notes the distinction arbitrary and affected.  The bounded


nature
> of scientific modelling, with its clear and specific limitations,
> affects so many sciences:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling
>
> In  particular, I'm mindful of what Gordon Clark indicated so well:
>
"Science, the history of science, and the philosophy of science are
> ... so inextricably fused or confused that it is impossible to draw
> definite boundaries between them.  Yet some people believe that the
> boundaries are most distinct and obvious.  ... Scientists frequently
> think that their results spring directly and solely from
> experimentation quite apart from philosophic speculation and metaphysics."

LL: Economics is still not a physical science.
>
Brock: http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?products_id=127


>
> So, a scientism that presumes secular humanism, for example, by which
> to give meaning and value to observations and results is not tenable
> because of the limitations of the philosophical presuppositions
> presumed.


LL: And the religious view avoids all that, doesn't it?

***************
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 4:22:03 AM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
e_space,

The style and manner that one uses in discussion is bound
to be different from individual to individual dependant upon
how strongly they feel for the subject.

I find your "smashoing your opponent to smithereens," a
little dramatic, over the top, not to sat virtually impossible.
Words can be powerful when expressed but not physically
abusive. They obviously prey on your mind, so perhaps they
can be used psychologically to impress, just as religions
have used them throughout the ages.

What is sauce for the goose! cannot be denied to the gander.

I would bring you to the point you ignore though pussy-
footing around it with your distaste of verbal vigour you ignore
it at your peril and if verbal violence is all you care about, it
is high time you took stock of the religious violence that has
been perpetrated and is yet ongoing in the name of some
religion or other. When will you consentrate on this aspect
of violence and stop beefing about verbal opposition to it?

Simon Ewins

<sjewins@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 7:02:51 AM2/9/10
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
[Art Grey]

> There is verifiable evidence that the high mountain ranges
> such as the Himalayas and the Alps, reached their
> present heighths much more recently than is supposed
> by many.

LOL, in less than 5,000 years? Get a grip.

Christians always look silly but sometimes what they say is just plain
ridiculous.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"A thing, until it is everything, is noise, and once it is everything it
is silence."
[Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin]

TLC

<tlc.terence@googlemail.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 7:45:03 AM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity
Let's be truthful, when it comes to the History of the Earth
christians and other religions are in a bind. If they aknowledge that
their bible stories about the magic garden etc, are myths then BANG
goes their religion.

If, they try and keep a straight face and say their bible is literal
then they seem like blind, backward fools who can't see, hear or talk
to the real world. Well, not the one I live on.

Simon Ewins

<sjewins@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:00:24 AM2/9/10
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
[TLC]

> Let's be truthful, when it comes to the History of the Earth
> christians and other religions are in a bind. If they aknowledge that
> their bible stories about the magic garden etc, are myths then BANG
> goes their religion.
>
> If, they try and keep a straight face and say their bible is literal
> then they seem like blind, backward fools who can't see, hear or talk
> to the real world. Well, not the one I live on.

What a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive.

You're right, the contortions they have to go through should be enough
to make them question what they are saying. Sadly only a few do.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more
deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that
person is not to be found anywhere. You yourself, as much as anybody in
the entire universe deserve your love and affection."
[Buddha]

xeno

<69blacklab@gmail.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 1:58:45 PM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 8, 2:06 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Science, the history of science, and the philosophy of science are
> ... so inextricably fused or confused that it is impossible to draw
> definite boundaries between them. Yet some people believe that the
> boundaries are most distinct and obvious.

I having a "so what" moment here. What's the big deal? You can't
separate history from anything. & there's always an implicit if not
explicit philosophical outlook involved in any endeavor, including
yours.


>  ... Scientists frequently
> think that their results spring directly and solely from
> experimentation quite apart from philosophic speculation and metaphysics."

What abt Heisenberg? "Physics & Philosophy"?
What abt Planck? "Philosophy of Physics"?
What abt Max Born? "Natural Philosophy of Cause & Effect"?


> So, a scientism that presumes secular humanism, for example, by which
> to give meaning and value to observations and results is not tenable
> because of the limitations of the philosophical presuppositions
> presumed.

So, you disfavor secularism & secular humanism in particular & you
think scientism, however way you're defining that, is untenable. So
what? Don't see any strong connection between your rhetoric & reality.

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 3:10:12 PM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 10:18 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> because they are not captivated by the literal interpretation of the
> bible? it seems parties on both sides of the aisle cant seem to move

> on from the fact that the bible should not be taken literally. novel


> idea i guess, although it seems like a broken record to me ...


LL: But why not? Either the bible is true or it isn't. If anything in
it is untrue, how can anyone know what IS true? What's the perfect
guideline to figuring out what's true and what isn't? Or should
believers just pick and choose what they like and reject what seems
irrational, even to them? Did their god inspire the bible? If so, why
are there errors? If not, it was created wholly by man, it has errors,
there is no way to know what is true and what isn't, so give me a good
reason why people should follow it? These questions are not only
addressed to you but to any believer on this discussion group.

*********************


>
> On Feb 5, 10:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Brock and I have been discussing the age of the Earth, among other
> > things.  I pointed out that if one believed Genesis literally,
> > including the Noah's Ark story, that one must therefore disbelieve the

> > modern science of geology, as described in:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
>
> > Brock asked me for more details for this supposed inconsistency, hence
> > this post.  For starters, let's switch wikipedia articles to the more
> > specific one:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
>

> > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is

> > literally true, this article is completely wrong.  There is not one

> > single part of it that is consistent with Genesis.  From the formation


> > of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> > age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> > of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.
>

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 3:13:07 PM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 1:17 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:52 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ummm ... if you dont relate to it literally, why do you make such a

> > fuss about the wording of the book?
>
> Pointing out absurdities does not equal making a fuss about the
> wording of a book. Since people are willing to bind, torture, and kill
> over this book, I think that pointing out the absurdities of the book
> is performing a public service.


>
> > why do you ridicule it so much?
>

> One person's ridicule is another person's satire. Satire has a fine
> tradition. I can understand why you would object, since you are a
> target of the satire, but that's no reason to stop, since satire is an
> effective and non-violent way of changing people's minds.


LL: It's not satire either, IMO. It is simply asking for more
information and challenging irrational statements and ideas. I see
nothing wrong with this and, in fact, it's what everyone should do
about any work that is held up as the absolute truth.


*********************


>
> > sorta silly and childish, no?
>

> Public service is not silly and childish.


>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 1:46 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Feb 5, 10:18 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > because they are not captivated by the literal interpretation of the
> > > > bible? it seems parties on both sides of the aisle cant seem to move
> > > > on from the fact that the bible should not be taken literally.
>

> > > Hey, genius. Arguing that it is absurd  to take the Bible literally

> > > does not mean that atheists take the Bible literally.


>
> > > >  novel
> > > > idea i guess, although it seems like a broken record to me ...
>

> > > Nah, I think it's just some idiotic misunderstanding on your part.
>

> > > > On Feb 5, 10:02 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Brock and I have been discussing the age of the Earth, among other
> > > > > things.  I pointed out that if one believed Genesis literally,
> > > > > including the Noah's Ark story, that one must therefore disbelieve the
> > > > > modern science of geology, as described in:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
>
> > > > > Brock asked me for more details for this supposed inconsistency, hence
> > > > > this post.  For starters, let's switch wikipedia articles to the more
> > > > > specific one:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
>
> > > > > To me, the striking thing about this article is that if Genesis is
> > > > > literally true, this article is completely wrong.  There is not one
> > > > > single part of it that is consistent with Genesis.  From the formation
> > > > > of the solar system through the formation of the continents, from the
> > > > > age of the planet to the age of the Grand Canyon, the scientific view
> > > > > of our planet cannot be reconciled with Genesis.
>
> > > > > So, rather than go through the article paragraph by paragraph saying
> > > > > "Here's another part of Earth's natural history that is not consistent
> > > > > with Genesis" I would like to ask Brock to read this article and tell
> > > > > me how _he_ reconciles this view of reality with his own.  Are these
> > > > > scientists all mistaken about what the evidence shows?  Are they
> > > > > lying?  Have they been duped by talking snakes?  How is it that the
> > > > > vast majority of geologists, even the Christian ones, believe the
> > > > > Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
>

> > > > > - Bob T- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 3:17:56 PM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 4:29 pm, Think <teddybe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> On Feb 5, 3:00 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 11:52 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ummm ... if you dont relate to it literally, why do you make such a

> > > fuss about the wording of the book? why do you ridicule it so much?


> > > sorta silly and childish, no?
>

> > LL: Not at all, as long as there is a substantial number of people who
> > do--and who also are insistently, persistently and loudly vocal about
> > it. People who make ridiculous statements should be ridiculed.
>
> > ********************
>
> They want to teach it as science!!  Our local school board spent
> thousands of dollars first affixing a label saying evolution was "only
> a theory" and then removing them.  A complete waste of money simply
> because of the ignorance of both science and the law.  I can think of
> a few ways that money could have been better spent.

LL: Indeed! So could most of us. But I guarantee, the anti-science
people will never give up trying to get their irrational, anti-
scientific ideas into public school curricula. They will do it by any
means they can think up,and if it costs millions of dollars, they
think it is worth it to keep fighting.

*************

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 3:18:48 PM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 4:34 pm, Think <teddybe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 6:56 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that once someone accepts that the Bible can't be taken
> > literally, that it must be interpreted and some parts discarded, the
> > primacy of the Bible must also be denied.  In other words, the Bible
> > becomes no better or worse than any other work of art.
>
> Well that's a matter of opinion.  It's really not very good art or
> literature.  The fact that so many take it literally and want to teach
> it as science just adds injury to insult.  When you think about it,
> the bible is basically an insult to humanity.  Just how low does one
> have to feel before it can be viewed as uplifting?

LL: Not only an insult. I'd go so far as to call it a universal IQ
test.

****************************************************

LL

<llpens@aol.com>
unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 3:21:16 PM2/9/10
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Feb 5, 4:58 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:56 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>
> > On Feb 5, 1:18 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > because they are not captivated by the literal interpretation of the
> > > bible? it seems parties on both sides of the aisle cant seem to move

> > > on from the fact that the bible should not be taken literally. novel


> > > idea i guess, although it seems like a broken record to me ...
>

> > It seems to me that once someone accepts that the Bible can't be taken
> > literally, that it must be interpreted and some parts discarded, the
> > primacy of the Bible must also be denied.  In other words, the Bible
> > becomes no better or worse than any other work of art.
>

> I'm not so sure that's true.  What if God really exists, but
> communication between Him and humans is difficult for some reason?  Or
> maybe He was perfectly clear about what He said, but the humans just
> misunderstood him?  Let's suppose that God really did use the Big Bang
> and evolution to create us.  How would He go about explaining that to
> Bronze Age shepherds?


LL: A good start would have been to say nothing and assume that the
intelligence he is purported to have given man would work to come up
with the right answers eventually.

******************
>
> - Bob T

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages