Dopey Duke Gives an Unexpected Solstice Present!
Budikka666
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized statements,
>
> >The issue is not whether the statements were original with the poster
> >but whether they were true.
>
> The first 8 statements were challenged and shown to be unfounded.
The *fact* that you're too cowardly to offer a URL to where this
supposedly happened proves you're LYING in the news groups again. Let
me help you out. Here's the URL tot he first fifty you're too
cowardly to offer: http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
The *fact* that you're *still* running from 100 questions which arose
during that exchange - questions directly arising from what you said -
after four years proves you're LYING in the news groups again.
Here are the first eight again (from here: http://tinyurl.com/ad89u )
Go ahead, LIAR. Show us all how you "blew me out of the water" on
these first eight:
1. Does the Bible make no assertion of any kind that the Earth is
some 6,000 years old or does it imply such an age if the ages of
Biblical characters are added up and compared with known historical
events? If you take the list of 75 names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus
and add the ages up, factoring in when those people supposedly lived
in relation to known historical events, then the age of the Earth from
creation to now according to the Bible, tallies to some 6,000 years.
Do you deny this? Support your answer.
2. Do you have evidence that people in the past lived to 900 years?
Science doesn't know of any. Support your answer.
3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
rebuttal).
4. The Genesis creation is proscribed, every day, by the words
"evening and morning" - not "morning and evening", but "evening and
morning" - to reflect the Jewish habit of starting/ending their day at
sunset. These were intended to be 24 hour days. Can you offer a
supported rebuttal to this?
5. The first thing God does before the main creation sequence is
divide light from darkness (just how is that done, BTW?) and label
them day and night. Immediately after that it specifies that evening
and morning were the first day. Not the first era or indefinite time
period, not "Day One", but "The First Day" - this was the first actual
day ever. These are ordinal numbers, not cardinal. This proves
beyond doubt that the days were indeed literal days as we know them
now, and not indistinct geological periods. Can you refute this?
Support your answer.
6. Genesis then immediately goes on to describe the creation, each
"act" being of the duration of one of these days. The days are even
counted off. Exodus then codifies this interpretation with the
commandment that we emulate God by working six days and resting on the
seventh. ("Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the
seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not
do any work...For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the
LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:9-11) Can you
refute this? Support your answer.
7. The word used in Genesis is exactly the same word (yome) that is
used in Exodus. The two are indistinguishable. They refer to 24 hour
days. Can you refute this? Support your answer.
8. Who is the arbiter of what is true and what isn't true in the
Bible?
Support your answer.
The *fact* that you're forced to hide behind your plagiarism LIE
(which was opened for you to support your accusation here:
http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
and form which you RAN AWAY proves that you're LYING again. Go ahead,
LIAR, show us all how these first eight were plagiarized. Give us the
name of the author of these questions, who published them, and the
publication and year in which they first appeared. Go ahead, we're
all waiting on your proving you're not a LIAR
Of course, when you RUN AWAY from your responsibility directed to you
by your own Bible to "prove all things and hold fast that which is
good", then you'll prove to everyone on Usenet that you are indeed a
pathetic, cowardly, hypocritical no-good vacuous LIAR.
Thanks for the unexpected Solstice present. You really are as stupid
as you look, aren't you? LoL!
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 6:18�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>> >In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized statements,
>>
>> >The issue is not whether the statements were original with the poster
>> >but whether they were true.
>>
>> The first 8 statements were challenged and shown to be unfounded.
>The *fact* that you're too cowardly to offer a URL to where this
>supposedly happened proves you're LYING in the news groups again. Let
>me help you out. Here's the URL tot he first fifty you're too
>cowardly to offer: http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
I don't have to, you big dud. You were the party whose butt got kicked by me.
I'm sure it still hurts, and will always hurt.
>Thanks for the unexpected Solstice present. You really are as stupid
>as you look, aren't you? LoL!
If you consider your eternally red ass as a solstice present, I'm glad to have
brought a smile to your face.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka666
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:02:02 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 24, 6:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> >In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized statements,
>
> >> >The issue is not whether the statements were original with the poster
> >> >but whether they were true.
>
> >> The first 8 statements were challenged and shown to be unfounded.
> >The *fact* that you're too cowardly to offer a URL to where this
> >supposedly happened proves you're LYING in the news groups again. Let
> >me help you out. Here's the URL tot he first fifty you're too
> >cowardly to offer:http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
>
> I don't have to, you big dud. You were the party whose butt got kicked by me.
> I'm sure it still hurts, and will always hurt.
I *know* I hurt you. That's why you keep bringing it up and LYING
about it and RUNNING form my responses to your LIES as you're doing
right here in this message. But the hurt will go away once you
realize I own you and you're a permanent loser.
> >Thanks for the unexpected Solstice present. You really are as stupid
> >as you look, aren't you? LoL!
>
> If you consider your eternally red ass as a solstice present, I'm glad to have
> brought a smile to your face.
Here's where you FLED when I challenged you directly - at least once a
month for the last six months, seven times in November and five in
December:
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/lldf56
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
November 9th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yjlmbrf
November 19th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yj64yqj
November 20th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrkvyh
November 22nd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ycw6s8l
November 25th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakpje3
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
December 5th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
December 7th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yllcb6q
December 8th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybzvv33
December 13th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakex6v
December 23rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
End of you. Case closed.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 7:51嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:02:02 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 24, 6:18嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>> >> >In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized statements,
>>
>> >> >The issue is not whether the statements were original with the poster
>> >> >but whether they were true.
>>
>> >> The first 8 statements were challenged and shown to be unfounded.
>> >The *fact* that you're too cowardly to offer a URL to where this
>> >supposedly happened proves you're LYING in the news groups again. 嚙盤et
>> >me help you out. 嚙瘡ere's the URL tot he first fifty you're too
>> >cowardly to offer:http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
>>
>> I don't have to, you big dud. 嚙磐ou were the party whose butt got kicked by me.
>> I'm sure it still hurts, and will always hurt.
>
>I *know* I hurt you.
Oh, oh, oh, the pain. I don't know how much longer I can continue to laugh at
your demonstrated ignorance. Good grief, a grown woman not knowing that you
can't use fictional data to establish fact.
>> >Thanks for the unexpected Solstice present. 嚙磐ou really are as stupid
>> >as you look, aren't you? 嚙盤oL!
>> If you consider your eternally red ass as a solstice present, I'm glad to have
>> brought a smile to your face.
>Here's where you FLED when I challenged you directly - at least once a
>month for the last six months, seven times in November and five in
>December:
Pardon my laughing at you.
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
>
> Pardon my laughing at you.
Why?
We see it over and over again.
You make ignorant, or out right false, statements and when you are
called on it you ignore the thread or disappear for a few weeks and hope
the thread dies out. You are like the uppity teenager that wants to sit
at the grown up table but can't stop running his mouth about things they
know nothing about. The grown ups get annoyed and the other kids just
laugh.
�R.L.Measures
<bf475ab3-2f9b-4583...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 6:18=A0am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > >In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
> > > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized stateme=
> ... ... ...
*** Good one B! thanks for the laughs.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Patrick
> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
>> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
>> rebuttal).
>> ... ... ...
> *** Good one B! thanks for the laughs.
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Hmmmmm...
It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
Or shall we just call it lying?
Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
Jimbo
> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
>
> > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
> >> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
> >> rebuttal).
> >> ... ... ...
> > *** Good one B! thanks for the laughs.
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> Hmmmmm...
> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions
To a catholic piece of scum, a "stupid question" is always one that
they can't honestly answer.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Talk to the Young Earth Creationists about that problem.
Syd M.
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:02:02 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 24, 6:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> >In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized statements,
>
> >> >The issue is not whether the statements were original with the poster
> >> >but whether they were true.
>
> >> The first 8 statements were challenged and shown to be unfounded.
> >The *fact* that you're too cowardly to offer a URL to where this
> >supposedly happened proves you're LYING in the news groups again. Let
> >me help you out. Here's the URL tot he first fifty you're too
> >cowardly to offer:http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
>
> I don't have to, you big dud. You were the party whose butt got kicked by me.
> I'm sure it still hurts, and will always hurt.
>
Your imagination can't hurt her, Dork.
PDW
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:02:02 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 24, 6:18�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> >In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized
> >> >> statements,
> >>
> >> >The issue is not whether the statements were original with the poster
> >> >but whether they were true.
> >>
> >> The first 8 statements were challenged and shown to be unfounded.
>
> >The *fact* that you're too cowardly to offer a URL to where this
> >supposedly happened proves you're LYING in the news groups again. Let
> >me help you out. Here's the URL tot he first fifty you're too
> >cowardly to offer: http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
>
> I don't have to, you big dud. You were the party whose butt got kicked by
> me.
> I'm sure it still hurts, and will always hurt.
Puke, the blackhearted buckwheat of alt.atheism, is sure of a lot of
things that aren't so.
>
> >Thanks for the unexpected Solstice present. You really are as stupid
> >as you look, aren't you? LoL!
>
> If you consider your eternally red ass as a solstice present, I'm glad to
> have
> brought a smile to your face.
The reason that Puke, the blackhearted buckwheat of alt.atheism, is so
fixated on other peoples asses is that he has never cleaned his own and
can't face it.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:56:59 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 24, 7:51�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:02:02 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Dec 24, 6:18�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> >> >In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized
> >> >> >> statements,
> >>
> >> >> >The issue is not whether the statements were original with the poster
> >> >> >but whether they were true.
> >>
> >> >> The first 8 statements were challenged and shown to be unfounded.
> >> >The *fact* that you're too cowardly to offer a URL to where this
> >> >supposedly happened proves you're LYING in the news groups again. �Let
> >> >me help you out. �Here's the URL tot he first fifty you're too
> >> >cowardly to offer:http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
> >>
> >> I don't have to, you big dud. �You were the party whose butt got kicked by
> >> me.
> >> I'm sure it still hurts, and will always hurt.
> >
> >I *know* I hurt you.
>
> Oh, oh, oh, the pain.
And you have earned every bit of it, Puke.
Budikka666
> In article <s157j51jdojbd1n2c849b57ea0dj5ft...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
You made a mistake, WT. Duck-Egg was looking in a mirror when he
typed "Pardon my laughing at you" - that's why he wrote it
apologetically.
You see Dopey now realizes that under no circumstances could I
possibly be trying to establish that the Bible states fact with regard
to the Noahic flood since I've been in diametric opposition to him on
that topic for quite literally years. Dipshit SDuke relaized that if
he accused me now of tryignt o state tha thte Bibel is sicentific or
historical and tha tthere really was a flood,a nd therefore Dirtbag
Duek would be makiing a monumental ass of himself - and you and I both
know he would *never* do that.
No, Desperate Duke realized that what I was establishing (and most
successfully as it happens) is not the *fact* of a global flood, but
the *fact* that within it's own *fictional* framework, the Bible does
indeed state there was a global flood and it does indeed date that
flood - again within it's own *fictional* framework, as being 4,400
years ago.
Just as a fictional movie might, for example, establish that an event
took place a year ago by showing a subtitle after it saying "One year
later...", the movie isn't claiming that the event took place as a
scientific or historical fact a year ago but that within the fictional
framework of the movie, the event took place a year ago. I'm sure
Dimwit Duke fully understands this now, which is why he was
apologizing to himself
Since we know for a *fact* that there was no such flood 4,400 years
ago, this means that Duped's Bible outright LIES about the flood, as
he's admitted, and the Bible outright LIES about the chronologies, as
Duped has also admitted, and also that Dumb-Ass Duke outright LIED
that the fictional flood could have taken place at any time in the
last 4.5 billion years, a claim he;s been FLEEING for at least four
years.
But he's admitted that I was right in all of this now, so we're all
buddies agian.
Thanks ever so.
Please feel free to carry on kicking his dumb ass now.
Budikka
Budikka666
> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
>
Keep running you chickenshit jackass. Quite clearly, since it's quite
clear to anyone of even average intelligence from those eight
questions why the days were 24-hour days then I'm left only with one
of two conclusions. Either you didn't read the questions, in which
case you're a moron to think you can comment intelligently, or you're
too stupid to grasp an explanation even a six-year old can grasp. Try
reading them again (or for the first time). It's OK to get a grown up
to help.
Budikka
bob young
On 12/24/09 9:51 PM, in article 89s6j51s56i3mc4b6...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:02:02 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 24, 6:18�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>>> In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
>>>> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized statements,
>>>
>>>> The issue is not whether the statements were original with the poster
>>>> but whether they were true.
>>>
>>> The first 8 statements were challenged and shown to be unfounded.
>
>> The *fact* that you're too cowardly to offer a URL to where this
>> supposedly happened proves you're LYING in the news groups again. Let
>> me help you out. Here's the URL tot he first fifty you're too
>> cowardly to offer: http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
>
> I don't have to, you big dud.
Still dancing around Dook I see.
Do you have a conscience of any kind ?
You were the party whose butt got kicked by me.
See above.
Tell me Dook what are your reasons for living a lie ?
Budikka666
> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
>
In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
" (or second, third, etc.), moron. These are ordinal numbers, moron,
meaning that we're expected to understand that this was the first
(second, etc.) ever actual day, moron. The Jews measure their day
from the evening of day one to the evening of day two, moron. Periods
of time longer than a day do not have an evening and a morning,
moron. The word used is "yome", from a root meaning "heat of the
day", not "heat of the thousand years" or "heat of the eon", moron.
Elsewhere in the Bible the creation period is clearly referenced as a
week of seven days, moron. In other words, it couldn't be more clear
as to what is intended, moron.
Now I'm done babying you. Go get an education before you dare address
me again.
Budikka
duke
>In article <s157j51jdojbd1n2c...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>>
>> Pardon my laughing at you.
>
>Why?
>We see it over and over again.
No, you've NEVER seen me running from the queen dud.
>You make ignorant, or out right false, statements
Truth is what destroys bud the dud.
duke
wrote:
>> > Pardon my laughing at you.
>> Why?
>You made a mistake, WT. Duck-Egg was looking in a mirror when he
>typed "Pardon my laughing at you" - that's why he wrote it
>apologetically.
I can't believe a grown woman like you can't see the fallacy of using
prehistoric data to prove a historic point.
duke
>
>
>
>On 12/24/09 9:51 PM, in article 89s6j51s56i3mc4b6...@4ax.com,
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:02:02 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 6:18�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:53 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>>>> In article <em24j59hdbldtac8t832ehu17thhq38...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said - I kicked the dog out of your first 8 plagiarized statements,
>>>>
>>>>> The issue is not whether the statements were original with the poster
>>>>> but whether they were true.
>>>>
>>>> The first 8 statements were challenged and shown to be unfounded.
>>
>>> The *fact* that you're too cowardly to offer a URL to where this
>>> supposedly happened proves you're LYING in the news groups again. Let
>>> me help you out. Here's the URL tot he first fifty you're too
>>> cowardly to offer: http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
>>
>> I don't have to, you big dud.
>
>Still dancing around Dook I see.
The word dud is crawling around me - backwards.
duke
Yeah, I'm dying laughing at her myself.
duke
Which means talk to the prime believer - bud, the supreme dudass.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 2:01�pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
>>
>> > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> �3. �The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>> >> one of rest. �Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? �(Note,
>> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
>> >> rebuttal).
>> >> ... ... ...
>> > *** �Good one B! �thanks for the laughs.
>> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>>
>> Hmmmmm...
>> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
>> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
>> Or shall we just call it lying?
>>
>> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>Keep running you chickenshit jackass. Quite clearly, since it's quite
>clear to anyone of even average intelligence
Well, that leaves you without any doubt. There you go again demanding
non-scientific data to prove a point when you should know better.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 2:01�pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
>>
>> > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> �3. �The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>> >> one of rest. �Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? �(Note,
>> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
>> >> rebuttal).
>> >> ... ... ...
>> > *** �Good one B! �thanks for the laughs.
>> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>>
>> Hmmmmm...
>> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
>> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
>> Or shall we just call it lying?
>>
>> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>
>In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
>repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>" (or second, third, etc.), moron.
If a day is like a thousand years (and you know that's in scripture too), then
an evening is like 500 years and a morning is like 500 years.
Good grief, dud, quit embarrassing yourself like that.
Patrick
Why should I?
I don't see their name in the newsgroups addressed.
Try to keep the discussion pertinent to the audience .
Patrick
>> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>Keep running you chickenshit jackass. Quite clearly,
PB - To Whom?
>since it's quite
clear to anyone of even average intelligence from those eight
questions why the days were 24-hour days then I'm left only with one
of two conclusions.
PRB - You didn't answer the question.....
Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
> Either you didn't read the questions, in which
case you're a moron to think you can comment intelligently, or you're
too stupid to grasp an explanation even a six-year old can grasp. Try
reading them again (or for the first time). It's OK to get a grown up
to help.
PB - Heh, heh, heh...
When you can't provide an intelligent answer, you insult the poster.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Very simply, day has a definition. If you want to argue that the day is
not a day as commonly used, then you get to explain why.
I don't care because no evidence supports any version of creation that
ignores scientific evidence. If you want to say that God guided the Big
Bang and the beginning of life on earth and evolution after that, there
is no evidence either way, so there is no reason to argue about it. If
you deny any of the scientific discoveries about life, the universe and
everything, you will not get my assent.
Syd M.
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:12:51 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >In article
What a coincidence; That's what we're doing at you.
PDW
Syd M.
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:15:20 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >>>> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
> >>>> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
> >>>> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
> >>>> rebuttal).
> >>>> ... ... ...
> >>> *** Good one B! thanks for the laughs.
> >>> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> >>Hmmmmm...
> >>It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
> >>Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
> >>Or shall we just call it lying?
>
> >>Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>
> >Talk to the Young Earth Creationists about that problem.
>
> Which means talk to the prime believer - bud, the supreme dudass.
>
>
Prove this 'supreme dude' exist, asshole Dork.
PDW
Patrick
On Dec 24, 2:01 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> >> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
> >> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
> >> rebuttal).
> Hmmmmm...
> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
> Or shall we just call it lying?
>
> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
>repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
PB - I don't see "24 hours."
Couldn't evening mean "dark ages" and morning mean enlightenment?
>" (or second, third, etc.), moron. These are ordinal numbers, moron,
PB - They aren't mentioned in the bible.
You claimed "The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days"
I don't believe it.
>meaning that we're expected to understand that this was the first
(second, etc.) ever actual day, moron.
PB - We are?"
Where does it say that we are expected to understand this?
> The Jews measure their day
PB - I am not a Jew.
> from the evening of day one to the evening of day two, moron. Periods
of time longer than a day do not have an evening and a morning,
PB - If you wish to use this argument, then you must have heard
of Summer and Winter Solstices. Daylight in June is longer than
in the Northern Hemisphere. A day is not 24 hours according to
your Jewish friends then.
> moron. The word used is "yome", from a root meaning "heat of the
day", not "heat of the thousand years" or "heat of the eon", moron.
PB - And "lumen" means something also.
>Elsewhere in the Bible the creation period is clearly referenced as a
week of seven days, moron.
PB - References please.......
> In other words, it couldn't be more clear
as to what is intended, moron.
Now I'm done babying you. Go get an education before you dare address
me again.
PB - I already worn you out once this week.
I've proven that most things you claim are false.
I have shown you to be a Catholic basher.
I've shown that you would rather insult me
than provide a real reference.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote
>On Dec 24, 2:01 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>
>> >> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>> >> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
>> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
>> >> rebuttal).
>
>> Hmmmmm...
>> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
>> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
>> Or shall we just call it lying?
>>
>> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>
>>In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
>>repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>
>PB - I don't see "24 hours."
>Couldn't evening mean "dark ages" and morning mean enlightenment?
It's a silly story, but making things up like that does not make it
square with reality.
>>" (or second, third, etc.), moron. These are ordinal numbers, moron,
>
>PB - They aren't mentioned in the bible.
>You claimed "The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days"
>I don't believe it.
>
>
>>meaning that we're expected to understand that this was the first
>(second, etc.) ever actual day, moron.
>
>PB - We are?"
>Where does it say that we are expected to understand this?
>
If you cannot understand it, why make claims about it?
>
>> The Jews measure their day
>
>PB - I am not a Jew.
>
So? Christianity is an offshoot from Judaism and uses the Hebrew
Scriptures for most of its scriptures.
>
>
>> from the evening of day one to the evening of day two, moron. Periods
>of time longer than a day do not have an evening and a morning,
>
>PB - If you wish to use this argument, then you must have heard
>of Summer and Winter Solstices. Daylight in June is longer than
>in the Northern Hemisphere. A day is not 24 hours according to
>your Jewish friends then.
>
The variance. How long is sunset to sunset? What is the longest day from
sunset to sunset in Jerusalem? What is the shortest?
>
>> moron. The word used is "yome", from a root meaning "heat of the
>day", not "heat of the thousand years" or "heat of the eon", moron.
>
>PB - And "lumen" means something also.
>
So?
>
>>Elsewhere in the Bible the creation period is clearly referenced as a
>week of seven days, moron.
>
>PB - References please.......
>
>
>> In other words, it couldn't be more clear
>as to what is intended, moron.
>Now I'm done babying you. Go get an education before you dare address
>me again.
>
>PB - I already worn you out once this week.
>I've proven that most things you claim are false.
>I have shown you to be a Catholic basher.
>I've shown that you would rather insult me
>than provide a real reference.
You do more harm to Catholicism than any oppenent could.
Patrick
>>>>Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>>>>
>>> Talk to the Young Earth Creationists about that problem.
>>
>>Why should I?
>>I don't see their name in the newsgroups addressed.
>>Try to keep the discussion pertinent to the audience .
>>
> Very simply, day has a definition. If you want to argue that the day is
> not a day as commonly used, then you get to explain why.
Back in my day, ...... oh but that is a different definition, isn't it?
Perhaps you never heard of it though.....
> I don't care because no evidence supports any version of creation that
> ignores scientific evidence. If you want to say that God guided the Big
> Bang and the beginning of life on earth and evolution after that, there
> is no evidence either way, so there is no reason to argue about it. If
> you deny any of the scientific discoveries about life, the universe and
> everything, you will not get my assent.
Completely different argument, one that deserves intelligent
discussion. However, I was discussing someone's lie which
claimed the bible described seven (24 hour) days.
Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
Try to stay on subject.
Patrick
>>
>>> >> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>>> >> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
>>> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a
>>> >> *supported*
>>> >> rebuttal).
>>
>>> Hmmmmm...
>>> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
>>> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
>>> Or shall we just call it lying?
>>>
>>> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>>
>>>In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
>>>repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>>
>>PB - I don't see "24 hours."
>>Couldn't evening mean "dark ages" and morning mean enlightenment?
>
> It's a silly story, but making things up like that does not make it
> square with reality.
Why not?
I merely called bud-lite a liar because the bible does NOT
claim each day consists of 24 hours. It doesn't say that at all.
People who refer to the bible ought to be prepared to back up
their significant lies (statements.)
>>>" (or second, third, etc.), moron. These are ordinal numbers, moron,
>>
>>PB - They aren't mentioned in the bible.
>>You claimed "The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days"
>>I don't believe it.
>>
>>
>>>meaning that we're expected to understand that this was the first
>>(second, etc.) ever actual day, moron.
>>
>>PB - We are?"
>>Where does it say that we are expected to understand this?
>>
> If you cannot understand it, why make claims about it?
Someone claimed: "meaning that we're expected to unders"
I merely claim that this is not true.
>>> The Jews measure their day
>>
>>PB - I am not a Jew.
>>
> So? Christianity is an offshoot from Judaism and uses the Hebrew
> Scriptures for most of its scriptures.
SO?
I am not a Jew.
Therefore, I don't measure the day like a Jew might.
Don't expect me to.
>>> from the evening of day one to the evening of day two, moron. Periods
>>of time longer than a day do not have an evening and a morning,
>>
>>PB - If you wish to use this argument, then you must have heard
>>of Summer and Winter Solstices. Daylight in June is longer than
>>in the Northern Hemisphere. A day is not 24 hours according to
>>your Jewish friends then.
>>
> The variance. How long is sunset to sunset? What is the longest day from
> sunset to sunset in Jerusalem? What is the shortest?
Who cares?
My point is that each (Jewish) day is not 24 hours exactly.
So don't EVEN try to tell me what the bible means to say.
>>> moron. The word used is "yome", from a root meaning "heat of the
>>day", not "heat of the thousand years" or "heat of the eon", moron.
>>
>>PB - And "lumen" means something also.
>>
> So?
>>
>>>Elsewhere in the Bible the creation period is clearly referenced as a
>>week of seven days, moron.
>>
>>PB - References please.......
>>
>>
>>> In other words, it couldn't be more clear
>>as to what is intended, moron.
>>Now I'm done babying you. Go get an education before you dare address
>>me again.
>>
>>PB - I already worn you out once this week.
>>I've proven that most things you claim are false.
>>I have shown you to be a Catholic basher.
>>I've shown that you would rather insult me
>>than provide a real reference.
>
> You do more harm to Catholicism than any oppenent could.
Stop lying about what my bible says.
Stop lying about Catholic doctrine and dogma.
And I will stop calling you on it.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote ...
>> Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote
>>>, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>>>> >> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
>>>> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a
>>>> >> *supported*
>>>> >> rebuttal).
>>>
>>>> Hmmmmm...
>>>> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
>>>> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
>>>> Or shall we just call it lying?
>>>>
>>>> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>>>
>>>>In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
>>>>repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>>>
>>>PB - I don't see "24 hours."
>>>Couldn't evening mean "dark ages" and morning mean enlightenment?
>>
>> It's a silly story, but making things up like that does not make it
>> square with reality.
>
>Why not?
>I merely called bud-lite a liar because the bible does NOT
>claim each day consists of 24 hours. It doesn't say that at all.
And there was evening, and there was morning�the first day.
And there was evening, and there was morning�the second day.
And there was evening, and there was morning�the third day.
And there was evening, and there was morning�the fourth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning�the fifth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning�the sixth day.
Why it doesn't even imply a normal day, does it?
>People who refer to the bible ought to be prepared to back up
>their significant lies (statements.)
You are the one who denies that it is talking about normal days. I have
provided the NIV translations that make your claim difficult to support.
...
�R.L.Measures
<55b4ea6c-ff74-432a...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2:01=A0pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> > ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
> >
> > > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >> =A03. =A0The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation an=
> d
> > >> one of rest. =A0Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? =A0(Note,
> > >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
> > >> rebuttal).
> > >> ... ... ...
> > > *** =A0Good one B! =A0thanks for the laughs.
> > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > Hmmmmm...
> > It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
> > Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
> > Or shall we just call it lying?
> >
> > Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>
> In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
> repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> " (or second, third, etc.), moron. These are ordinal numbers, moron,
> meaning that we're expected to understand that this was the first
> (second, etc.) ever actual day, moron. The Jews measure their day
> from the evening of day one to the evening of day two, moron. Periods
> of time longer than a day do not have an evening and a morning,
> moron. The word used is "yome", from a root meaning "heat of the
> day", not "heat of the thousand years" or "heat of the eon", moron.
> Elsewhere in the Bible the creation period is clearly referenced as a
> week of seven days, moron. In other words, it couldn't be more clear
> as to what is intended, moron.
>
> Now I'm done babying you. Go get an education before you dare address
> me again.
>
> Budikka
� The Hebrew version of Genesis uses the word for "time-period", not the
word for "Day".
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:07:50 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <s157j51jdojbd1n2c...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >@cox.net says...
> >>
> >> Pardon my laughing at you.
> >
> >Why?
> >We see it over and over again.
>
> No, you've NEVER seen me running from the queen dud.
>
> >You make ignorant, or out right false, statements
>
> Truth is what destroys bud the dud.
It hasn't yet, but then Puke hasn't been able to produce enough of it to
make any difference to anything anyway.
�R.L.Measures
Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
** The truth about the Church of Rome is Duke's eternal enemy.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:33:10 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > Pardon my laughing at you.
> >> Why?
>
> >You made a mistake, WT. Duck-Egg was looking in a mirror when he
> >typed "Pardon my laughing at you" - that's why he wrote it
> >apologetically.
>
> I can't believe a grown woman like you can't see the fallacy of using
> prehistoric data to prove a historic point.
She only notes that there are statements in your bible which you admit
are erroneous.
And that you have carefully avoided give=ing any indication of how one
can distinguish the wrong ones from those, if any, which are not wrong
in some way.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
Try sobering up, and maybe you will stop having to crawl around like
that.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
It is funny how she makes the bible look so foolish, isn't it.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
We quite agree that Young Earth Creationists are the supreme deadasses,
but you still manage to come in quite a close second.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:36:39 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 24, 2:01�pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> >> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
> >>
> >> > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> �3. �The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
> >> >> one of rest. �Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? �(Note,
> >> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
> >> >> rebuttal).
> >> >> ... ... ...
> >> > *** �Good one B! �thanks for the laughs.
> >> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >>
> >> Hmmmmm...
> >> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
> >> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
> >> Or shall we just call it lying?
> >>
> >> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>
> >Keep running you chickenshit jackass. Quite clearly, since it's quite
> >clear to anyone of even average intelligence
>
> Well
Jack Benny you aren't.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:24:35 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 24, 2:01�pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> >> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
> >>
> >> > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> �3. �The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
> >> >> one of rest. �Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? �(Note,
> >> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
> >> >> rebuttal).
> >> >> ... ... ...
> >> > *** �Good one B! �thanks for the laughs.
> >> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >>
> >> Hmmmmm...
> >> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
> >> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
> >> Or shall we just call it lying?
> >>
> >> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
> >
> >In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
> >repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> >" (or second, third, etc.), moron.
>
> If a day is like a thousand years (and you know that's in scripture too), then
> an evening is like 500 years and a morning is like 500 years.
In order to match up with the evidence, some of those days would have to
be billions of years long.
>
> Good grief, dud, quit embarrassing yourself like that.
Actually, it is Puke who is embarrassing all Christians by his extremely
unchristian attitudes here.
�R.L.Measures
Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
� Indeed. Translating the Hebrew word for period of time into the
English word "day" was pretty obviously a mistake.
> >
> > Good grief, dud, quit embarrassing yourself like that.
>
> Actually, it is Puke who is embarrassing all Christians by his extremely
> unchristian attitudes here.
> >
� No surprise there since he belongs to a supposedly "Christian" church
which teaches doctrines that Jesus spoke against -- I. E., divine
forgiveness of trespasses requires sacrifice and that we need to pray
through real-special intermediaries such as RC saints, The laugher is
that up until the early 19th century, Duke's church burned "heretics"
alive in its "Act of Faith" celebrations.
- "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
duke
>In article <d41cj5pf647fmks8b...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:33:10 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Pardon my laughing at you.
>> >> Why?
>>
>> >You made a mistake, WT. Duck-Egg was looking in a mirror when he
>> >typed "Pardon my laughing at you" - that's why he wrote it
>> >apologetically.
>>
>> I can't believe a grown woman like you can't see the fallacy of using
>> prehistoric data to prove a historic point.
>She only notes that there are statements in your bible which you admit
>are erroneous.
No, they are not literal, but not erroneous.
>And that you have carefully avoided give=ing any indication of how one
>can distinguish the wrong ones from those, if any, which are not wrong
>in some way.
There is no point in my continuing to explain the same thing to you over and
over when you never remember.
duke
The truth about the Roman Catholic Church is that it is truth eternal. But some
of the men hired by it were less than perfect.
duke
>In article <Virgil-142538....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>,
>Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
>> In article <5f1cj5has1cntrut8...@4ax.com>,
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:24:35 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Dec 24, 2:01�ｿｽpm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> > >> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
>> > >>
>> > >> > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> �ｿｽ3. �ｿｽThe Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>> > >> >> one of rest. �ｿｽCan you offer a supported rebuttal to this? �ｿｽ(Note,
>> > >> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
>> > >> >> rebuttal).
>> > >> >> ... ... ...
>> > >> > *** �ｿｽGood one B! �ｿｽthanks for the laughs.
>> > >> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>> > >>
>> > >> Hmmmmm...
>> > >> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
>> > >> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
>> > >> Or shall we just call it lying?
>> > >>
>> > >> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>> > >
>> > >In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
>> > >repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>> > >" (or second, third, etc.), moron.
>> >
>> > If a day is like a thousand years (and you know that's in scripture
>too), then
>> > an evening is like 500 years and a morning is like 500 years.
>>
>> In order to match up with the evidence, some of those days would have to
>> be billions of years long.
>�ｿｽ Indeed. Translating the Hebrew word for period of time into the
>English word "day" was pretty obviously a mistake.
Why a mistake? It's the perfect way of saying that God is limited to the same
time frame that man is. After all, God spoke, and man wrote.
duke
Oops, your light finally comes on.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:01:29 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <Virgil-07F712....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>,
> >Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <221cj5doaqsa4lsm9...@4ax.com>,
> >> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:07:50 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >In article <s157j51jdojbd1n2c...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >> > >@cox.net says...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Pardon my laughing at you.
> >> > >
> >> > >Why?
> >> > >We see it over and over again.
> >> >
> >> > No, you've NEVER seen me running from the queen dud.
> >> >
> >> > >You make ignorant, or out right false, statements
> >> >
> >> > Truth is what destroys bud the dud.
> >>
> >> It hasn't yet, but then Puke hasn't been able to produce enough of it to
> >> make any difference to anything anyway.
> >
> >** The truth about the Church of Rome is Duke's eternal enemy.
>
> The truth about the Roman Catholic Church is that it is truth eternal.
� For decades before the $2,100,000,000 altar-boy scandal of 2002, the
RCC did every damn thing possible to hide the truth that it was protecting
pedophile priests.
>But some
> of the men hired by it were less than perfect.
� This was for damn sure bound to happen when the org. was essentially
advertising for men who had no interest whatsoever in haing sex with
women.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:07:07 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <Virgil-142538....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>,
> >Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <5f1cj5has1cntrut8...@4ax.com>,
> >> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:24:35 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
<budi...@netscape.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >On Dec 24, 2:01�pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> >> > >> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> > >> >> �3. �The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
> >> > >> >> one of rest. �Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? �(Note,
> >> > >> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a
*supported*
> >> > >> >> rebuttal).
> >> > >> >> ... ... ...
> >> > >> > *** �Good one B! �thanks for the laughs.
> >> > >> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Hmmmmm...
> >> > >> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
> >> > >> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
> >> > >> Or shall we just call it lying?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
> >> > >
> >> > >In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
> >> > >repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> >> > >" (or second, third, etc.), moron.
> >> >
> >> > If a day is like a thousand years (and you know that's in scripture
> >too), then
> >> > an evening is like 500 years and a morning is like 500 years.
> >>
> >> In order to match up with the evidence, some of those days would have to
> >> be billions of years long.
>
> >� Indeed. Translating the Hebrew word for period of time into the
> >English word "day" was pretty obviously a mistake.
>
> Why a mistake?
� because Earth was created over 4+ billion years.
It's the perfect way of saying that God is limited to the same
> time frame that man is. After all, God spoke, and man wrote.
>
� the Great Flood turned out to be a great joke. And so is the dad who
unknowingly impregnated his two too-horny virgin daughters on successive
nights.
duke
>> Why a mistake?
That's a man-word belonging on The Man Show.
>
>It's the perfect way of saying that God is limited to the same
>> time frame that man is. After all, God spoke, and man wrote.
>>
>� the Great Flood turned out to be a great joke. And so is the dad who
>unknowingly impregnated his two too-horny virgin daughters on successive
>nights.
How do you know he's a joke?
duke
It started cracking down in 1982.
>>But some
>> of the men hired by it were less than perfect.
>� This was for damn sure bound to happen when the org. was essentially
>advertising for men who had no interest whatsoever in haing sex with
>women.
The ultimate climax, right?
Patrick
> , "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote ...
>>>>> >> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>>>>> >> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
>>>>> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a
>>>>> >> *supported*
>>>>> >> rebuttal).
>>>>
>>>>> Hmmmmm...
>>>>> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
>>>>> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
>>>>> Or shall we just call it lying?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>>>>
>>>>>In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
>>>>>repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>>>>
>>>>PB - I don't see "24 hours."
>>>>Couldn't evening mean "dark ages" and morning mean enlightenment?
>>>
>>> It's a silly story, but making things up like that does not make it
>>> square with reality.
>>
>>Why not?
>>I merely called bud-lite a liar because the bible does NOT
>>claim each day consists of 24 hours. It doesn't say that at all.
>
> And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
> And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
> And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
> And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
> And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
> And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.
> Why it doesn't even imply a normal day, does it?
THIS is your big argument?
The majority of Christians (including many Christian leaders) in the Western
world, however, do not insist that these days of creation were
ordinary-length days, and many of them accept and teach, based on outside
influences, that they must have been long periods of time-even millions or
billions of years.
Let us talk about communication and written word: God communicates through
language. When He made the first man, Adam, He had already "programmed" him
with a language, so there could be communication. Human language consists of
words used in a specific context that relates to the entire reality around
us. Thus, God can reveal things to man, and man can communicate with God,
because words have meaning and convey an understandable message. If this
were not so, how could any of us communicate with each other or with God?
Why "Long Days"? Romans 3:4 declares: "Let God be true, and every man a
liar." In every instance where someone has not accepted the "days" of
creation to be ordinary days, they have not allowed the words of Scripture
to speak to them in context, as the language requires for communication.
They have been influenced by ideas from outside of Scripture. Thus, they
have set a precedent that could allow any word to be reinterpreted by the
preconceived ideas of the person reading the words. Ultimately, this will
lead to a communication breakdown, as the same words in the same context
could mean different things to different people.
Most church fathers accepted the days of creation as ordinary days.1 It is
true that some of the early church fathers did not teach the days of
creation as ordinary days-but many of them had been influenced by Greek
philosophy, which caused them to interpret the days as allegorical. They
reasoned that the creation days were related to God's activities, and God
being timeless meant that the days could not be related to human time.2 In
contrast to today's allegorizers, they could not accept that God took as
long as six days.
Thus, the non-literal days resulted from extrabiblical influences (i.e.,
influences from outside the Bible), not from the words of the Bible.
This approach has affected the way people interpret Scripture to this day.
As the man who started the Reformation said,
The days of creation were ordinary days in length. We must understand that
these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the
Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree
with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our
elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for
their sake.3
Again and again, such leaders admit that Genesis 1, taken in a
straightforward way, seems to teach six ordinary days. But they then say
that this cannot be because of the age of the universe or some other
extrabiblical reason.
Consider the following representative quotes from Bible scholars who are
considered to be conservative yet who do not accept the days of creation as
ordinary-length days:
From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression would seem to be
that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-hour days.
... This seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates
that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.4
We have shown the possibility of God's having formed the Earth and its
life in a series of creative days representing long periods. In view of the
apparent age of the Earth, this is not only possible-it is probable.5
It is as if these theologians view "nature" as a "67th book of the Bible,"
albeit with more authority than the 66 written books. Rather, we should
consider the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the renowned "prince of
preachers," in 1877:
We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned
belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science.
What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It
should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my
brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You
are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert
what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any
we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould
our belief according to the evershifting teachings of so-called scientific
men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called,
through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned
theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual
wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may
tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of
suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.6
Those who would use historical science (as propounded by people who, by and
large, ignore God's written revelation) to interpret the Bible, to teach us
things about God, have matters front to back. Because we are fallen,
fallible creatures, we need God's written Word, illuminated by the Holy
Spirit, to properly understand natural history. The respected systematic
theologian Berkhof said:
Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true knowledge
about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in the light of
Scripture, in which the elements of God's original self-revelation, which
were obscured and perverted by the blight of sin, are republished,
corrected, and interpreted. ... Some are inclined to speak of God's general
revelation as a second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the
fact that nature can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the
light of Scripture.7
In other words, Christians should build their thinking on the Bible, not on
science.
The "Days" of Genesis 1
What does the Bible tell us about the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1? A word
can have more than one meaning, depending on the context. For instance, the
English word "day" can have perhaps 14 different meanings. For example,
consider the following sentence: "Back in my grandfather's day, it took 12
days to drive across the country during the day."
Here the first occurrence of "day" means "time" in a general sense. The
second "day," where a number is used, refers to an ordinary day, and the
third refers to the daylight portion of the 24-hour period. The point is
that words can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.
To understand the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1, we need to determine how
the Hebrew word for "day," yom, is used in the context of Scripture.
Consider the following:
a.. A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of
meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time,
a specific point of time, or a year.
b.. A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a dictionary) has
seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom-but it defines
the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading "day as
defined by evening and morning."
c.. A number and the phrase "evening and morning" are used with each of
the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
d.. Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time
it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
e.. Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word "evening" or "morning"11
23 times. "Evening" and "morning" appear in association, but without yom, 38
times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1
be the exception?12
f.. In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word "night." Outside
of Genesis 1, "night" is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an
ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the
word "light" with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary
day.13
g.. The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to
communicate a longer time period, such as "in those days."14 Adding a number
here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used
with "days," it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.
h.. There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are
very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time,
but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or
years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were
meant.
Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who
himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as
far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that
So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any
world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11
intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place
in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now
experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by
simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later
stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's Flood was understood to be worldwide
and
Most church fathers accepted the days of creation as ordinary days.1 It is
true that some of the early church fathers did not teach the days of
creation as ordinary days-but many of them had been influenced by Greek
philosophy, which caused them to interpret the days as allegorical. They
reasoned that the creation days were related to God's activities, and God
being timeless meant that the days could not be related to human time.2 In
contrast to today's allegorizers, they could not accept that God took as
long as six days.
Thus, the non-literal days resulted from extrabiblical influences (i.e.,
influences from outside the Bible), not from the words of the Bible.
This approach has affected the way people interpret Scripture to this day.
As the man who started the Reformation said,
The days of creation were ordinary days in length. We must understand
that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of
the Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers
disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them
to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of
Scripture for their sake.3
Again and again, such leaders admit that Genesis 1, taken in a
straightforward way, seems to teach six ordinary days. But they then say
that this cannot be because of the age of the universe or some other
extrabiblical reason.
Consider the following representative quotes from Bible scholars who are
considered to be conservative yet who do not accept the days of creation as
ordinary-length days:
From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression would seem to be
that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-hour days.
... This seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates
that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.4
We have shown the possibility of God's having formed the Earth and its
life in a series of creative days representing long periods. In view of the
apparent age of the Earth, this is not only possible-it is probable.5
It is as if these theologians view "nature" as a "67th book of the Bible,"
albeit with more authority than the 66 written books. Rather, we should
consider the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the renowned "prince of
preachers," in 1877:
We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the
old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries
of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his
ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical
in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the
correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but
scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith
far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our
Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the evershifting
teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of
science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded
fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now
ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of
universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the
debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken
bottles.6
Those who would use historical science (as propounded by people who, by
and large, ignore God's written revelation) to interpret the Bible, to teach
us things about God, have matters front to back. Because we are fallen,
fallible creatures, we need God's written Word, illuminated by the Holy
Spirit, to properly understand natural history. The respected systematic
theologian Berkhof said:
Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true knowledge
about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in the light of
Scripture, in which the elements of God's original self-revelation, which
were obscured and perverted by the blight of sin, are republished,
corrected, and interpreted. ... Some are inclined to speak of God's general
revelation as a second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the
fact that nature can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the
light of Scripture.7
In other words, Christians should build their thinking on the Bible, not
on science.
The "Days" of Genesis 1
What does the Bible tell us about the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1? A
word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context. For instance,
the English word "day" can have perhaps 14 different meanings. For example,
consider the following sentence: "Back in my grandfather's day, it took 12
days to drive across the country during the day."
Here the first occurrence of "day" means "time" in a general sense. The
second "day," where a number is used, refers to an ordinary day, and the
third refers to the daylight portion of the 24-hour period. The point is
that words can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.
To understand the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1, we need to determine how
the Hebrew word for "day," yom, is used in the context of Scripture.
Consider the following:
a.. A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of
meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time,
a specific point of time, or a year.
b.. A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a dictionary) has
seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom-but it defines
the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading "day as
defined by evening and morning."
c.. A number and the phrase "evening and morning" are used with each of
the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
d.. Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each
time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
e.. Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word "evening" or "morning"11
23 times. "Evening" and "morning" appear in association, but without yom, 38
times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1
be the exception?12
f.. In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word "night." Outside
of Genesis 1, "night" is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an
ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the
word "light" with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary
day.13
g.. The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used
to communicate a longer time period, such as "in those days."14 Adding a
number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number
is used with "days," it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.
h.. There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are
very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time,
but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or
years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were
meant.
Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who
himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as
far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that
So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at
any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen.
1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took
place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we
now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided
by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later
stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's Flood was understood to be worldwide
and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.16
In like manner, nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New
College, Edinburgh, said,
If, for example, the word "day" in these chapters does not mean a
period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.17
Conclusion About "Day" in Genesis 1
If we are prepared to let the words of the language speak to us in
accord with the context and normal definitions, without being influenced by
outside ideas, then the word for "day" found in Genesis 1-which is qualified
by a number, the phrase "evening and morning" and for Day 1 the words "light
and darkness"-obviously means an ordinary day (about 24 hours).
In Martin Luther's day, some of the church fathers were saying that God
created everything in only one day or in an instant. Martin Luther wrote,
When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in
them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and
do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one
day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six
days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you
are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind
that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not
fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.18
Similarly, John Calvin stated, "Albeit the duration of the world, now
declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years. ...
God's work was completed not in a moment but in six days."19
Luther and Calvin were the backbone of the Protestant Reformation that
called the church back to Scripture-Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Both
of these men were adamant that Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of
creation-only thousands of years ago.
Why Six Days?
Exodus 31:12 says that God commanded Moses to say to the children of
Israel:
Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely
be put to death. Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to
observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting
covenant. It is a sign between me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six
days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He
rested, and was refreshed (Exodus 31:15-17).
Then God gave Moses two tablets of stone upon which were written the
commandments of God, written by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18).
Because God is infinite in power and wisdom, there's no doubt He could
have created the universe and its contents in no time at all, or six
seconds, or six minutes, or six hours-after all, with God nothing shall be
impossible (Luke 1:37).
However, the question to ask is, "Why did God take so long? Why as long
as six days?" The answer is also given in Exodus 20:11, and that answer is
the basis of the Fourth Commandment:
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and
all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed
the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture. In this Old
Testament passage, God commands His people, Israel, to work for six days and
rest for one-thus giving us a reason why He deliberately took as long as six
days to create everything. He set the example for man. Our week is patterned
after this principle. Now if He created everything in six thousand (or six
million) years, followed by a rest of one thousand or one million years,
then we would have a very interesting week indeed.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� which word?
> >
> >It's the perfect way of saying that God is limited to the same
> >> time frame that man is. After all, God spoke, and man wrote.
> >>
> >� the Great Flood turned out to be a great joke. And so is the dad who
> >unknowingly impregnated his two too-horny virgin daughters on successive
> >nights.
>
> How do you know he's a joke?
� did you ever not remember the day after having had coitus with a virgin?
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� Apparently they forgot to crackdown in Louisana Duke. According to
diocese records subpoened at his trial in 1984,, the RCC knew that Fr.
Gilbert Gauthe, Jr. was doing altar-boys in the 1970s.
>
> >>But some
> >> of the men hired by it were less than perfect.
>
> >� This was for damn sure bound to happen when the org. was essentially
> >advertising for men who had no interest whatsoever in haing sex with
> >women.
>
> The ultimate climax, right?
� I don't have any experience doing altar-boys Duke. .
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Of course, the next step is to realize that the creation story is only a
story and of no value at all as history or science. Arguing about
whether you can find a way to redefine the meaning of day misses the
entire point.
...
�R.L.Measures
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
� Perhaps an allegorical one?
>and of no value at all as history or science. Arguing about
> whether you can find a way to redefine the meaning of day misses the
> entire point.
>
>
> ...
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
Creation is scientific some 13.7 billion years ago. Ask any physicist.
Patrick
>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote ...
>
>>>>>>> >> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>>>>>>> >> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
>>>>>>> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a
>>>>>>> >> *supported*
>>>>>>> >> rebuttal).
>
>>Western
>>world, however, do not insist that these days of creation were
>>ordinary-length days, and many of them accept and teach, based on outside
>>influences, that they must have been long periods of time-even millions or
>>billions of years.
>
> Of course, the next step is to realize that the creation story is only a
> story and of no value at all as history or science. Arguing about
> whether you can find a way to redefine the meaning of day misses the
> entire point.
Yes, it does.
So, stop making such a silly argument for it.
What is the purpose of ANY book?
Free Lunch
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
So you weren't trying to redefine the word "day" when it clearly had an
evening and morning in the story?
>What is the purpose of ANY book?
It helps to know before you ascribe meaning to it.
Patrick
You defined the meaning.
I tell you to stop assuming.
>>What is the purpose of ANY book?
>
> It helps to know before you ascribe meaning to it.
Then ..... Learn before you open yer yap.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >Of course, the next step is to realize that the creation story is only a
> >story and of no value at all as history or science. Arguing about
> >whether you can find a way to redefine the meaning of day misses the
> >entire point.
>
> Creation is scientific some 13.7 billion years ago. Ask any physicist.
Then the Bible was wrong.
Budikka666
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:07:50 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >In article <s157j51jdojbd1n2c849b57ea0dj5ft...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >@cox.net says...
>
> >> Pardon my laughing at you.
>
> >Why?
> >We see it over and over again.
>
> No, you've NEVER seen me running from the queen dud.
month for the last six months, seven times in November and five in
December:
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/lldf56
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
November 9th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yjlmbrf
November 19th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yj64yqj
November 20th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrkvyh
November 22nd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ycw6s8l
November 25th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakpje3
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
December 5th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
December 7th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yllcb6q
December 8th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybzvv33
December 13th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakex6v
December 23rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
And form the archives (February 2007):
---***---***---
Feb 1st I started thread: "Why There Was No Flood - Item #38". You
made your asinine and unsupported claim that the flood could have
happened any time in the last 4.5 billion years. I asked you to
support your claim like I've been asking for three years.
What did you do, Duckshit? Did you even try to support your insane
claim? Nope! You FLED THE THREAD.
Feb 2nd, 'Steve O' started a spoof thread: "Turin shroud dyed pink in
washing machine bungle". I posted references setting you straight on
radiometrics - from a Christian perspective, no less! You said what
amounted to "No it isn't" and you FLED THE THREAD!
Feb 8th, I started thread, "Skeletons Embrace - No Evidence of a
Global Flood". You appeared a day late and a dollop of grey matter
short. I asked you about the Moon rotating on its axis - something
you ignorantly deny, and you never posted in that thread again!
Feb 10th I started a thread "Why There Was No Flood - Items #40 -
50" (not one of which items you've *ever* been able to address, let
alone refute). I said something to the effect that a huge portion of
theists believed in a young Earth and I supported my statement with a
reference. Even though the reference was from *your* side of the
fence, you pretended it didn't exist and stupidly denied that I could
support my position! I hammered you with another **EIGHT**
references.
What did you do, Duckshit? Did you even try to address the material?
Nope! You FLED THE THREAD and hid from the truth in this one.
Feb 11th, I started a thread "Why The Holy Bible Lies #6". You failed
to refute or even try to rebut *anything*. Instead you dug yourself
another hole wherein I dumped Luke's genealogy all over you -
something you've been running from for years - in rebuttal of your 4.5
billion year claim.
What did you do, Duckshit? Did you even try to address the material?
Nope! You FLED THE THREAD. Duck and run, duck and run. Duckshit
will out.
Feb 18th I started thread, "Why The Holy Bible Lies #7 - 8" You
posted that same day, but since you couldn't rebut or refute what I'd
posted, all you posted were insults! How pathetic! I tackled you on
that occasion on whether or not that was what your Jesus would do.
YOU FLED THE THREAD that same day and never posted in it again!
This spastic fleeing you liberally indulge yourself in is why you've
built up over a hundred questions and challenges that I've put to you
at one time or another that you couldn't find the guts to face:
Here's fifty:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
Here's another fifty:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y
I've documented over a dozen lies before I gave up on that since
everything you post is deeply rooted in lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm
You hilariously *failed* the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43
which may well account for the fact that you cannot tell the
difference between "evidence" and "proof", so it's no wonder you fail
to provide either. (On Fri, Apr 30 2004 2:33 pm you posted (http://
tinyurl.com/nbhqf) "Evidence is that which causes one to draw a
conclusion.", which is actually far closer to the definition of
"proof" than ever it is to one for "evidence").
After you lied that you could run rings around me on scripture, I
tackled precisely that topic, ran rings around you and watched you
flee again:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
So what of your response here when I asked you how many challenges
you've fled? Your answer was "Specifically, none.", yet I've just
documented, **FROM THIS MONTH ALONE** half-a-dozen of them. HALF-A-
DOZEN in three weeks. That's twice a week every week so far this
month that I've scared you out of a thread on Usenet just by asking
you a question.
---***---***---
Another case of Dopey Duke LYING in the newsgroups again.
Budikka
�R.L.Measures
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
� In the Hebrew version, there was no guy named Adam and a woman named
Eve, instead it talks about mankind and womankind,
>
> >> and of no value at all as history or science. Arguing about
> >> whether you can find a way to redefine the meaning of day misses the
> >> entire point.
> >>
> >>
> >> ...
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Budikka666
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote ...
>
>
>
> >>"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
> >>, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
> >>> >> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
> >>> >> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a
> >>> >> *supported*
> >>> >> rebuttal).
>
> >>> Hmmmmm...
> >>> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
> >>> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
> >>> Or shall we just call it lying?
>
> >>> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>
> >>>In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
> >>>repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>
> >>PB - I don't see "24 hours."
> >>Couldn't evening mean "dark ages" and morning mean enlightenment?
>
> > It's a silly story, but making things up like that does not make it
> > square with reality.
>
> Why not?
> I merely called bud-lite a liar because the bible does NOT
> claim each day consists of 24 hours.
I never said it did you LYING sack of shit. How sad is it that your
ass is so raw from you repeatedly backing it into my foot that you're
now reduced to outright LYING to try and save your slack-jawed
drooling face? LoL!
What I said was that the Bible *describes* 24 hour days and it makes
it crystaly clear to anyone with functional gray matter matter (which
obviously lets out an ignorant, juvenile jackass of your putrid ilk)
not only in the context in which it's used but also by reference back
to creation week from other parts of the Bible. It doesn't matter how
ignorant and incredulous you are today. The Bible writers back when
it was written were in no doubt about what was meant, moron:
"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day
is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:...For in six days the LORD made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the
seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath" (Ex 20, 9-11)
End of you.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>> >>PB - I don't see "24 hours."
>> >>Couldn't evening mean "dark ages" and morning mean enlightenment?
>> > It's a silly story, but making things up like that does not make it
>> > square with reality.
>> Why not?
>> I merely called bud-lite a liar because the bible does NOT
>> claim each day consists of 24 hours.
>I never said it did you LYING sack of shit. How sad is it that your
>ass is so raw from you repeatedly backing it into my foot that you're
>now reduced to outright LYING to try and save your slack-jawed
>drooling face? LoL!
Wow, lookie the dud run and run and run away from her lies.
>What I said was that the Bible *describes* 24 hour days
No, it does not. Like Patrick said, evening could mean "dark ages" and morning
could mean "enlightenment".
Why don't you just admit that you are out of your league, stick your tail
between your legs, and run away.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 26, 6:41�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:07:50 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >In article <s157j51jdojbd1n2c849b57ea0dj5ft...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>> >@cox.net says...
>>
>> >> Pardon my laughing at you.
>>
>> >Why?
>> >We see it over and over again.
>>
>> No, you've NEVER seen me running from the queen dud.
>Here's where you FLED when I challenged you directly - at least once a
>month for the last six months, seven times in November and five in
>December:
In every one of those, YOU quit replying to me.
Happy new year, you big dud. Haahaahaahaahaahaa.
The Dukester, American-American
duke
Nope.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:02:43 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> >In article <ue5pj5hip58eliufp...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >Of course, the next step is to realize that the creation story is only a
> >> >story and of no value at all as history or science. Arguing about
> >> >whether you can find a way to redefine the meaning of day misses the
> >> >entire point.
> >>
> >> Creation is scientific some 13.7 billion years ago. Ask any physicist.
> >
> >Then the Bible was wrong.
>
> Nope.
>
� Duke even believes that Mr. Lot impregnated both of his daughters, yet
he rememered not! Hook, line, and sinker.
Budikka666
month for the last six months, seven times in November and five in
December:
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/lldf56
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
November 9th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yjlmbrf
November 19th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yj64yqj
November 20th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrkvyh
November 22nd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ycw6s8l
November 25th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakpje3
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
December 5th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
December 7th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yllcb6q
December 8th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybzvv33
December 13th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakex6v
December 23rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
End of you. Case closed.
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:38:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 26, 6:41 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:07:50 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <s157j51jdojbd1n2c849b57ea0dj5ft...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >> >@cox.net says...
>
> >> >> Pardon my laughing at you.
>
> >> >Why?
> >> >We see it over and over again.
>
> >> No, you've NEVER seen me running from the queen dud.
> >Here's where you FLED when I challenged you directly - at least once a
> >month for the last six months, seven times in November and five in
> >December:
>
> In every one of those, YOU quit replying to me.
Like here:
tinyurl.com/lldf56
Where i posted this: "OK. I accept your offer of help. Please post
your best *objective
and/or scientific* evidence for the christian claim that Jesus Christ
existed and is the miracle-working son-of-a-god, or post your best
*objective and/or scientific* for the existence of this god of yours
and let's see how many of us atheists you can convert."
and you fled that challenge?
The fact is that you've openly admitted that you cannot offer
scientific or objective evidence for any god or for any Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of a god.
Like here:
http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
Where I challenged: "It doesn't matter if the Bible was inspired by a
god or if it was
inspired solely by ancient people's ignorance of science. The *fact*
is that the Bible is claimed to be a Holy book. What, exactly, makes
it holy? "
and you fled that challenge?
The fact is that you've openly admitted the Bible isn't holy because
parts of it are fiction or outright LIES.
Do you *honestly* think anyone here, believes a single word you post
when you can't support a thing you say, when, quite contrary to your
LIE that you're here to help, and flying in the face of your directive
from your god to evangelize, you do exactly the opposite of what your
god has ordered you to do and RUN from the challenge every time you're
requested to support your claims? Seriously? If that's the case,
then get medical help at once because you're demonstrably delusional.
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
He does. Because he's a pathological narcissist who makes the rules up
as he goes along. Even when he knows he's lying we're supposed to take
his word - it's not meant to explain anything just to shut us up, just
his move in a game. And it's not a lie in his mind.
Religion magifies many of the character attributes of its followers.
Especially potential narcissism because it creates a fantasy world for
them to live in.
>Budikka
tirebiter
> The majority of Christians (including many Christian leaders) in the Western
> world, however, do not insist that these days of creation were
> ordinary-length days, and many of them accept and teach, based on outside
> influences, that they must have been long periods of time-even millions or
> billions of years.
>
Many? The majority? Is that today's polling numbers? What about
what "christian leaders" insisted on 1,000 years ago? Simple claims
to frantically try and shoehorn your mythology into what's known to be
factual evidence doesn't make the mythology any less fictional.
And even if you reinterpret the literal text of this book of
fairytales to fabricate days that lasted billions of years, the myths
still don't match what science has observed.
Firstly, the length of a "day" is a subjective value, based on the
time it takes the earth to complete one rotation. A martian day is a
different duration. During the creation week, did the earth rotate
several hundred billion times slower than it does now to achieve these
multi-billion year long days?
Secondly, even if it were a popularity contest as you claim, and
"christian leaders" can insist on some variant of the meaning of a day
and when a big enough majority concurs, it magically becomes true, it
still doesn't bring anything in the creation fable in line with
reality.
Start with the very first sentence in the bible, where it claims the
earth was the very first thing created in the physical universe
(assuming that heaven exists apart from reality). The claim is that
the earth existed even before light did. That is not true. The claim
that the earth had plants growing before the sun even existed is not
true. The claim that the moon, sun and [OTHER] stars (why didn't your
god know the sun is also a star?), were simultaneously placed in the
sky (and in some translations equidistantly on a fixed dome), is not
true. The claim that every animal magically sprung from nothing into
it's full adult form is not true.
So, regardless of what this alleged majority of christians has
reinterpreted the mythology to mean, in a vain attempt to avoid
admitting it has been rendered completely invalid by objective
observation, the facts state otherwise.
---
a.a. #2273
Patrick
On Dec 27 2009, 2:08 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> The majority of Christians (including many Christian leaders) in the
> Western
> world, however, do not insist that these days of creation were
> ordinary-length days, and many of them accept and teach, based on outside
> influences, that they must have been long periods of time-even millions or
> billions of years.
>
Many? The majority? Is that today's polling numbers? What about
what "christian leaders" insisted on 1,000 years ago?
PB - What about them, georgie?
------------
Simple claims
to frantically try and shoehorn your mythology into what's known to be
factual evidence doesn't make the mythology any less fictional.
PB - Wasn't the earth flat a thousand years ago?
----------
And even if you reinterpret the literal text of this book of
fairytales to fabricate days that lasted billions of years, the myths
still don't match what science has observed.
<Yawn> So?
------------
Firstly, the length of a "day" is a subjective value, based on the
time it takes the earth to complete one rotation. A martian day is a
different duration. During the creation week, did the earth rotate
several hundred billion times slower than it does now to achieve these
multi-billion year long days?
Secondly, even if it were a popularity contest as you claim, and
"christian leaders" can insist on some variant of the meaning of a day
and when a big enough majority concurs, it magically becomes true, it
still doesn't bring anything in the creation fable in line with
reality.
Start with the very first sentence in the bible, where it claims the
earth was the very first thing created in the physical universe
(assuming that heaven exists apart from reality). The claim is that
the earth existed even before light did. That is not true. The claim
that the earth had plants growing before the sun even existed is not
true. The claim that the moon, sun and [OTHER] stars (why didn't your
god know the sun is also a star?), were simultaneously placed in the
sky (and in some translations equidistantly on a fixed dome), is not
true. The claim that every animal magically sprung from nothing into
it's full adult form is not true.
So, regardless of what this alleged majority of christians has
reinterpreted the mythology to mean, in a vain attempt to avoid
admitting it has been rendered completely invalid by objective
observation, the facts state otherwise.
PRB ----
<Nudge, nudge....>
Is he done yet?
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 6:41�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:38:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 26, 6:41�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:07:50 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <s157j51jdojbd1n2c849b57ea0dj5ft...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>> >> >@cox.net says...
>>
>> >> >> Pardon my laughing at you.
>>
>> >> >Why?
>> >> >We see it over and over again.
>>
>> >> No, you've NEVER seen me running from the queen dud.
>> >Here's where you FLED when I challenged you directly - at least once a
>> >month for the last six months, seven times in November and five in
>> >December:
>>
>> In every one of those, YOU quit replying to me. �
>Like here:
>tinyurl.com/lldf56
>Where i posted this: "OK. I accept your offer of help. Please post
>your best *objective
>and/or scientific* evidence for the christian claim that Jesus Christ
>existed and is the miracle-working son-of-a-god
Dud, when are you going to stop your stupid silliness - you would actually
demand "scientific and objective" evidence. You use prehistoric and
unscientific dates in your vain attempt to make a point against me. And now you
actually expect me to provide "scientific" evidence for Jesus.
OR, as an alternative, scientific evidence for a miracle working son of God
Haahaahaahaa. How silly can you possibly be? And don't try to answer that one.
You already showed everybody what an idiot you are.
duke
wrote:
>>Do you *honestly* think anyone here, believes a single word you post
>>when you can't support a thing you say
>He does. Because he's a pathological narcissist who makes the rules up
>as he goes along.
You mean like bud the dud does using pre-hisotric and unscientific data to prove
a factual point.
And if you buy into her silly crap, you're even dumber than I thought.
teresita
> And if you buy into her silly crap, you're even dumber than I thought.
Do ye not know therefore that thou oughtest be not ye ignorant?
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
duke
wrote:
>Here's where you FLED when I challenged you directly - at least once a
>month for the last six months, seven times in November and five in
>December:
How come you would never respond to my own responses?
Could it be you couldn't live with your children's rules?
duke
??? I'm a Christian - I spend my time in the NT. What does the OT say there?
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
We use the claims of your bible versus the claims of science to show
that you bible is flawed.
And since you provide no better evidence than that flawed source for you
claims about Jesus, we hold them to be dubious at best.
>
> OR, as an alternative, scientific evidence for a miracle working son of God
>
> Haahaahaahaa.
Laugh, clown, laugh. It appears that whenever science and religion come
into conflict, religion loses. So far religion has lost every such
battle.
> How silly can you possibly be?
A lot less so than you
> You already showed everybody what an idiot you are.
Only to those blinded by faith in myths.
teresita
> I'm a Christian - I spend my time in the NT.
Doesn't the NT say, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word
that comes from the mouth of God" ? Isn't the OT the word of God? Don't
you even listen to the First Reading before the Responsorial Psalm?
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
tirebiter
> "tirebiter" <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote .
> On Dec 27 2009, 2:08 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>
> > The majority of Christians (including many Christian leaders) in the
> > Western
> > world, however, do not insist that these days of creation were
> > ordinary-length days, and many of them accept and teach, based on outside
> > influences, that they must have been long periods of time-even millions or
> > billions of years.
>
> Many? The majority? Is that today's polling numbers? What about
> what "christian leaders" insisted on 1,000 years ago?
>
> PB - What about them, georgie?
You tell me. Aren't creationists fixated on the "inerrancy" of the
bible? Isn't that the whole motivation behind the creation week
having billion year long days rouse?
> ------------
>
> Simple claims
> to frantically try and shoehorn your mythology into what's known to be
> factual evidence doesn't make the mythology any less fictional.
>
> PB - Wasn't the earth flat a thousand years ago?
Nope, it was always spherical. A lot of people believed it was flat
back then, except for a few scientists who had already figured it
out. Unfortunately, the "christian leaders" of the time were
successful in suppressing science to the extent that no discoveries
that brought the bible's supposed "inerrancy" were allowed to be
discussed.
>
> ----------
> And even if you reinterpret the literal text of this book of
> fairytales to fabricate days that lasted billions of years, the myths
> still don't match what science has observed.
>
> <Yawn> So?
Try keeping up with the grown-ups.
The "so" is the main reason why creationism cannot and will not get
any traction in the scientific world. It's not like your popularity
contest where something must be so just because many believers think
it is.
Yes, you do seem to have a very hard time joining in in on an adult
topic. Clearly you don't have a single point to make that supports
your now fully debunked claim that elongating the creation week makes
the fable more believable.
---
a.a. #2273
Budikka666
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 07:31:40 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
No, I don't, and you've just admitted that you cannot, so even as you
stay in the thread, on the very first day of the new year, you RAN
AWAY from the challenge *and* admitted your entire belief system is
fiction. LoL! I'll log that as this month's example of your shameful
cowardice. Obviously you intend to behave in 2010 as you have done in
every year prior - you're going to be a limp Peter at the passion.
Nothing new here.
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Jan 1, 2:02 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>
> > "tirebiter" <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote .
> > On Dec 27 2009, 2:08 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>
> > > The majority of Christians (including many Christian leaders) in the
> > > Western
> > > world, however, do not insist that these days of creation were
> > > ordinary-length days, and many of them accept and teach, based on outside
> > > influences, that they must have been long periods of time-even millions or
> > > billions of years.
>
> > Many? The majority? Is that today's polling numbers? What about
> > what "christian leaders" insisted on 1,000 years ago?
>
> > PB - What about them, georgie?
>
> You tell me. Aren't creationists fixated on the "inerrancy" of the
> bible? Isn't that the whole motivation behind the creation week
> having billion year long days rouse?
Patrick hasn't read the Bible. He just mouths off like he has and
gets himself into trouble and then runs when you point this out to
him. Duke does the same thing - he hides behind the "Genesis 1 - 11
is prehistory" straw man, but he can't for the life of him offer a
shred of justification for his claim. His best "argument" for his
case is to demand that *we* do the work necessary to support *his*
claims with his trademarked "Google It!" chant. What a pair of
losers!
[Rest snipped]
Budikka
Patrick
> , "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote ...
>> > Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>> >>"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
>> 3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and
>> one of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
>> desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a
>> *supported* rebuttal).
>>
>> >>> Hmmmmm...
>> >>> It looks like bud-lite is asking stupid questions again?
>> >>> Or... perhaps making false assertions.....
>> >>> Or shall we just call it lying?
>> >>> Where does the bible describe seven (24 hour) days?
>>
>> >>>In Genesis, moron. In the creation story, moron. It specifically and
>> >>>repeatedly states "And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>>
>> >>PB - I don't see "24 hours."
>>
>> > It's a silly story, but making things up like that does not make it
>> > square with reality.
>>
>> Why not?
>> I merely called bud-lite a liar because the bible does NOT
>> claim each day consists of 24 hours.
>
> I never said it did you LYING sack of shit. How sad is it that your
> ass is so raw from you repeatedly backing it into my foot that you're
> now reduced to outright LYING to try and save your slack-jawed
> drooling face? LoL!
Keep laughing, bud-lite.
You are the one who claimed seven (24 hour) days.
I did not.
> What I said was that the Bible *describes* 24 hour days
Case closed.
The Bible does not mention 24 hour days.
tirebiter
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote ..
What? You turned your whole life over to a god that you don't even
think can create a measly universe in only seven (six actually) 24
hour days? There was a time that with a lenient judge and on a first
offence, you would have only been sentenced to a month in the pillory
and maybe a few lashings each day to make the lesson soak in better.
Good thing this god only exists in your imagination, otherwise you'd
be sorry after you died.
---
a.a. #2273
duke
And now the dud is reduced to trying to claim me as the author of this post.
duke
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:53:09 -0600, duke wrote:
>
>> And if you buy into her silly crap, you're even dumber than I thought.
>
>Do ye not know therefore that thou oughtest be not ye ignorant?
That's why I'm not.
Free Lunch
If you reject evolution for any creation claims, you are doing so
without any valid reason.
>> What I said was that the Bible *describes* 24 hour days
>
>Case closed.
>The Bible does not mention 24 hour days.
The Bible is untrustworthy from beginning to end.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:18:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <8frrj55ehargsvr9s...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:02:43 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <ue5pj5hip58eliufp...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Of course, the next step is to realize that the creation story is
only a
> >> >> >story and of no value at all as history or science. Arguing about
> >> >> >whether you can find a way to redefine the meaning of day misses the
> >> >> >entire point.
> >> >>
> >> >> Creation is scientific some 13.7 billion years ago. Ask any physicist.
> >> >
> >> >Then the Bible was wrong.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >� Duke even believes that Mr. Lot impregnated both of his daughters, yet
> >he rememered not! Hook, line, and sinker.
>
> ??? I'm a Christian - I spend my time in the NT. What does the OT say there?
>
� nothing about Mr, Lot and his two, too horny daughters. ,
Patrick
PB - Hmmmmm.... Turned my life over to God?
I don't think I've done that.
Did you?
---------------
There was a time that with a lenient judge and on a first
offence, you would have only been sentenced to a month in the pillory
and maybe a few lashings each day to make the lesson soak in better.
Good thing this god only exists in your imagination, otherwise you'd
be sorry after you died.
PRB - Why?
Patrick
> If you reject evolution for any creation claims, you are doing so
> without any valid reason.
Why do you think I am rejecting evolution?
>>> What I said was that the Bible *describes* 24 hour days
>>
>>Case closed.
>>The Bible does not mention 24 hour days.
>
> The Bible is untrustworthy from beginning to end.
Different claim.
Have you changed the subject?
Patrick
On Jan 1, 2:02 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> "tirebiter" <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote .
> On Dec 27 2009, 2:08 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>
> > The majority of Christians (including many Christian leaders) in the
> Western world, however, do not insist that these days of creation were
> ordinary-length days, and many of them accept and teach, based on outside
>influences, that they must have been long periods of time-even millions or
> > billions of years.
>
> Many? The majority? Is that today's polling numbers? What about
> what "christian leaders" insisted on 1,000 years ago?
>
> PB - What about them, georgie?
You tell me. Aren't creationists fixated on the "inerrancy" of the
bible?
PRB - The fundies are.
Don't credit the creationsist with fundie problems.
------------
Isn't that the whole motivation behind the creation week
having billion year long days rouse?
PB - I dunno.
I didn't attend creation week.
Was it cool?
------------
>
> Simple claims
> to frantically try and shoehorn your mythology into what's known to be
> factual evidence doesn't make the mythology any less fictional.
>
> PB - Wasn't the earth flat a thousand years ago?
Nope, it was always spherical. A lot of people believed it was flat
back then, except for a few scientists who had already figured it
out. Unfortunately, the "christian leaders" of the time were
successful in suppressing science to the extent that no discoveries
that brought the bible's supposed "inerrancy" were allowed to be
discussed.
PB - so you admit that science has changed ideas over time.
----------
> And even if you reinterpret the literal text of this book of
> fairytales to fabricate days that lasted billions of years, the myths
> still don't match what science has observed.
>
> <Yawn> So?
Try keeping up with the grown-ups.
PB - keep your sermon short and simple.
Patrick
Patrick hasn't read the Bible. He just mouths off like he has and
gets himself into trouble and then runs when you point this out to
him. Duke does the same thing - he hides behind the "Genesis 1 - 11
is prehistory" straw man, but he can't for the life of him offer a
shred of justification for his claim. His best "argument" for his
case is to demand that *we* do the work necessary to support *his*
claims with his trademarked "Google It!" chant. What a pair of
losers!
[Rest snipped]
PB -- Gosh, bud-lite.... tell me what you REALLY think of me.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote
I don't really care what you claim because you have demonstrated that
you are not bothering to learn.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:27:24 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>Do you *honestly* think anyone here, believes a single word you
> >>post when you can't support a thing you say
>
> >He does. Because he's a pathological narcissist who makes the rules
> >up as he goes along.
>
> You mean like bud the dud does using pre-hisotric and unscientific
> data to prove a factual point.
Since the point is that the biblical data cited is inaccurate, Duke's
present admission that it is "pre-historic" and "unscientific" merely
establishes that point.
>
> And if you buy into her silly crap, you're even dumber than I
> thought.
but still nowhere near as dumb as Duke the puke himslef.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2010 19:53:45 GMT, teresita <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:53:09 -0600, duke wrote:
> >
> >> And if you buy into her silly crap, you're even dumber than I thought.
> >
> >Do ye not know therefore that thou oughtest be not ye ignorant?
>
> That's why I'm not.
The evidence says otherwise. The evidence shows Duke, the puke, to be
both more stupid and more ignorant than any of those he accuses of
either.
Virgil
> ??? I'm a Christian - I spend my time in the NT. What does the OT say
> there?
Its your allegedly holy book, you read it!
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:02:43 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> >In article <ue5pj5hip58eliufp...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >Of course, the next step is to realize that the creation story is only a
> >> >story and of no value at all as history or science. Arguing about
> >> >whether you can find a way to redefine the meaning of day misses the
> >> >entire point.
> >>
> >> Creation is scientific some 13.7 billion years ago. Ask any physicist.
> >
> >Then the Bible was wrong.
>
> Nope.
Since Puke has already admitted that the Bible was wrong on other
issues, what is the point of denying the obvious now?
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 07:21:33 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Here's where you FLED when I challenged you directly - at least once a
> >month for the last six months, seven times in November and five in
> >December:
>
> How come you would never respond to my own responses?
>
Because they were not responsive.
When Budikka asks a Eries of questions and a responder does not speak to
any of those questions, she quite rightly assumes that the responder
can't answer them.