Challenges #1-#8 (For silent creationists, again)
Daneel
This is a re-post for Karl(ksjj), Ed Conrad, Saved Soul, Eliyah, John
McCoy, and all the other creationists who left the original Challenge
series unanswered. I include #8, and more to come.
#1: Light Years
A lightyear (LY) is the distance light travels in one year (about 6
trillion miles). That is, we see a star at x LY from the Sun as it was
x LY's away.
Geometrical methods of distance measuring (yearly parallax, cluster
motion parallax etc.) have a distance limit (due to the current telescope
resolutions) of 13000 LY. ALL galaxies (-ours...) and most stars in the
Milky Way must lie beyond that.
Then there are measuring methods with higher limits (millions of LYs),
like: double stars (dynamical parallax); stellar speed statistics;
brightness-period relation of RR lyrae stars; brightness-period relation
of cepheids; planetary nebula brightness cutoff; Ia type supernova
explosion brightnesses etc.
All these methods are independent, but most can be tested (and were tested
many times) in the 0-13000 LY region; the rest can be compared with the
other big-range methods. So with them; galaxies 50 million LY away can be
(and were) measured. (I omit the redshift method because of the 50%
inaccuracy in the scale unit and the disputes about exeptions.) And you
can look these methods up in any new astronomy book (I don't mean popular
science; that's rather 'for the public to share in the excitement'; and
don't quote them to me).
-So what; who said light speed is constant!?!?
Well, if we disregard Einstein's both Relativity theories, one can still
measure the light speed in far-away galaxies...
Consider the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). It's distance was measured
with the two variable star methods; with stellar statistics and with the
planetary nebula method; all came up with something between 160000 and
180000 LY (and all methods were independent of light speed).
In 1987, a (not Ia type) supernova exploded in it (=the light from the
explosion reached us). Later on, the Hubble Space Telescope photographed
what was left. There were rings of gas around the dead star, and they
brightened up as the light of the explosion reached them. Now if we
calculate the star remnant-ring distance with 170000 as the distance of
LMC, the light speed there and then equals today's within the 0.5% error
bar.
#2: Gene Diversity
Creationism states all humans descended from Adam&Eva who lived some
6000 years ago, and all humans living today descend from Noe's family,
who lived some 4800 years ago. That means all chromosomes (and all
genes) have max. four variations. Then how do you explain the 7000 or so
genetic diseases (certainly more than four wrong variations for every
chromosome); how do you explain all the blood groups (take only the
genes for the A, B and Rh receptors; there are eight versions, none of
wich is superior or a simple mutation of the other); and how do you
explain that most Asiatic and American people lack the gene for the
peptide wich breaks down alcohol in the liver (and many southern Asians
have an anti-alcoholism gene too)? I could go on, but let's stop here
for now.
[an extension for SS and others who accept mutation as degeneration]
An Italian woman went to the doctor some decades ago, and the doctor
measured a unusually high LDL ('Bad Cholesterol') concentration in her
blood, indicating she will have heart attacks in the next years. Nothing
happened for twenty years. Then researchers examined her blood, and found
out that she has a single mutation in a gene encoding a lypid-carrying
protein (=it holds LDL 'afloat' in the blood). Then, the scientists went
out to investigate the population of the small Italian town of Limone, the
woman's home town. They found that 5% had the same mutation. Next, they
went to the library, and found out that all of them had a common ancestor,
who was born in 1780 in Limone. (And, none of those in-between died of
heart attack.) [A sure source: National Geographic Sept 1994 Geographica
section; I think the presentation in a scientifical journal came some
months later but I'm sorry I couldn't find it.]
#3: Ring Species
Take for example the 'herring gull'. This is a white-feathered bird
living in England and flying out to the sea. If we go West, we find
herring gulls in Northern America, too. They can interbreed with the
British gulls and they do. As we go westward, there are herring gulls
all the way, breeding all the way, but generally they get darker and
smaller as we get to Alaska. The Berring Strait poses no barrier to
them; and they interbreed and get smaller and darker throughout Siberia,
as we travel westward. On the end, we reach England again, and we have
the 'black-backed gull', a fully black bird wich is smaller than the
herring gull. The two ends of the 'species' don't interbreed and
couldn't be interbred. [Read, for example, New Scientist, 5. June 1993,
page 37; or Mark Ridley: Evolution; page 41 of the first edition by
Blackwell/England]
Well- for evolution, this is a species in the process of branching, but
how do creationists explain this (and other) 'one-and-a-half' species
without gradual evolution?
#4: The Sun is shining
The Sun, as most people know, is a gas-and-plasma body heated by fusion
in its core. But how will the energy come out of the core?
From sonic waves on the Sun, the following picture can be drawn: there is
a 'radiative zone extending' from the core to about 0.7 of the radius,
where the gas is stabile against convection and heat is transferred only
through radiation; and above it is the convective layer; containing the
big magnetic flux tubes wich cause activity (spots, protuberances, flares)
on the surface.
Well- the problem (for a 6000 yr Universe) is thermodynamical: that heat
is transferred through the radiative zone (the real process is: photons
get absorbed and re-emitted; or scattered by individual atoms/electrons/
/ions a trillion times) for about 1 million years. And; if we start with a
gas body heated in the center; a multiple of this time should pass for the
radiative zone to reach the current (observed) thermal equilibrum.
#5: Fast Flood
Creationists like to explain all big geological changes with the flood:
sediments, the crumbed sedimentary layers in mountains, tectonics,
palaeovolcanism, the carving out of mountain valleys, and so on.
So let's consider the example of the Dolomites (in the Italian Alps).
There is an at least 2700 feet thick layer throughout the mountains
called 'dolomite'. This sedimentary mineral forms (very slowly) in shallow
warm water, and the fossils in it are of shallow water animals. For a
layer of dolomite to form, one needs
shallow waters;
calm waters (where sediments can settle, and no sediment is washed away
to other regions);
lots of sunny days;
a VERY slow change of the water line;
and there are thousands of dolomite layers.
None of this could be the case if there was a Flood. Moreover, one
wonders where are the fossils of other animals (whose caracasses floated
in the sea). Also; there is a problem with chronology: you need first the
dolomite to form (the rising of the waters?), then those sediments
overhead(?), then let them dry (end of Flood), only then can cracks form
and mountains rise (Noah wasn't there to see?); and the alpine valleys are
still to be carved out(Flood II.?) and laid down as the flat bottom of
the (not much later densely populated) Po basin (and this not in hurry;
rivers carry sediments only to the sea coast- and sediments end at the
coast of the Adriatic Sea-; big washouts would cover the seafloor
regardless of the shoreline).
#6 (I hope not) In your blood
This is rather a proof of evolution (mutation+selection->improvement).
Researchers of AIDS thought for ten years, that the HIV virus is a stealth
virus, wich gradually kills down the immune system. Then two years ago,
a big investigation was carried out, and the truth was completely
different: in the blood of the pacients, a constant war was fought.
The pacient's immune system won all (month-long) battles (exept the last
one); causing a temporary decline of virus concentration to almost zero.
But always a new, mutated version arose (unique in all generations in all
pacients), and multiplied for the time the pacient's immune system
did not learnt to detect it. [new studies on this are still streaming in;
so better you read recent medical journals]
#7: Bad creatures
According to (most) creationists, living beings were created in the
beginning and didn't change. And they lived in harmony in the Garden of
Eden.
But how do you explain all the different kinds of bacteria, fungii, virii,
insects and higher animals, wich can't live without causing sickness to
host animals, or parasites wich don't survive without causing pain to
their hosts? They are not our punishment for the Original Sin: most of
them are specialised on non-human hosts.
(And there surely exists, but I never heard an explanation for carnivorous
animals: their bodies are 'designed' to kill prey and eat meat; not a good
habit in the Garden of Eden.)
#8: Radio Galaxies
Radio galaxies are galaxies with an intense point-like radio source in the
center and diffuse radio-emitting lobes extending from it. Current theory
holds that the point source is matter swirling into a supermassive black
hole and the diffuse part is the syncrotron radiation of ions hurled out
almost at light speed along the black hole's magnetic axis.
But anyway, radio astronomers can observe dense knots moving in the
'jets'. So they can measure the speed of the jet at different distances
from the core. Not surprisingly, they always got close-to-light-speed
values [superluminosity effect substracted], and they found the speed
slowly decreasing away from the core, and abruptly in the shock wave at
the end.
And what's the problem for the 6000-yr-Universe? Well- the dimensions of
the jets. With the innermost (highest) speed, the shock wave at the end of
the jets are at least 100,000 years away (smallest jets), and in some
cases 15,000,000 years away; and the slowing-down is still not included!
(And I even don't need here the speed of light.)
Bye
Daneel (ust...@cs.elte.hu)
||
\ || /
\ || /
\ || / ...and there were no dinosaurs.
^^^^^^^~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^
"TOO MANY men
TOO MANY people
making TOO MANY problems..." _from The Land Of Confusion by *Genesis*
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John P. Boatwright
So what? So God created everything, fine. Also "dragons" are mentioned
35 times in the bible. From the pictures I've seen of dragons and
dinosaurs, they look similar. Didn't scientists just recently dig
up the first dinosaurs (way after the bible was written). Dragons
are discussed in the bible (in the middle east) where guess what,
OIL COMES FROM DEAD DINOSAURS (and dead plants). Again, you want
a full library of text books from God. What for? You and every other
atheist wouldn't read them anyway. Atheists are intentionally ignorant
of God.
steve eric cisna
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
> >
>
What the hell is wrong with you, John? Daneel asked 8 questions, you
didn't even answer, or try to answer, one of them.
>
> So what? So God created everything, fine. Also "dragons" are mentioned
> 35 times in the bible. From the pictures I've seen of dragons and
> dinosaurs, they look similar.
What pictures have you seen of dragons? Dragons aren't real. I'm aware
that sometimes you have difficulty making that distinction, but please
try a bit harder.
Dinosaurs don't breathe fire. Chances are, they weren't even
cold-blooded. Most of them didn't have wings.
Didn't scientists just recently dig
> up the first dinosaurs (way after the bible was written). Dragons
> are discussed in the bible (in the middle east) where guess what,
> OIL COMES FROM DEAD DINOSAURS (and dead plants). Again, you want
Plants, yes. Dinosaurs, no. And dinosaurs lived all over the world, not
just the Middle East, or even mostly in the Middle east.
> a full library of text books from God. What for? You and every other
> atheist wouldn't read them anyway.
I probably would.
Atheists are intentionally ignorant
> of God.
Theists are intenionally ignorant of science.
Steve
>
>
Daneel
Dear Mr. Boatwright!
You haven't answered anything, but came up with some funny comments I answer in
detail:
> So what? So God created everything, fine.
For example the television. The Golden Gate.(...) Oh, wait- this al is true,
because God created the Universe one second ago, and He created everithinge we
remember. Oh, no! That was a thought experiment only. In reality, only you
exist- in a supercomputer, and I am the programmer [God] trying to contact the
first AI I created (with all the errors a prototype can have)...
> Also "dragons" are mentioned
> 35 times in the bible. From the pictures I've seen of dragons and
> dinosaurs, they look similar.
You haven't seen many pictures... Have you seen a 7-headed flying fire-breathing
dinosaur picture??? Or have you read about 100-foot-long long-necked long-tailed
elephant-bodied dragons???
And where are the mermaids, the giants, the centaurs, the vampires...
> Didn't scientists just recently dig
> up the first dinosaurs
Sciencists EXAMINED dinosaurs just recently; before, their remains were tought
to be dragon bones by the superstitious, and were wasted to 'cure' people...
> (way after the bible was written).
I don't know what you want to say with this, the only meaning I can find is that
dinosaur bones are much younger than the bible...
> Dragons
> are discussed in the bible (in the middle east) where guess what,
> OIL COMES FROM DEAD DINOSAURS (and dead plants).
No. Oil comes ONLY from plants (read something about organic chemics). Besides,
dinosaur bones can be found all over the continents, while oil can be found in
plate collision zones only, where [collision deformed] rocks are of a certain
age...
> Again, you want
> a full library of text books from God.
Huh? Where did I wrote such a thing?
> What for? You and every other
> atheist
Sorry, I'm a SCIENTIST, my religion is irrevelant here. (But, if you insist, I
tell you my standpoint: I don't believe in any religion I know about; tough I
don't rule out Bhutthism. I'm sure both Fundamental Islam and Fundamental
Christianity are false, but I don't rule out supernatural beings- I simply hold
their existence can't be PROVEN with any kind of logic.)
> wouldn't read them anyway.
I (and judging from their posts, most atheists on talk.origins and alt.atheism
too) have read the Bible, and have learnt about its different meanings in
school. BUT- we also read the Qum'ran, we read many theological writings about
the Thora, Bhutthism, Taoism, tribal religions, Zarahustra, Solinvictus, Greek
and Roman mithology, the Dreamworld of the Australian Aboriginies, and so on.
And I am (we are) always astonished why are ONLY you fundamentalist christians
attacking science on talk.origins; and why do you think atheists at alt.atheism
resent ONLY the Christian God...
> Atheists are intentionally ignorant
> of God.
It is haunting how likely this sounds to islamic fundamental rhetortic: "[The
goverment][the city-dwellers][the U.S.A.][the non-Believers] are intentionally
ignorant of Allah!"
BTW, Y O U are INTENTIONALLY ignorant of Allah (and atheism, too).
And again, I have to speak for atheists, where I say: they are intentionally
ignorant of ALL gods of ALL religions.
And a last note. I have no problems with understanding the ways all the
different groups [individuals] of Christians/Muslims/Hinduists/Bhutthists/
atheists think, while you clearly have this problem. This is NOT an insult, I
try to help you: if you are a true Christian, you MUST try to convert all
non-Christians; and if you don't understand the ways other people think, your
attempts will reach the opposite effect. And by closing our ears for other
missionaries too, and you send us [INTENTIONALLY] to the Christian Hell.
the Christian God be with you
Stix
John P. Brokenoars posted the following to alt.atheism,
>Daneel wrote:
>>
>> This is a re-post for Karl(ksjj), Ed Conrad, Septic Cyst, Eliyah, John
<snip repost which Boatbrain totally failed to address>
>So what? So God created everything, fine.
And there we have it folks. No matter *what* you present, Old John P
Barnacledbilgepump will write it off to his fairy-tale's figurehead.
Why bother?
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Charles Dyer
In article <32B5EE...@mail.teleport.com>, sa...@mail.teleport.com wrote:
[snip]
>
> So what? So God created everything, fine. Also "dragons" are mentioned
> 35 times in the bible. From the pictures I've seen of dragons and
> dinosaurs, they look similar.
You've seen a _picture_ of a dragon, as distinct from a _drawing_ or other
graphic image? Where, pray tell? Was it a Welsh dragon (two legs, no
wings?) or a mid-European dragon (four legs, no wings) or a
Chinese/Japanese dragon (four legs, wings)? Did it breath fire (the
European dragons) or not (the Asian ones)? Was it stupid and hostile (the
European ones) or wise and sometimes hostile, sometimes friendly (the Asian
ones)? How many heads did it have? One like most dragons, or up to 100,
like the Hydra? And now name the dinos which were similar to the dragon you
saw that pic of. And tell us where you saw the pic of that one, too.
Didn't scientists just recently dig
> up the first dinosaurs (way after the bible was written).
Lots of dead dino bones have been dug up throughout history. They just
didn't know what the hell they were diging up, other than really big
animals which they were thankful they didn't meet while still alive.
Dragons
> are discussed in the bible (in the middle east) where guess what,
> OIL COMES FROM DEAD DINOSAURS (and dead plants).
Just the plants. Learn some organic chemistry.
Again, you want
> a full library of text books from God. What for? You and every other
> atheist wouldn't read them anyway. Atheists are intentionally ignorant
> of God.
I happen to be Catholic. And you happen to be a fundie bozo.
--
Please reply by email to either ob...@infochan.com or cd...@infochan.com. My
newsfeed sometimes acts up.
John P. Boatwright
Daneel wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Boatwright!
>
> You haven't answered anything, but came up with some funny comments I answer in
> detail:
>
>
> because God created the Universe one second ago, and He created everithinge we
> remember. Oh, no! That was a thought experiment only. In reality, only you
> exist- in a supercomputer, and I am the programmer [God] trying to contact the
> first AI I created (with all the errors a prototype can have)...
Hey, what you do with "everything" is up to you isn't it. You're created
in God's image, you like to create, what's the problem? You took
"everything" and along with others built things you liked.
>
> > Also "dragons" are mentioned
> > 35 times in the bible. From the pictures I've seen of dragons and
> > dinosaurs, they look similar.
>
> You haven't seen many pictures... Have you seen a 7-headed flying fire-breathing
> dinosaur picture??? Or have you read about 100-foot-long long-necked long-tailed
> elephant-bodied dragons???
> And where are the mermaids, the giants, the centaurs, the vampires...
Ya, sure, what about the image set up that represents the 4 world
governments through out history in Daniel, I suppose you expect
that to be real? It's use in those passages is symbolism. If you
can't decifer symbolism as it occurs then it's your education that
suffered. I've seen pictures of dragons, there's one on Prince
Charles of Wales coat of arms. That's a pictorial representation
of a dragon. I've also seen simple dragon pictures (drawings), it
doesn't take much of a stretch to align with dinosaurs. Also see
some of your favorite monster movies and such. Again you look for
exactness constantly. Do you "measure" before you flush? What about
that multi-headed dragon in Revelation, it was used as a symbol of
a beast (I suppose that's the one you're referencing) and not as
an actual animal.
A search on "mermaid", "centaur", and "vampire" gave no match in the
bible, are you reading the King James Bible AV? New translations are
probably bunk so I don't care if you got it from them. Giants, well
what about that guy in the 1920's, he was about 9 feet tall, that's
what I'd call a giant. See Guiness book of world records for tallest
man.
>
> > Didn't scientists just recently dig
> > up the first dinosaurs
>
> Sciencists EXAMINED dinosaurs just recently; before, their remains were tought
> to be dragon bones by the superstitious, and were wasted to 'cure' people...
Ah yes, the bible (writen mostly by God) was way ahead of science again.
And why not, he made the stuff, he should know. How did the people waste
the bones? I thought the bones were fossils, you saying they ate rocks?
Actually since they had no dinosaurs to look at how'd they know to put
them into the bible (God's a good source eh?). How'd they know what the
final dinosaur would look like, or that some could fly (maybe God
again?).
>
> > (way after the bible was written).
>
> I don't know what you want to say with this, the only meaning I can find is that
> dinosaur bones are much younger than the bible...
Yes and God knew them before science did.
>
> > Dragons
> > are discussed in the bible (in the middle east) where guess what,
> > OIL COMES FROM DEAD DINOSAURS (and dead plants).
>
> No. Oil comes ONLY from plants (read something about organic chemics). Besides,
> dinosaur bones can be found all over the continents, while oil can be found in
> plate collision zones only, where [collision deformed] rocks are of a certain
> age...
Hmm... my simple history classes taught that dinosaurs and plants are
the
stuff oil is made of. But then neither I nor you existed back then so
this
point is unprovable. God did mention "the place of the dragons", I
assume
he's talking about relative positions in the middle east, where you
know,
oil comes from. Anyway the point was that God mentioned "dragons" before
science found dinosaurs.
>
> > Again, you want
> > a full library of text books from God.
>
> Huh? Where did I wrote such a thing?
>
Maybe not you, but atheists in general want clear exact proof of God
before they'll recognize him. They want mountains of text books,
written by God in full detail. Instead God said "you forgot me,
you figure it out, and if you reject what you get, fine". God gave
just a small grouping of texts, atheists just aren't satisfied.
> > What for? You and every other
> > atheist
>
> Sorry, I'm a SCIENTIST, my religion is irrevelant here. (But, if you insist, I
> tell you my standpoint: I don't believe in any religion I know about; tough I
> don't rule out Bhutthism. I'm sure both Fundamental Islam and Fundamental
> Christianity are false, but I don't rule out supernatural beings- I simply hold
> their existence can't be PROVEN with any kind of logic.)
So, you have what you prefer, this is fine. I've found more than enough
proof
in the bible to satisfy my belief in God. I'm happy you are satisfied.
>
> > wouldn't read them anyway.
>
> I (and judging from their posts, most atheists on talk.origins and alt.atheism
> too) have read the Bible, and have learnt about its different meanings in
> school. BUT- we also read the Qum'ran, we read many theological writings about
> the Thora, Bhutthism, Taoism, tribal religions, Zarahustra, Solinvictus, Greek
> and Roman mithology, the Dreamworld of the Australian Aboriginies, and so on.
> And I am (we are) always astonished why are ONLY you fundamentalist christians
> attacking science on talk.origins; and why do you think atheists at alt.atheism
> resent ONLY the Christian God...
I've never posted "originally" to talk.origins, if the stuff ends up
there,
who cares. I haven't attacked scientists, only the occasional misuse of
science to claim God doesn't exist. It's pointless to try to disprove
the
one who created what you're investigating. It would be about as silly as
AMD proposing that the Pentium processor evolved when Intel designed it.
>
> > Atheists are intentionally ignorant
> > of God.
>
> It is haunting how likely this sounds to islamic fundamental rhetortic: "[The
> goverment][the city-dwellers][the U.S.A.][the non-Believers] are intentionally
> ignorant of Allah!"
> BTW, Y O U are INTENTIONALLY ignorant of Allah (and atheism, too).
> And again, I have to speak for atheists, where I say: they are intentionally
> ignorant of ALL gods of ALL religions.
Hey, Muslims and Jews also read much of the same text that's in the
bible.
I fully support their reading what makes sense to them. If they feel
their book fully describes God, I'm happy for them. As for other
religions,
same thing. I just note many proof's in the bible, and that does it for
me. I expect it's similar for anybody with the religion they choose.
>
> And a last note. I have no problems with understanding the ways all the
> different groups [individuals] of Christians/Muslims/Hinduists/Bhutthists/
> atheists think, while you clearly have this problem. This is NOT an insult, I
> try to help you: if you are a true Christian, you MUST try to convert all
> non-Christians; and if you don't understand the ways other people think, your
> attempts will reach the opposite effect. And by closing our ears for other
> missionaries too, and you send us [INTENTIONALLY] to the Christian Hell.
No, no, no, I don't have to show you anything. I have no desire to
convert
you. I simply point out what seems relavent in the bible, you can reject
any part you don't agree with or all of it. Jesus never say's for me to
force anything on anybody. So I actually am overjoyed when others chose
the book they prefer or none at all. Heck, maybe they'll find things in
their book that are relavent to present day, things needed to be brought
up. Good for them.
>
> the Christian God be with you
Don't know about Christian God, more like "God". Anyway
best of luck finding what ever your after. God bless.
David Jensen
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:12:06 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@mail.teleport.com> wrote:
//snips throughout//
>Ya, sure, what about the image set up that represents the 4 world
>governments through out history in Daniel, I suppose you expect
>that to be real? It's use in those passages is symbolism.
Symbolism, in the Bible, don't let the fundies hear you say that.
....
>Ah yes, the bible (writen mostly by God) was way ahead of science again.
>And why not, he made the stuff, he should know. How did the people waste
>the bones? I thought the bones were fossils, you saying they ate rocks?
>Actually since they had no dinosaurs to look at how'd they know to put
>them into the bible (God's a good source eh?). How'd they know what the
>final dinosaur would look like, or that some could fly (maybe God
>again?).
Please present evidence to support your assertions.
>>
>> No. Oil comes ONLY from plants (read something about organic chemics). Besides,
>> dinosaur bones can be found all over the continents, while oil can be found in
>> plate collision zones only, where [collision deformed] rocks are of a certain
>> age...
>
>Hmm... my simple history classes taught that dinosaurs and plants are the
>stuff oil is made of. But then neither I nor you existed back then so this
>point is unprovable. God did mention "the place of the dragons", I assume
No, it is not unprovable. Since when do history classes teach
paleontology and organic chem?
>he's talking about relative positions in the middle east, where you know,
>oil comes from. Anyway the point was that God mentioned "dragons" before
>science found dinosaurs.
Oil comes from many places in the world. Dragons are not dinosaurs.
The Bible is not a science text.
>Maybe not you, but atheists in general want clear exact proof of God
>before they'll recognize him. They want mountains of text books,
>written by God in full detail. Instead God said "you forgot me,
>you figure it out, and if you reject what you get, fine". God gave
>just a small grouping of texts, atheists just aren't satisfied.
The "texts" would be more persuasive if they were not full of errors
about natural history, geology, etc.
>So, you have what you prefer, this is fine. I've found more than enough proof
>in the bible to satisfy my belief in God. I'm happy you are satisfied.
That is satisfactory to me. Just remember, it is not scientific proof.
>I've never posted "originally" to talk.origins, if the stuff ends up there,
>who cares. I haven't attacked scientists, only the occasional misuse of
>science to claim God doesn't exist. It's pointless to try to disprove the
>one who created what you're investigating. It would be about as silly as
>AMD proposing that the Pentium processor evolved when Intel designed it.
It evolved from the 486 which evolved from the 386 (which also
sprouted a degenerate form, the 386sx) which evolved from the 286,
which evolved from the 8086 which evolved from the 8080? which evolved
from the 4004. You can tell this because of their common
characteristics. They were not each designed independently from the
ground up. [Of course they were designed, but they did evolve]
John P. Boatwright
Stix wrote:
>
> John P. Brokenoars posted the following to alt.atheism,
>
> >>
> >> This is a re-post for Karl(ksjj), Ed Conrad, Septic Cyst, Eliyah, John
>
> <snip repost which Boatbrain totally failed to address>
>
>
> Barnacledbilgepump will write it off to his fairy-tale's figurehead.
>
> Why bother?
>
> Stix
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> "Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Exactly, checkmate.
Ken Cox
John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Stix wrote:
> > And there we have it folks. No matter *what* you present, Old John P
> > Barnacledbilgepump will write it off to his fairy-tale's figurehead.
>
Not quite. Checkmate would imply you have won the game. However,
you are refusing to play the game, which in this case is "science".
So really you have forfeited.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Michael Grice
[snip]
>> You haven't seen many pictures... Have you seen a 7-headed flying fire-breathing
>> dinosaur picture??? Or have you read about 100-foot-long long-necked long-tailed
>> elephant-bodied dragons???
>> And where are the mermaids, the giants, the centaurs, the vampires...
>
>Ya, sure, what about the image set up that represents the 4 world
>governments through out history in Daniel, I suppose you expect
>that to be real? It's use in those passages is symbolism. If you
>can't decifer symbolism as it occurs then it's your education that
>suffered.
[another snip]
That's the thing, John. Many of us think the book of Genesis is
almost entirely symbolism. Of course this shouldn't detract from the
moral messages in the Bible, but it makes the Bible a terrible science
textbook.
Michael Grice
gib...@mailbag.com
Stix
John P. Boatwright posted the following to alt.atheism,
>Stix wrote:
>>
>> John P. Brokenoars posted the following to alt.atheism,
>>
>> >Daneel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This is a re-post for Karl(ksjj), Ed Conrad, Septic Cyst, Eliyah, John
>>
>> <snip repost which Boatbrain totally failed to address>
>>
>> >So what? So God created everything, fine.
>>
>> And there we have it folks. No matter *what* you present, Old John P
>> Barnacledbilgepump will write it off to his fairy-tale's figurehead.
>>
>> Why bother?
>>
>> Stix
>> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>> "Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
>> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
>Exactly, checkmate.
Checkmate? Not likely, poindexter. You haven't even sat down to play chess.
All you've done is tipped all the pieces off the board and stormed off in a
hissy fit like a snotty nosed schoolboy.
Stix
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"And they laugh like soft, mad children,
Smug in their willowy cotton brains of infancy."
Jim Morrison
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
AI$gwyha3.demon.co.uk
"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@mail.teleport.com> wrote:
>So what? So God created everything, fine. Also "dragons" are mentioned
>35 times in the bible. From the pictures I've seen of dragons and
>dinosaurs, they look similar.
You have one of the really really original bibles with full
illustrations?
Richard Keatinge
"Faith is pornography of the intellect.
It's good for a few futile spurts and a lot of flaccidity."
Nonspammers swop @ for $ in the address
Andre Engels
[snip]
>
>>
>> > Also "dragons" are mentioned
>> > 35 times in the bible. From the pictures I've seen of dragons and
>> > dinosaurs, they look similar.
>>
>> You haven't seen many pictures... Have you seen a 7-headed flying fire-breathing
>> dinosaur picture??? Or have you read about 100-foot-long long-necked long-tailed
>> elephant-bodied dragons???
>> And where are the mermaids, the giants, the centaurs, the vampires...
>
>Ya, sure, what about the image set up that represents the 4 world
>governments through out history in Daniel, I suppose you expect
>that to be real? It's use in those passages is symbolism. If you
>can't decifer symbolism as it occurs then it's your education that
>suffered.
Reading, rereading, re-rereading... Wow! Did you really say
'symbolism'? You know, there are whole new worlds opening for you
if you read Genesis 1 in the same way! Try it!
>I've seen pictures of dragons, there's one on Prince
>Charles of Wales coat of arms. That's a pictorial representation
>of a dragon. I've also seen simple dragon pictures (drawings), it
>doesn't take much of a stretch to align with dinosaurs.
It does to me. Which dragons do you mean, by the way? There are
many different pictures of dragons.
>Also see
>some of your favorite monster movies and such. Again you look for
>exactness constantly. Do you "measure" before you flush? What about
>that multi-headed dragon in Revelation, it was used as a symbol of
>a beast (I suppose that's the one you're referencing) and not as
>an actual animal.
You're the one who claimed that the dragons were real, not he. If
you say that the dragon is a symbol, you are hurting your cause,
not helping it.
>
>A search on "mermaid", "centaur", and "vampire" gave no match in the
>bible, are you reading the King James Bible AV? New translations are
>probably bunk so I don't care if you got it from them.
I don't think they are in new translations either. I don't know
why they were mentioned in this debate.
>Giants, well
>what about that guy in the 1920's, he was about 9 feet tall, that's
>what I'd call a giant. See Guiness book of world records for tallest
>man.
>
>>
>> > Didn't scientists just recently dig
>> > up the first dinosaurs
>>
>> Sciencists EXAMINED dinosaurs just recently; before, their remains were tought
>> to be dragon bones by the superstitious, and were wasted to 'cure' people...
>
>Ah yes, the bible (writen mostly by God) was way ahead of science again.
The bible was written by humans. Religious, god-loving humans, but humans.
>And why not, he made the stuff, he should know. How did the people waste
>the bones? I thought the bones were fossils, you saying they ate rocks?
Could you please explain what these questions are referring to?
>Actually since they had no dinosaurs to look at how'd they know to put
>them into the bible (God's a good source eh?). How'd they know what the
>final dinosaur would look like, or that some could fly (maybe God
>again?).
My claim: The dragons of the bible are NOT dinosaurs. Problem solved.
By the way, no flying dinosaurs are known (unless you go along with
a few paleontologists who classify birds as dinosaurs). The flying
vertebrates of that time were pterosaurs, and later birds as well.
[snip]
Andre Engels
AI$gwyha3.demon.co.uk
"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@mail.teleport.com> wrote:
>> > Also "dragons" are mentioned
>> > 35 times in the bible. From the pictures I've seen of dragons and
>> > dinosaurs, they look similar.
(snip snap)
> If you
>can't decifer symbolism as it occurs then it's your education that
>suffered. I've seen pictures of dragons, there's one on Prince
>Charles of Wales coat of arms. That's a pictorial representation
>of a dragon. I've also seen simple dragon pictures (drawings), it
>doesn't take much of a stretch to align with dinosaurs. Also see
>some of your favorite monster movies and such. Again you look for
>exactness constantly.
Dear Mr Boatwright
You have simply failed to give any reason at all why the animals
mentioned in the Bible are to be identified with dinosaurs. As
opposed to traveller's tales of real beasts, liberally mixed with
imagination - as I presume you accept Y Ddraig Goch (the Welsh red
dragon) to be?
>Actually since they had no dinosaurs to look at how'd they know to put
>them into the bible (God's a good source eh?). How'd they know what the
>final dinosaur would look like, or that some could fly (maybe God
>again?).
Pterodactyls aren't dinosaurs - did you mean birds?
(snip)
>Hmm... my simple history classes taught that dinosaurs and plants are
>the
>stuff oil is made of. But then neither I nor you existed back then so
>this
>point is unprovable.
Seems that your history classes were extremely basic, misinformed as
to the nature of history (FYI "prehistory" refers to the period before
relevant written records), and got it wrong about the origins of oil.
Either that or your memory is playing you tricks.
>God did mention "the place of the dragons", I
>assume
>he's talking about relative positions in the middle east, where you
>know,
>oil comes from.
And presumably the British North Sea had red dragons?
>Anyway the point was that God mentioned "dragons" before
>science found dinosaurs.
Or not, as the case appears to be.
>
>I've never posted "originally" to talk.origins, if the stuff ends up
>there,
>who cares.
Well, if you don't want your ignorance exposed, don't cross-post there
- just check the follow-up line and edit as necessary.
>I haven't attacked scientists, only the occasional misuse of
>science to claim God doesn't exist.
Er, sorry, who ever did that? I've never actually read or heard any
such thing, althought I suppose that it's possible. The point is that
religious claims cannot in general be investigated by scientific
means. Except, of course, where fables about the real world are taken
to be religious doctrine.
(snip)
>I have no desire to
>convert
>you. I simply point out what seems relavent in the bible, you can reject
>any part you don't agree with or all of it. Jesus never say's for me to
>force anything on anybody. So I actually am overjoyed when others chose
>the book they prefer or none at all.
This makes you a considerable improvement on many
individuals of a religious bent. Still greater improvement would
result if you would stop spouting nonsense in the name of your
religion - you tend to bring it into disrepute. How impressed would
you be if I posted claims that the Earth is flat because God told me
so last night, therefore America can't exist, and you are either a
figment of my imagination or lying? Your posting shows at least equal
ignorance about the earth sciences. If you think them irrelevant
that's OK with me, but mangling widely-understood facts will get you
nowhere in sensible company.
Richard Keatinge
nonspammers swop @ for $ in the address
Daneel
Dear Mr. Boatwright!
Before answering Your new funny answers, I must point out You clearly haven't
understood what I wrote in the last paragraph. The way You 'discuss' with people
at alt.atheism (and talk.origins) is a way wich will make these people (even
more) hostile to your religion. And this is not a nice thing: Non-believers are
damned to hell in your religion, so you take away their last chance to convert.
Many are already furious (I'm not) about the way other fundies post here.
"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@mail.teleport.com> wrote:
>
> Daneel wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mr. Boatwright!
> >
> > You haven't answered anything,
And still not. Look, if you just BELIEVE every word of the Bible is true, I (we)
have no problems with you, except that you shouldn't post here. But if you
consider yourself a Creationist (and my Challenges are for them), then You must
know 'creationists' are people who believe they can disprove evolution [that's
what they say; but they attack most of science in reality] SCIENTIFICALLY. Look
up (with Deja News) the "Proof" series of "Saved Soul"; my series is just a
response (wich proved only his lack of scientific knowledge).
> >
> > > So what? So God created everything, fine.
[...]
> Hey, what you do with "everything" is up to you isn't it. You're created
> in God's image,
Since humans look very differently, I don't understand why fundamentalist
Christians can't understand the symbolism in this.
> you like to create, what's the problem? You took
> "everything" and along with others built things you liked.
"No, I AM GOD, you silly computer program! I probably won't delete you, but let
my new and improved ArtificalIntelligences debate with you!"
In case You don't see the [really deep] philosophical problem behind the
statement before, try this: "God created evolution."
[...]
> Ya, sure, what about the image set up that represents the 4 world
> governments through out history in Daniel, I suppose you expect
> that to be real? It's use in those passages is symbolism.
Symbolism- that's one of my problems with Catholicism. Every time Catholics find
something unrealistic in the Bible, they claim it is symbolism. But who are You
(or any catholic, or any fundamentalist christian) to decide what is correct and
what is symbolism? In Your case: why is Genesis true word-for-word and other
parts of the OT not?
> If you
> can't decifer symbolism as it occurs then it's your education that
> suffered.
Don't insult me. It's not the Christian way.
[dragon pictures]
1.) It DOES strech my eyes to see a dragon in a dinosaur (BTW, wich dinosaur? In
case You don't know, dinosaurs vary just the same way mammals do.)
2.) Have you seen any 'pre-Flood' dragon pictures?... The ones You quote (and
all others) were made in ages all dinosaurs were extinct...
3.) The Bible doesn't include ANY pictures of dragons. The dragon pictures are
pictures of fable beeings, just like pictures of vampires etc.; and Middle Age
codex writers believed in their existence (and I know from the history of
Hungary about executions of 'vampires' by the Church...)
> Also see
> some of your favorite monster movies and such.
My favorite???? NOT! Monster movies are commercial thrill-me's, not SCIENCE!!!
We SCIENTISTS are always disturbed when moviemakers fabricate blood-thirsty and
always roaring monsters out of real animals. Even Jurassic Park, made with the
help of paleontologists, does this. All the things You would liken to dragons-
the roars, tooth-displaying, super-agility, evil eyes- are Steven Spielberg(TM),
not dinosaurs!!! And of course monster movies don't waste time to show
non-carnivorous non-giant dinosaurs.
> Again you look for
> exactness constantly.
That's SCIENCE.
> Do you "measure" before you flush? What about
> that multi-headed dragon in Revelation, it was used as a symbol of
> a beast (I suppose that's the one you're referencing) and not as
> an actual animal.
Yeah, a symbol! But I ask again: why not on other places in the Bible?
> A search on "mermaid", "centaur", and "vampire" gave no match in the
> bible,
I quoted them as other fable beings Middle Age codex painters knew to exist.
> are you reading the King James Bible AV? New translations are
> probably bunk so I don't care if you got it from them.
Translations. Even before the King James Bible was translated, the text was
translated and copied (by hand) dozens of times. Why do You think this one is
NOT distorted (or any of its sources) ? This is another problem I have with
fundamentalist Christians.
Another one is, they forget they are an USAmerican 'sect', where 'sect' means
they can represent the (50%?) mayority of churchgoing Americans, but they
represent a splitter group of all Christians of the world. You should know, I'm
posting from HUNGARY (in Europe, in case You don't know), and I have a HUNGARIAN
translation of the Bible.
> Giants, well
> what about that guy in the 1920's, he was about 9 feet tall, that's
> what I'd call a giant. See Guiness book of world records for tallest
> man.
Check it again. He had a hormonal problem. He died in his twenties, and lived so
long only due to medical care. And read the Genesis again; giants are said to
live east of Eden, and weren't humans.
[...]
> Ah yes, the bible (writen mostly by God)
Why do you believe this? Because the Bible says it itself?...
> was way ahead of science again.
Huh? What is this again?
> And why not, he made the stuff, he should know. How did the people waste
> the bones? I thought the bones were fossils, you saying they ate rocks?
They weared them as 'medicine'; or indeed they ate them (as they do even now in
China): but they made powder of it first.
> Actually since they had no dinosaurs to look at
And dragons? Have medieval codex writers looked at them???
[...]
> > > (way after the bible was written).
> >
> > I don't know what you want to say with this, the only meaning I can find is
that
> > dinosaur bones are much younger than the bible...
>
> Yes and God knew them before science did.
Huh?!?!?!?!? So dinosaur bones were laid into Earth way after the 'Flood', but
they were the dragons?!?!?!?!?!?
[...oil...]
> Hmm... my simple history classes taught that dinosaurs and plants are
> the
> stuff oil is made of.
The European viewpoint: I think elementary school 'science' is already below any
standard in the USA, creationism would only finish it. I talked once with an
American creationist who was science teacher before, and to rebutt her, I only
needed things I LEARNED in elementary school...
> But then neither I nor you existed back then so
> this
> point is unprovable.
I again must point out, the world was created one second ago! But if we leave
the absolutes of philosophy, I wonder why You believe the Bible describes real
events, "neither I nor you existed back then"...
> God did mention "the place of the dragons", I
> assume
> he's talking about relative positions in the middle east, where you
> know,
> oil comes from. Anyway the point was that God mentioned "dragons" before
> science found dinosaurs.
Is this a point??? The Bible existed long before nuclear physics existed. Does
this prove anything?
> > > Again, you want
> > > a full library of text books from God.
> >
> > Huh? Where did I wrote such a thing?
> >
>
> Maybe not you, but atheists in general want clear exact proof of God
> before they'll recognize him. They want mountains of text books,
> written by God in full detail. Instead God said "you forgot me,
> you figure it out, and if you reject what you get, fine". God gave
> just a small grouping of texts, atheists just aren't satisfied.
Again, You forget You (and not God) have to present a proof of YOUR God, if you
want to make atheists choose YOUR RELIGION out of all religions (+ theirs, a -
mostly - individual religion without a God) they know.
[...]
> So, you have what you prefer, this is fine. I've found more than enough
> proof
> in the bible to satisfy my belief in God.
That's fine. Stop fighting on alt.atheism, instead present us these proofs.
[...]
> I've never posted "originally" to talk.origins, if the stuff ends up
> there,
> who cares. I haven't attacked scientists, only the occasional misuse of
> science to claim God doesn't exist.
Tough this has been done sometimes, it is really an error. Science CAN'T
disprove anything SUPERNATURAL, science works with a pre-assumption: "I
investigate something wich follows logic". Moreover, science is (scientists
should be) modest: if it finds a rule, it can still be a special case of a
better rule, and if someone doesn't find a rule, others can later on. The last
statement shows why science CAN'T see its own limits. The problem is, there is
no other way.
> It's pointless to try to disprove
> the
> one who created what you're investigating. It would be about as silly as
> AMD proposing that the Pentium processor evolved when Intel designed it.
Now here is the problem. You use the Bible (something one can believe or not,
but not PROVE) to DISPROVE SCIENCE. It is just as silly as the opposite. You
know, evolution (and all other sciences creationists dismiss) is SCIENCE, not an
attack SPECIALLY AGAINST THE BELIEFS OF FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS.
> > > Atheists are intentionally ignorant
> > > of God.
> >
> > It is haunting how likely this sounds to islamic fundamental rhetortic:
"[The
> > goverment][the city-dwellers][the U.S.A.][the non-Believers] are
intentionally
> > ignorant of Allah!"
> > BTW, Y O U are INTENTIONALLY ignorant of Allah (and atheism, too).
> > And again, I have to speak for atheists, where I say: they are intentionally
> > ignorant of ALL gods of ALL religions.
>
> Hey, Muslims and Jews also read much of the same text that's in the
> bible.
And kill each other because of the difference.
> I fully support their reading what makes sense to them. If they feel
> their book fully describes God, I'm happy for them. As for other
> religions,
> same thing.
Except [mostly personal] religions without a divine being (all you clump
together in 'atheism').
> I just note many proof's in the bible, and that does it for
> me. I expect it's similar for anybody with the religion they choose.
Other religions have fully different Creation myths, or have none at all: for
example Hinduism has an eternal world with long cycles (the one in wich the
Earth is destroyed and rebuilt is much longer than the 15 billion years of
astronomy). They also have different number of Gods, and these Gods give
different moral codes (for example, it is right for a Muslim to kill someone
refusing to convert; but again, moderated Muslims come up with symbolism).
> > And a last note. I have no problems with understanding the ways all the
> > different groups [individuals] of Christians/Muslims/Hinduists/Bhutthists/
> > atheists think, while you clearly have this problem. This is NOT an insult,
I
> > try to help you: if you are a true Christian, you MUST try to convert all
> > non-Christians; and if you don't understand the ways other people think,
your
> > attempts will reach the opposite effect. And by closing our ears for other
> > missionaries too, and you send us [INTENTIONALLY] to the Christian Hell.
>
> No, no, no, I don't have to show you anything. I have no desire to
> convert
> you.
NO? You MUST! Consult a priest.
> I simply point out what seems relavent in the bible, you can reject
> any part you don't agree with or all of it. Jesus never say's for me to
> force anything on anybody. So I actually am overjoyed when others chose
> the book they prefer or none at all. Heck, maybe they'll find things in
> their book that are relavent to present day, things needed to be brought
> up. Good for them.
Excuse me, but your other posts show more impatience and I KNOW THIS WILL
HAPPEN, BUT YOU IGNORE IT stuff. On the other side, if you accept other people's
chosen religion, don't post here. Alt.atheism is for atheists and others who
want to discuss with them; if an atheist wants to discuss christianity with
christians, I suppose he/she can post to alt.christnet.
all Gods of all religions bless You