Creation scientist

Bear

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 3:08:33 PM11/19/09

to

This is an excerpt from, and can be seen in its entirety here,

http://www.weneedice.com/WhoBelievesInCreation.html

Who believes in the biblical account of a recent six (twenty-four
hour) day creation?

There are many scientist who believe in the Bible. This is just a
list of fifty scientist who choose to believe in creation. This list
is taken right from the book edited by John F. Ashton Ph.D. entitled,
"In Six Days, why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation."

The late Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard professor, claimed that
creationist are "religious fundamentalist, not scientists" ... and
that "professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person,
understand the factual basis of evolution and don't dispute it."

This is simply not true. That is why we are providing a list of about
50 Bible believing scientist. At the end of this list we have provided
a link to Answers in Genesis website that has many more creation
scientist listed. When your professor says no one who is a scientist
believes in young earth creation you can give him this list.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

gabriel

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 3:36:05 PM11/19/09

to

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:08:33 -0600, Bear <tevan...@charter.net>
wrote:

:
:
: This is an excerpt from, and can be seen in its entirety here,

Correct.

Here's more information to add to it:

The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short -
the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other
origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
testable/verifiable.

Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting
evolution. No, it's only their BELIEFS of what those fossils and
dead bones means to them (and what they want it to mean to
everyone else) that "supports" evolution. The beliefs themselves
remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable!

Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions
as proof it's science. So using that new definition of science
(that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies
said belief as science), creation by God qualifies as science as
it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA
similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully
encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully
decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists
will then return to the actual truth of what science really is
and refute that notion with "Show a single observation or
test/verification of God creating anything." Bingo.

The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of
[flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies] even if
they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [flies]
(but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact
and is a far cry from what evolutionists believe: that
populations of [flies] will produce, over generations, animals
that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Same holds true no
matter what animal you replace with [flies] in the previous
sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings
are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all
of those things and most everything else evolved from populations
of fish and worse over generations once upon a time.

But in the end, although no origin scientific claim really can
qualify as science (and it's either ignorance or outright
dishonesty to claim it is), it's logically undeniable we were
created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if
it's a building that's so advanced in its design it can adapt to
its environment, remove dirt particles on a continuous basis, and
even produce more buildings just like itself over time. Not to
mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer -
just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for
those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in
near miraculous ways. The only faith part: was it the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the heavenly Father of our Lord and
Savior, Jesus Christ? Or was it aliens? From a faith standpoint
on either choice, the choice is obvious.

Bear

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 4:08:41 PM11/19/09

to

I agree totally Gabriel. What I do not understand is why the
evolutionists are so against, and seem to thoroughly detest all that
disagree with them. If they wish to believe in evolution, great, why
do they take such offense to those of us who believe in creation? Is
that a reason to ridicule and make personal attacks on people. OTOH,
if they know there are many questions that they cannot answer for
creationist, the same as there are many questions the creationist
cannot answer for them, is their only recourse to go into attack mode?
It is like they have a right to their belief but any one who disagrees
with them have no rights. I know from experience that they, or least
some of them, do not appreciate being asked questions that they
cannot answer.

Bear

Wild Bill

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 6:58:59 PM11/19/09

to

"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ab9bg5tr7g9h53asm...@4ax.com...

That list might be good for toilet paper...little else. The late professor
Gould was 100% correct in his statement!
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Wild Bill

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 7:02:09 PM11/19/09

to

"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0bbg5d0oc7enbp0t...@4ax.com...

Methinks thou dost protest too much! You really need to get an education
rather than an indoctrination! Evolution is a scientific fact--get used to
it.
>
>
>

Wild Bill

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 7:08:36 PM11/19/09

to

"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message

news:sccbg5h9r07956m7h...@4ax.com...

I don't detest creationists, Bear. However, I can't stand religious
fundamentalists of any stripe and I've yet to meet a creationist who wasn't
also a fundie!

Thurisaz, warrior of Thor

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 10:21:29 PM11/19/09

to

We see that babbliel is still hurling the same old lies. No surprise here.

Just to stick it to the morontheist once again:

Hey babbliel, what does evolutionary theory (not) claim, hmmmmmm?

See how this morontheist can run! That amazing speed!

--
Thurisaz, warrior of Thor, natural enemy of morontheism

The judgment of morontheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus

Thurisaz, warrior of Thor

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 10:27:06 PM11/19/09

to

Morontheist "Bear":

> Is
> that a reason to ridicule and make personal attacks on people.

Good that you mention that, morontheist. You all still owe us a reply to
that same question. Answer that and "we evolutionists" just _may_ consider
treating you as mature, thinking persons again instead of habitual liars
using (among other things) the cheap "trick" of "piss them off until they
lose their composure, then act as if they'd insult you for no reason
(telling one more blatant lie in the process) and claim moral "victory" ".

Of course you won't even try to explain the reason for your lies and
insults, because if you'd do that you'd automatically admit that the ones
to blame are... the ones you see in your mirrors.

gabriel

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 11:00:48 PM11/19/09

to

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:08:41 -0600, Bear <tevan...@charter.net>
wrote:

: On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:36:05 -0500, gabriel

In most cases, I think it stems from them using it to hide from
or flat out reject the truth of God, their accountability to God,
and hell. It's certainly why Darwin came up with it, as evidenced
by his letters and letters from his son.

John 3:19-21 KJV
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the
world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their
deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither
cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds
may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

To even consider the logically undeniable truth that we were
created is to come face to face with the truth of God - that is
what they rage against. But it's a truth that is unavoidable for
us all.

Hebrews 9:27 KJV
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this
the judgment:

But we can at least give others the chance to see the truth
behind the deception and lies of fish to man evolution.

gabriel

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 11:03:02 PM11/19/09

to

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:02:09 -0800, "Wild Bill"
<bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote:

:
: "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

(but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, is what science
repeatedly shows is all that EVER happens.

That populations of [flies] will produce, over generations,
animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all is not
observable, not testable, not verifiable no matter what animal
you replace with [flies] in that sentence. Much like hippos,

giraffes, eagles and human beings are clearly no longer fish at
all, even though they believe all of those things and most

everything else evolved from populations of fish.

If you want to claim it's scientific, let alone fact, by all
means please back it up with such an observation. Thank you.

: >
: >
: >
:

Ike E 11/16/09

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 12:48:05 AM11/20/09

to

"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message

news:ab9bg5tr7g9h53asm...@4ax.com...

LOL

When are you goofballs going to figure out that the two Genesis accounts
give two different outlines of the same sequence from different
perspectives?

The first account outlines the natural creation, wherein the natural man,
generic and plural, comes at the END of the sequence. The second account
outlines the supernatural creation, wherein the supernatural man, specific
and singular, comes BEFORE any other living thing, using God's symbols for
the Gentiles to describe the things God created and Adam named along the
way--and they wern't no critters, hillbillies.

The first Genesis account even gives the macrocosmic and microcosmic
definitions of the terms "days" in a "week."

Ezekiel even SAYS that the Garden of Eden saga is NOT what you think it is.

But you silly little people just keep prattling on in ignorance,
embarrassing everyone involved, including God.

Ike

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 12:24:46 PM11/20/09

to

Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
news:ab9bg5tr7g9h53asm...@4ax.com:

In order to even ATTEMPT to defend a young earth/young universe history,
one must either abjure science altogether and invoke miracles or one must
lie. Since lying is against God's commandments that makes the term
"creation science" a complete oxymoron when applied to young-earth
claims.

And, since the miracles you must invoke require your god to be a
deceiver, then it is clear that your god is the father of lies and a
false god.

There is really only ONE Christian choice and that is to interpret
Genesis in a non-literal manner. The other choices end either in
deliberate sin or blasphemy.

And all because you do not accept the authority of Jesus Christ, given to
His disciples and their spiritual heirs...

--
Dave Oldridge+

Dave Oldridge

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 12:26:41 PM11/20/09

to

gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:c0bbg5d0oc7enbp0t...@4ax.com:

They are logically inferred from what is observed. Stop lying. God
commands it.

--
Dave Oldridge+

GreatSageItchy

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 2:51:37 PM11/20/09

to

In article <sccbg5h9r07956m7h...@4ax.com>, Bear
<tevan...@charter.net> wrote:

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 3:52:21 PM11/20/09

to

"Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:he6tc4$q1v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

It's also contradictory in so many areas as to be laughable!
>
> Ike
>

Ike E 11/16/09

unread,

unread,

Nov 22, 2009, 2:52:17 AM11/22/09

to

"Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote in message

news:he9tef$ful$1...@news.parasun.com...

Hey, I'll take on any challenge YOU present, but I'm just not going to waste
my time arguing about what some OTHER clueless fool said who ISN'T HERE.

And that's the point: What do YOU know? What can YOU prove? Or do you always
let someone else do your thinking for you?

(Sounds like you have cult syndrome if you ask me.)

>>
>> It's YOUR argument.
>>
>> YOU prove it.
>
> I think I already have.

You haven't said anything yet, so how could you have proved ANYTHING?

> You can't reconcile all those contradictions in that website...and you
> know it!

Oh, I can.

But I'm not going to dance for your amusement.

>> I'm not going to argue with a missing party by proxy.
>
> Suit yourself, Ike. I see your overblown ego is getting in your way again.

Quite the contrary: YOUR ego is what's getting you into trouble.

I know what I know.

Now let's see what YOU know, since YOU are the one making the contention.

>> Let's see if you know if YOU know what the hell you're talking about.
>
> Sigh...well, let's start by you reconciling those two verses I gave you in
> my last reply. Then we can continue until we've gone through the 250 or so
> contradictions I've discovered.

YOU discovered?

Or someone else SAID?

(And the silliest aspect of all of this is that your alleged contentions
don't amount to a hill of beans to begin with.)

Ike

Dave Oldridge

unread,

Nov 22, 2009, 11:23:16 AM11/22/09

to

"Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in news:he6tc4$q1v
$1...@news.eternal-september.org:

I agree, but interpreting it deliberately in defiance of direct physical
evidence is actually perverse.

--
Dave Oldridge+

Wild Bill

unread,

Nov 22, 2009, 12:27:37 PM11/22/09

to

"Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:heaqji$327$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

Yes.
>
> Or someone else SAID?

You didn't do well in school as a child, did you Ike? All of us learn or are
informed (for good or ill), by what someone said, either verbal or written.

>
> (And the silliest aspect of all of this is that your alleged contentions
> don't amount to a hill of beans to begin with.)

You're acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way, Ike. Now, are
you going to refute the contradiction in those two verses or not?
>
> Ike
>
>

gabriel

unread,

Nov 22, 2009, 11:01:59 PM11/22/09

to

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:24:46 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

: Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in

: news:ab9bg5tr7g9h53asm...@4ax.com:
:
: >This is an excerpt from, and can be seen in its entirety here,
: >
: >http://www.weneedice.com/WhoBelievesInCreation.html
: >
: >Who believes in the biblical account of a recent six (twenty-four
: >hour) day creation?
: >
: >There are many scientist who believe in the Bible. This is just a
: >list of fifty scientist who choose to believe in creation. This list
: >is taken right from the book edited by John F. Ashton Ph.D. entitled,
: >"In Six Days, why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation."
: >
: >The late Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard professor, claimed that
: >creationist are "religious fundamentalist, not scientists" ... and
: >that "professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person,
: >understand the factual basis of evolution and don't dispute it."
: >
: >This is simply not true. That is why we are providing a list of about
: >50 Bible believing scientist. At the end of this list we have provided
: >a link to Answers in Genesis website that has many more creation
: >scientist listed. When your professor says no one who is a scientist
: >believes in young earth creation you can give him this list.
: >
: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
:
: In order to even ATTEMPT to defend a young earth/young universe history,
: one must either abjure science altogether and invoke miracles or one must
: lie.

Invoking miracles on how God created the universe does not abjure
science - it only does away with the fish to man version of
evolution that is not science: that which is impossible to
observe in action and impossible to test/verify - one can only
believe in it.

Meanwhile you might want to take note that in order to even
attempt to defend Jesus Christ being God in the flesh,
resurrecting from the dead, and raising others from death, one
must also invoke miracles and deny the medical *scientific* fact
that even a person that's been dead for hours cannot be brought
back to life.

We must step away from selective faith due to embarrassment and
being ashamed over the truth that God did exactly what He said He
did, on top of Jesus Christ backing up that very fact as well
with his own words.

Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Luke 9:24-26 KJV
24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever
will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and
lose himself, or be cast away?
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him
shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own
glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

: Since lying is against God's commandments that makes the term

Ike E 11/16/09

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 4:29:39 AM11/23/09

to

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns9CCB555337244...@69.16.185.247...

Well, damn good thing the MAJORITY of Christians don't interpret it that
way, huh?

;-)

Ike

Ike E 11/16/09

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 5:42:27 AM11/23/09

to

"Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote in message

news:hebsaa$93b$1...@news.parasun.com...

I did so well I'm a licensed teacher, moron.

NOW, what did YOU "discover" rather than TOLD?

> All of us learn or are informed (for good or ill), by what someone said,
> either verbal or written.

Oh, really?

Ever hear of empirical method in any of your "vast" studies?

>> (And the silliest aspect of all of this is that your alleged contentions
>> don't amount to a hill of beans to begin with.)
>
> You're acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way, Ike.

Ah, no, that would be you...

(I've had to deal with them all my life, so I know.)

> Now, are you going to refute the contradiction in those two verses or
> not?

WHAT contradiction?

Oh, and they're "prophecies," not "verses."

The first account is about the natural.

The second account is about the supernatural.

When the two got together, that's when the shit hit the fan.

Ike

gabriel

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 7:35:55 AM11/23/09

to

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:23:16 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

: "Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in news:he6tc4$q1v

Interpreting the Bible literally is also in defiance of what is
actual medical scientific fact: repeatable direct observations
and tests and verifications that it's impossible for a person to
be risen from death after being dead for mere 3 hours, let alone
three days when much decay has settled in. Do we cave in to that
repeatable *scientific fact* to dismiss that Jesus Christ rose
from the dead and that he brought others back from death, even
after days being dead? That He healed the lame and restored
withered limbs? Or do we live by faith?

Meanwhile the fish to man version of evolution is not observable
in action doing what they claim it does, it's not testable, it's
not verifiable, one can only believe in it - yet you put your
faith in that and suddenly abandon faith in God being able to do
the miraculous things He said He did to instead belief in
something that is NOT observable, NOT testable and NOT
verifiable. To such people, science is your god, as you're too
ashamed of the Words of God and Jesus Christ that also clearly
said otherwise. It's too important to such people to fit into
this world, to be of the world, to be conformed to the world and
believe what those God-rejecters are teaching, all in the name of
denying that God does not exist.

Wild Bill

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 9:39:36 AM11/23/09

to

"Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:hedouj$i6l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

LOL! I was wondering when you were going to figure a way to side step this
issue. You're a pathetic, deluded believer, but also highly amusing. Please
continue!
>
> Ike
>

Wild Bill

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 9:50:06 AM11/23/09

to

"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ju1kg55tide9gnvar...@4ax.com...

Well, there's just not enough evidence available, Gabriel. Can you supply
any extra-biblical, contemporary, eyewitness accounts that will verify your
Jesus' actual existence? No one else has. Maybe you'll be the first?

Ike E 11/23/9

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 10:04:21 AM11/23/09

to

"Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote in message

news:hee6r8$qmc$1...@news.parasun.com...

>
> "Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hedouj$i6l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

[snip]

>>
>> WHAT contradiction?
>>
>> Oh, and they're "prophecies," not "verses."
>>
>> The first account is about the natural.
>>
>> The second account is about the supernatural.
>>
>> When the two got together, that's when the shit hit the fan.
>>
>> <chuckle>
>
> LOL! I was wondering when you were going to figure a way to side step this
> issue. You're a pathetic, deluded believer, but also highly amusing.
> Please continue!

I haven't "sidestepped" anything, numbskull.

Ezekiel SAID that the "Garden of Eden" saga was a METAPHOR...

Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with
a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick
boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her
rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto
all the trees of the field.
Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and
his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the
multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their
nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field
bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.
Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for
his root was by great waters. The cedars in the garden of God could not hide
him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not
like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in
his beauty.
I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the
trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

Just because YOU'RE stupid and the LITERALISTS are stupid doesn't mean
everyone else is.

First account: The natural creation.

Second account: The supernatural creation (written in prophetic metaphors).

When the product of A met the product of B, THAT'S when the trouble started.

So the problem was NEVER the science, and it was NEVER the Bible--it was how
the idiots at BOTH ends of the spectrum were reading it that was the
problem.

Ike

Wild Bill

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 10:57:57 AM11/23/09

to

"Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hee89o$ffm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

You presume to speak for everyone else too, Ike? Most people with huge egos
feel compelled to constantly feed it. Yours is about as obese as any I've
seen!

>
> First account: The natural creation.
>
> Second account: The supernatural creation (written in prophetic
> metaphors).
>
> When the product of A met the product of B, THAT'S when the trouble
> started.
>
> So the problem was NEVER the science, and it was NEVER the Bible--it was
> how the idiots at BOTH ends of the spectrum were reading it that was the
> problem.

Saith the great science/Bible guru, Ike!
>
> Ike
>

Ike E 11/23/9

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 10:22:03 PM11/23/09

to

"Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote in message

news:heebe5$7rp$1...@news.parasun.com...

Thanks for demonstrating that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about, as
proven by the fact that 1) you can't construct a viable counter-argument,
and 2) you have to fall back on the personal attack to cover your ignorance.

> Most people with huge egos feel compelled to constantly feed it. Yours is
> about as obese as any I've seen!
>>
>> First account: The natural creation.
>>
>> Second account: The supernatural creation (written in prophetic
>> metaphors).
>>
>> When the product of A met the product of B, THAT'S when the trouble
>> started.
>>
>> So the problem was NEVER the science, and it was NEVER the Bible--it was
>> how the idiots at BOTH ends of the spectrum were reading it that was the
>> problem.
>
> Saith the great science/Bible guru, Ike!

Again, thanks for demonstrating that you've already lost the argument.

Ezekiel SAID that the whole "Garden of Eden" saga was A METAPHOR, and it
just happens that God used the same metaphorical terms--cattle, creeping
things, beasts of the field and fowls of the air--to tell Peter to PREACH
THE GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES, which is ALSO how Ezekiel uses the terms in the
REST of his prophecies. For instance...

Eze 34:17 And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I
judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats.

What? God is some kind of half-assed 4-H judge?

No.

1Co 9:9-10

For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth
of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?
For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should
plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his
hope.

So, Paul points RIGHT TO the metaphorical meaning of Old Testament terms,
and rightly points out that IT WEREN'T 'BOUT NO "COWS."

Now, having demonstrated that you don't know diddly-squat about reading the
Bible, I return to the question: WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO JUDGE WHAT YOU
CAN'T COMPREHEND?

Ike

Wild Bill

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 12:13:33 AM11/24/09

to

"Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:hefjgr$lqt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

Shouting will not make your bullshit any more believable, Ike. Furthermore,
you aren't dazzling me or anybody on these groups with any brilliance.You
are quite funny though--great material at times. Have you considered taking
your comedy show on the road? I'll bet it would be a smash success on SNL!
>
> Ike
>

Ike E 11/23/9

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 12:49:31 AM11/24/09

to

"Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote in message

news:hefq1u$8kf$1...@news.parasun.com...

Yeah, that's pretty much the response I expected--none.

[snippeth]

Ike

gabriel

unread,

Nov 25, 2009, 9:47:03 AM11/25/09

to

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:50:06 -0800, "Wild Bill"
<bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote:

:
: "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

:

Using your logic, no one existed past several hundred years ago,
since we only have documents that say they did, and you're
clearly dismissing documents as having any authority whatsoever.

Wild Bill

unread,

Nov 25, 2009, 3:07:46 PM11/25/09

to

"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:rngqg5ln5kb6uorgi...@4ax.com...

Bullshit, Gabriel! You didn't do well in reading comprehension in school,
did you? Well, just one example here. We know Abraham Lincoln actually
existed because eyewitnesses and contemporary documents from thousands of
sources say so. These aren't second or third hand accounts like those in
your Bible. Here's another telling fact: Philo, an Alexandrian Jew living in
Jerusalem at the same time of Jesus wrote numerous tracts about the very
same issues supposedly close to your Jesus' heart also. In all those tracts,
there is not one mention of Jesus of Nazereth. You have the N.T. only and
it's so riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies and errors as to be
useless as a reliable source.

Dave Oldridge

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 12:08:37 PM11/26/09

to

gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:0tvkg51b7m6dv97ev...@4ax.com:

If your literal interpretation precludes science, then SAY SO! All these
LIES about "cretion science" so-called are sucking your soul into hell!

--
Dave Oldridge+