Noah & other bible myths
Matt Silberstein
Gi...@theloonybin.com wrote:
>ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>>>>>>> Kris Martin writes:
>> Kris> There are no such things as Bible myths. God inspired people on Earth to
>> Kris> take charge and do His work on Earth. Even the Son Of God said, "I can
>> Kris> do nothing on my own. But I can only do the will of the Father." I
>> Kris> don't see how you can get myths out of documented facts.
>>Sorry, but using a myth to prove that the myth is not a myth is more
>>than circular, it is down right spherical.
> Hi Andrew, tell me how this "myth" has over 2,000 Prophesies that have
>come to pass and been verified throughout history, and are too this
>day becoming true to the Word Of God? Like the One World Government
>aka United Nations in the book of Revelations and many others that
>point to this?
> In the Bible written close to 2,000 years ago there is a passage that
>refers to the earth as a GLOBE. Columbus sailed in 1492 only 500+
>years ago and the world was thought to be flat and Heresy to think
>otherwise. There is plenty of "Facts" in the Bible that, with an open
>mind will prove itself true.
Do you see the irony in this paragraph? Columbus, by your claim, commited
heresy by thinking the world was round. Heresy means to hold a position
contrary to the established religion. So, according to you, at that time
the Church knew that the Bible said the world was flat. So we know for a
fact that the official religious position of what the Bible says and means
changes with time and with scientific knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the scariest line you know? Mine is:
Hi, my name is Number 6, what's yours?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Vernita Gordon
<followups trimmed - go, and do likewise>
qu...@gulf.net (quasi) wrote:
<snip>
>
>Can't you read or are you just an IDIOT, fragments of the book Daniel
>have recently been identified in the Dead Sea Scrolls...so what you're
>telling us is that Daniel lived after the fact...but somehow managed
>to go back in time hundreds of years before the fact and deposit his
>writings in the caves with the rest of the Dead Sea Scroll's...pull you're
>head out of your ass and read a newspaper or watch TV sometime...
>if you can read that is....hmmmm isn't Libertarius Latin for lobotomized
>maybe that is what is wrong with you and the excuse one might use for
>your blatant IGNORANCE...
>
Love is patient.
Love is kind.
It is not arrogant; it does not boast.
It does not rejoice in wrong, but rejoices in the truth.
Love bears all things, hopes all things, believes all things,
endures all things.
Love probably does not post insulting, aggressive, arrogant,
entymologically (sp?) incorrect articles to usenet.
Love trims followups and takes this thread off rec.arts.sf.written (among
many others).
If you wish to reply, please send a copy to me by email as I read none
of the groups which remain in the redirected followups.
Vernita
Libertarius
In <4sgmfb$q...@lll-winken.llnl.gov> Vernita Gordon
intellect. However, for the sake of readers of this thread, I will add
some clarification. A person called Daniel never existed, neither
before nor after the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, The Book of Daniel,
which purports to predict things that had happened centuries before,
was written long after the events it was supposed to predict, at the
time of the Maccabees, in 165 or 164 BC. Its author attributed his book
to a "Daniel", a fictitious character named in Ezekiel (14:14) along
with Noah and Job.
Of course, the timing of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st Century BC-1st
Century AD) does not preclude the presence of bits of Daniel. By the
time the Qumran community was abandoned in the late 1st Century AD, of
course there were copies of many different books, some of which we know
from the Bible. However, we also know that, bacause of its late date
and its language (part Hebrew, part Aramaic), in the original Hebrew
Bible canon it is NOT even classified among the Prophets, but rather as
one of the "Writings", or KETHUBIM.
Libertarius
Thomas Scharle
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.correct,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.sf.written,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.folklore.urban,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.christnet.bible,talk.abortion,alt.blasphemy,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.catastrophism,alt.fan.publius,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.atheism,alt.philosophy.debate
{Once again, completely irrelevant newsgroups deleted, in a vain
attempt to cut down on spamming.}
In article <4shdfp$3...@news.wco.com>, Gi...@theloonybin.com writes:
[...much deleted...]
|> The "Beast is the One World System, the Anti-Christs tool.
|>
|> Gizmo
|>
|> Again, Death to the UN and all who worship the "Beast"
|>
Hmmm. The internet is the Beast?
Makes sense. Take a look at WWW. "W" in Greek is the letter
digamma, standing for the numeral "6".
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy
trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings,
and oppositions of science, falsely so called
1 Timothy 6:20
Thomas Scharle
Patrick McKane <satori@ibm.net>
[many newsgroups trimmed. Left alt.postmodern since I have no idea if
this is relevent to that group or not. What do they discuss there?]
On 18 Jul 1996 18:39:37 GMT, Jack King <jk...@alnitak.xylogics.com> wrote:
>Douglas E. Berry (dbe...@hooked.net) wrote:
>
>: Fine. Now produce two documents that even mention Jesus in passing from the
>: relevant era, documents NOT produced by his own followers. A Roman report on
>: his execution, a Greek rabbi's memoirs on the troubled state of Israel at the
>: time, anything.
>
>: Then I will believe that Jeshova ben-Joseph lived.
>
>Let me see if I've got this straight. Jesus Christ (whether you
>believe he was God, the Son of God, or just a man) who has had more
>influence on more people over the longest period of time than any other
>man or woman that evry walked the earth is --- a myth???!
Yes. The person known as Jesus may be a myth. As of yet I have
not seen a shread of evidence outside of the bible that shows that such
a man ever existed. Anyway, Santa Clause is as widely known and
respected as Jesus (what did he ever do wrong?) but he is fiction.
Oops, sorry, didn't realize your parents hadn't told you yet. Bad
news, the tooth farie is fake to.
=-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-=
Know gods, no peace; | Jesus is Lard | Patrick McKane: sat...@ibm.net
No gods, Know peace. |______________________|_______________________________
______________________| "By the cold and religious we were taken in hand,
shown how to feel good, and told to feel bad" r. waters
=-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-=
Kevin W. Davidson
Patrick McKane <sat...@ibm.net> previously wrote an article appearing in
>Yes. The person known as Jesus may be a myth. As of yet I have
>not seen a shread of evidence outside of the bible that shows that such
>a man ever existed. ...
There is a thoughtful and well-informed atheist who participates from
time to time on USENET. He has a Web site devoted to atheism and free
thought. His page is at:
http://freethought.tamu.edu/~jlowder/index2.html
I think you might benefit from some of the material there.
Regarding the historicity of Jesus, Jeff discusses this in his
critique of Josh McDowell's book. While Jeff (and I) hold that
book in low regard, Jeff also points out the strong evidence
for the historicity of Jesus from non-biblical sources. The
particular text is located at:
http://freethought.tamu.edu/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html
--
Kevin (kwda...@mercury.interpath.com) | http://www.interpath.com/~kwdavids/
Don Glover, the younger (wildthing)
Jack I must admit I don't remember these passages... Are we discussing The
Annals of Imperial Rome??? If so I ahve my peguin classics edition right
here, can you point me to correct chapters?
jk...@alnitak.xylogics.com (Jack King) wrote:
>BLINK, BLINK, Blink...Because Tacitus specifically meantions
>Jesus (not just "Christians"). Aw forget it, you're hopeless.
>Jack
Paul Sampson
caSIMAR Pulaski wrote:
> [>8]
> > somebody writes (does it _really_ matter who?):
> [ >8 ]
> >>> Yes and the Bible refers to Dinosaurs.
> >> { >8 ]
> >>> They lived at the same time as
> >>> man in the first Generation of earth. That is why we have Dinosaur
> >>> bones.[ >8 ]
> In the book of Job there is mention of beasts with tails like
> tree trunks.
Wow. I'm convinced. *Must* be dinosaurs. Couldn't be anything else.
In the book of Job. In the bible, no less. Sold me. Can't argue with that.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul.S...@octacon.co.uk Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
BB 74 A4 EF 03 F8 44 C1 F3 75 FE C6 7E F9 6E 43 --- at home
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Libertarius
In <955.677...@shell.portal.com> lo...@shell.portal.com (Kevin W.
doubt the real existence of the HISTORICAL Jesus. The mythological
incarnate deity Christos of Saul/Paul and the Gentile Christians is
another issue altogether.
Libertarius
Yet Another Steve
In article <4som96$6...@news.cdsnet.net>, el...@cdsnet.net (Keith Elder) wrote:
> >dbe...@hooked.net (Douglas E. Berry) wrote:
> >>In article <4s7dp9$n...@news.wco.com>, Gi...@theloonybin.com wrote:
> >>My point? EVERY generation has declared the end times nigh, and pointed to
> >>the evidence at hand as "proof".
> >
> > Not true, there is "One" thing that must happen first before we are
> >in the "Last Generation" age, and that is Isreal had to be declared as a
> >Nation. That I believe happened in 1948. The Bible states that, that a
> >Generation will not pass before the Book of Revelations is fulfilled.
>
> Does that mean that if the Book of Revelations is not fulfulled within
> the period of one generation from 1948, you will admit that the Bible is
> incorrect on this point?
> It seems that you would have to concede that, if you wish to be
> intellectually honest.
Oh sure, then he'll say "Well Methuselah lived 964 years, so that's a
generation." The Bible's only "absolute" when it's being used to beat
others over the head. When the boot's on the other foot, it's a different
story, with loopholes clustered thick on every side.
Steve
N. Rezmerski
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <pro-...@visi.net> wrote:
>Noah was not a myth and the fact that Jesus Christ is coming back to the
>planet earth is not a myth.
>2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the
>Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
>8.In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that
>obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
>9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of
>the Lord and from the glory of his power.
> People did not believe Noah and people now do not believe Jesus. But it
>will come to pass. If you do not submit to Jesus Christ you will be cast
>into the Lake of Fire to be punished forever.
We're waiting.
...
...still waiting.
I predict that 2000 years from now, we'll still be waiting.
- Nick@Nite / rezm...@gold.tc.umn.edu
Jack King
N. Rezmerski (rezm...@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: > People did not believe Noah and people now do not believe Jesus. But it
: >will come to pass. If you do not submit to Jesus Christ you will be cast
: >into the Lake of Fire to be punished forever.
: We're waiting.
: ...
: ...still waiting.
: I predict that 2000 years from now, we'll still be waiting.
Is this a prediction or a prophesy?
Jack
Robert Wiegand
[news group list trimmed]
mc...@sierra.net (John McCoy) writes:
>Actually the numer of species and families of animals are well known on
>this earth. Further, the size of the are is well known. From the
>calculations we are certain that the ark could hold all the animals.
>That is a fact that mosts evolutionists don't even try to refute.
Sorry, but this is quite wrong.
We don't know the exact number of species of animals. If you believe we
do then I ask you to state that number.
We don't know how many species have become extinct between when Noah
is supposed to have lived and now which would increase the number.
Even if a number of species is assumed it isn't obvious how to calculate
the volume needed to hold them.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Wiegand | Education makes a people easy to lead, but
Motorola Inc. | difficult to drive; easy to govern, but
bwie...@sesd.cig.mot.com | impossible to enslave - Henery Peter Brougham
Patrick McKane <satori@ibm.net>
[Newsgroups MASSIVELY trimmed]
On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 11:18:25 -0700, gr...@hiwaay.net <gr...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>We have a man who built an ark large enough to hold a male and female
>pair of each and every one of the millions of animal species that exists
>on earth, enough feed for forty nights and forty days,
No, it's worse than that. It rained for 40 days/nights, it took
another 150+ days for the h2o to receede enought to see the ground.
Then, I guess just because he loved the smell so much, he lingered
another week or so before letting the animals go. That makes the trip
around 200 days that he had to provide food for and clean up after the
animals.
=-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-= =-+-=
=- Reply to: sat...@ibm.net | Keep walking past the open windows... -=
=-+ "Maybe its not to late; to learn how to love and forget how to hate" +-=
=-+- "I pull the rope around my neck / and in the morning I'll be gone" -+-=
Mats Andtbacka
Robert Wiegand, in <wiegand.838236114@woodcock>:
>[news group list trimmed]
[and followups trimmed further]
[...]
>We don't know how many species have become extinct between when Noah
>is supposed to have lived and now which would increase the number.
out of interest, does anyone feel up to estimating how many new ones
might have evolved since then (in effect, since whenever you please)?
--
"look on the bright side, is suicide" -- Nirvana
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>: I predict that 2000 years from now, we'll still be waiting.
>Is this a prediction or a prophesy?
its a prophesy because it is true. a prediction is something someone
quotes from the bible.
Michael L. Siemon
[Pruning merrily away at the newsgroups,....]
In article <31F8EA...@ocean.st.usm.edu>, David King
<dlk...@ocean.st.usm.edu> wrote:
+Duh - believe it or not, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke,
+and John were all living eyewitnesses back when they
+wrote their books.
I don't believe it -- nor do most scholars of the literature.
The traditional identifications of the gospel authors are not
well founded. In any case, Mark and Luke are (even if one
accepts the traditional authorship) not eyewitnesses (unless
you agree with the highly dubious notion that Mark was the
young man scandalously (un)clad running away from the arrest
in Gethsamane :-))
There is no very good reason to think that the first and fourth
gospels were written by the apostles to whom they are attributed.
It is historiographically plausible (but by no means particularly
certain!) that Mark, as amanuensis of Peter, was author of at
least an Ur-Mark fairly close to our 2nd gospel, that the 4th
gospel derives from the TRADITION associated with the Apostle
John (who may or may not be the "beloved disciple" :-)), and
that the 1st gospel *might* in some manner (possibly via the
hypothesized "Q" :-)) have an association with Matthew. Luke
is explicitly *not* an eyewitness -- and while specifying that
he *used* sources, he does *not* say what they are (though they
are pretty clearly Mark and Q, and his own odd Nativity stuff as
well. :-))
Note -- this is uncontroversial in well-informed *Christian*
biblical scholarship.
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"sempiternal, though sodden towards sundown."
King George III
On 24 Jul 96 19:21:54 GMT, wie...@woodcock.cig.mot.com (Robert
Wiegand) wrote:
>[news group list trimmed]
>
>mc...@sierra.net (John McCoy) writes:
>
>>Actually the numer of species and families of animals are well known on
>>this earth.
Is that a joke?! It is so utterly absurd it is unbelievable. So much
for your scientific knowledge, McCoy.
Estimates on the number of insect species vary from 5 million to 80
million, making your statement obviously inaccurate. Even if you
discount the aquatic insects, Noah still would have had to carry on
board all the flying and arboreal insects, which would still be
millions.
Also, to claim that the number of families of animals is well known
demonstrates a poor understanding of taxonomy. Even taxonomists can't
agree on the number of families.
>>Further, the size of the are is well known. From the
>>calculations we are certain that the ark could hold all the animals.
>>That is a fact that mosts evolutionists don't even try to refute.
That is because it isn't a fact. In fact, there is no more blatant
falsehood in existence.
>
>Sorry, but this is quite wrong.
>
>We don't know the exact number of species of animals.
That is something of an understatement. New species are being
discovered on a near daily basis (in the Amazon jungle, for instance),
particularly insect species. McCoy was just talking out of the back
of his head.
We can only make an extremely rough estimate of the number of animal
species.
>If you believe we do then I ask you to state that number.
Yeah. Do it, McCoy. Back up your statement. Otherwise it is just so
much hot air.
>We don't know how many species have become extinct between when Noah
>is supposed to have lived and now which would increase the number.
>
>Even if a number of species is assumed it isn't obvious how to calculate
>the volume needed to hold them.
Plus, the Ark was afloat or stuck on Mt. Ararat for around 280 days,
meaning Noah also had to bring enough food to keep all those animals
alive, which would mean a significant number of live plant species as
well. Considering that many animals consume many times their weight
in food, this would increase the demands on the ark exponentially.
The ark wouldn't have to be the size of Jupiter, as another poster
suggested. It would probably only need to be the size of
Pennsylvania.
King George III
wa...@wolfenet.com
wa...@oz.net
Visit BlasphemyVision:
http://www.wolfe.net/~wamba/blasphemy/
Wenthold Paul G.
In article <4tg0q3$f...@psycfrnd.interaccess.com>,
Tom Johnson <tjoh...@psycfrnd.interaccess.com> wrote:
>
> Just like religion, belief in science does require a certain amount
>of faith.
Nope, it does not. Belief in science is empricism. That is the
opposite of faith. You believe science works because you ahve
seen it work. Belief based on evidence is not faith.
I have faith that the laws of physics aren't going to
>suddenly change this afternoon.
That's not faith, that's emperical. You have seen that the
laws of physics have been in operation as long as you can remember.
That is evidence enough to lead you to believe that they aren't
going to change. OTOH, if you were to believe that the laws
of physics _were_ going to change, that would require faith
since there is no evidence that anything different will happen.
I'd be afraid to walk down the
>street if I doubted the eternal truth of gravitational attraction
>between one masss (earth) and another (me).
Sure you believe in gravity. That's because you've seen it's
effects countless times. No faith required, it's emperical.
paul
--
!! Joe: "He will come back to you. Don't worry." !!
!! Meg: "But how do you know he'll come back?" !!
!! Sister: "BECAUSE HE'S A BASEBALL STAR, THAT'S HOW HE KNOWS!"!!
!! (from the Broadway hit "Damn Yankees" starring Jerry Lewis) !!
ci...@d0sb01.fnal.gov
In article <31FBDF...@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons <ltim...@mindspring.com> writes:
>You know, when Paul(?) defines faith, he says that it is the
>certainty of things unseen. He did not say that it was the
>certainty of things NEVER seen. I think that all of you have a
>definition of faith that is totally inconsistent with the Bible.
Hate to break this to you buddy but we dont have 'faith' in the
Bible! :>>>
Om
Interesting point. Many words, but one truth.
Have faith only in the truth, not the words.
Tom Johnson
In article <31fb36a9...@news.oz.net>,
King George III <wa...@oz.net> wrote:
>
>The ark wouldn't have to be the size of Jupiter, as another poster
>suggested. It would probably only need to be the size of
>Pennsylvania.
>
are still left with some large logistics problems. As I noted
in another thread, Noah would have needed to pick up and/or drop
off:
Siberian tigers from the north of Asia,
Bengal tigers from the south of Asia,
African lions from Africa,
Raccoons from North America,
Tapirs from South America,
Kangaroos from Australia, etc.
How could he have done this? If they all ended up on the top of one
mountain in the middle east, how did they get to their present homes?
Did the 'roos all swim to Australia? Did the North American species
charter a Boeing 747 to get home?
------
Anyone who believes every word in the bible is welcome to do so.
Anyone who believes in the principles of scientific inquiry and
verification by experiment is likewise welcome to do so.
But anyone who tries to simultaneously believe in BOTH of these
systems is going to have to twist one of them pretty badly. I'd
prefer that the Christians not distort well-known scientific facts
in their attempts to "prove" the truth of their bible.
Just like religion, belief in science does require a certain amount
of faith. I have faith that the laws of physics aren't going to
suddenly change this afternoon. I'd be afraid to walk down the
street if I doubted the eternal truth of gravitational attraction
between one masss (earth) and another (me).
--
Tom Johnson, Gilberts, IL | From file corruptions, and FAULT interruptions,
tjoh...@interaccess.com | And daemons that 'dump' in the night.
Still a fan of the | Good Lord, deliver us.
Austin Lounge Lizards. | ---Old English litany, revised a bit.
William Barwell
In article <4tg0q3$f...@psycfrnd.interaccess.com>,
Tom Johnson <tjoh...@psycfrnd.interaccess.com> wrote:
>King George III <wa...@oz.net> wrote:
>>
>>The ark wouldn't have to be the size of Jupiter, as another poster
>>suggested. It would probably only need to be the size of
>>Pennsylvania.
>>
> Whether it was the size of PA or the size of Rhode Island, we
>are still left with some large logistics problems. As I noted
>in another thread, Noah would have needed to pick up and/or drop
>off:
> Siberian tigers from the north of Asia,
> Bengal tigers from the south of Asia,
> African lions from Africa,
> Raccoons from North America,
> Tapirs from South America,
> Kangaroos from Australia, etc.
>
>How could he have done this? If they all ended up on the top of one
>mountain in the middle east, how did they get to their present homes?
>Did the 'roos all swim to Australia? Did the North American species
>charter a Boeing 747 to get home?
way from the mountains of Ararat to a tiny spec in the Ocean 1500 miles
away from nearest land?
Especially as they cannot swim, being too heavy to even float.
Why are some 3000 species of Cactus found only in the Americas? And not
elsewhere? Why are some 2000 species of mesembryanthenums found only in
Africa?
How did plant life so segregate itself out thusly?
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Leonard Timmons
Wenthold Paul G. wrote:
>
> In article <4tg0q3$f...@psycfrnd.interaccess.com>,
> Tom Johnson <tjoh...@psycfrnd.interaccess.com> wrote:
> >
> >of faith.
>
> opposite of faith. You believe science works because you ahve
> seen it work. Belief based on evidence is not faith.
You know, when Paul(?) defines faith, he says that it is the
certainty of things unseen. He did not say that it was the
certainty of things NEVER seen. I think that all of you have a
definition of faith that is totally inconsistent with the Bible.
-leonard
frank dever
wa...@oz.net (King George III) wrote:
>On 24 Jul 96 19:21:54 GMT, wie...@woodcock.cig.mot.com (Robert
>Wiegand) wrote:
>
>>[news group list trimmed]
>>
>>mc...@sierra.net (John McCoy) writes:
>>
>>>Actually the numer of species and families of animals are well known on
>>>this earth.
>
>Is that a joke?! It is so utterly absurd it is unbelievable. So much
>for your scientific knowledge, McCoy.
>
>Estimates on the number of insect species vary from 5 million to 80
>million, making your statement obviously inaccurate. Even if you
>discount the aquatic insects, Noah still would have had to carry on
>board all the flying and arboreal insects, which would still be
>millions.
He had to carry ALL the insects because they are unclean, he
had to have 7 of each. That's 35 million to 560 million.
>The ark wouldn't have to be the size of Jupiter, as another poster
>suggested. It would probably only need to be the size of
>Pennsylvania.
And how do you remove that much excrement with around 6 guys?
How do you carry the food to them? How do you keep them from eating
you and each other? What about those who only ate living animals? How
about the Rhino? He only eats acacia. There isn't any acacia in the
middle east! <g>
>
>King George III
>
>wa...@wolfenet.com
>wa...@oz.net
>Visit BlasphemyVision:
>http://www.wolfe.net/~wamba/blasphemy/
=frank
-----
I'm always right. How can that be? It's a miracle!
Stephen Mann
Kevin W. Davidson (lo...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
: Patrick McKane <sat...@ibm.net> previously wrote an article appearing in
: >Yes. The person known as Jesus may be a myth. As of yet I have
: >not seen a shread of evidence outside of the bible that shows that such
: >a man ever existed. ...
: Kevin (kwda...@mercury.interpath.com) | http://www.interpath.com/~kwdavids/
Kevin:
I don't doubt Jesus's authenticity and think that most Biblical figures
going back to Abraham were also authentic. But before him, we're almost
certainly dealing with mythical figures in the form of Noah, Cain and
Able, Adam and Eve, and even Yahweh, since God's name changes to that
from `El Shaddai'.
Noah probably comes from `Nohar', a sea Minoan god; Adam from `Atmu', an
Egyptian Sun god; Eve from `Avaris', the Hyksos's Egyptian capitol; Cain
from `Canaan'; and Able from` Hap-Baal', or a fertility bull.
Steve
quar...@well.com
Wenthold Paul G.
In article <31FBDF...@mindspring.com>,
Where did I _ever_ say anything about certainty?
The definition of faith that I use, belief despite the absence of
evidence, is straight out of my American Heritage dictionary.
Dan Hughes
In article <4th0bt$d...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
says...
>
>How did several species of Galapagos tortises manage to make it all the
>way from the mountains of Ararat to a tiny spec in the Ocean 1500 miles
>away from nearest land?
>Especially as they cannot swim, being too heavy to even float.
Here is where you make your mistake. The Galapagos tortoise didn't travel
from Ararat to those islands. These species are the product of 'horizontal
evolution' (think punk eek) of the original tortoise 'kind' released from
the ark at Ararat.
>Why are some 3000 species of Cactus found only in the Americas? And not
>elsewhere? Why are some 2000 species of mesembryanthenums found only in
>Africa?
>
>How did plant life so segregate itself out thusly?
Speciation, as observed, tends to do exactly that; create sub-species out of
founder populations.
The examples you cite are exactly what we would expect to find if the world
was repopulated after a massive extinction event. As plant and animal life
moved out over a depopulated earth, the 'kinds' mentioned in the Bible would
tend to 'speciate' over and over into all of the different species and
sub-species that we see today.
This massive speciation is also the answer to the 'problem' of fitting all
of the animals into the ark. The answer is that is was not necessary for
two of every *existing* species (in todays terms) to fit on the ark. Only
pair of 'kinds' (and their offspring) from which modern species 'evolved'
after their release from the ark.
That odd species exist in Australia is not particularly problematic. It
would depend on the founder populations that landed there. This is true
even of evolutionary theory. Unless you are suggesting that life evolved
independently in Australia and took a decidedly different track, which I
don't think you are (or shouldn't).
The 'specialized environments' argument is also erroneous. Noah didn't need
to create all of the specialized environments required for current species.
These species (and their environmental requirements) 'evolved' after their
release from the ark, not before.
All life tends to 'evolve' this way. Trading fitness over the wider range
of environments for fitness in a narrower or single environment and
fragmenting gene pools is a characteristic of biological 'evolution'. All
organisms that 'speciate' exhibit this trait. Lower variability and greater
dependence on a specific environment when compared to the founder
population.
That this behavior is considered an advantage is what is remarkable. It
would appear to be a tremendous disadvantage and should be considered a
tendency for extinction. If all life is trending toward extinction (as some
scientists believe), this represents a tremendous loss of genetic
information and variability that is unlikely to be recovered through random
mutation and natural selection. This tendency is actually a serious problem
for evolution, although few evolutionists realize it.
That you think the examples listed above somehow disprove the ark hypothesis
shows how you have limited your thinking to evolutionary answers. The
evidence that science has found doesn't disprove the ark hypothesis. Only
the interpretation of it.
Be careful with 'interpretations' versus evidence. A bad 'interpretation'
can lead you to erroneous conclusions when the evidence fits the true
conclusion just as well.
Kerr Gibson
>>>> Here is one for you:
>>>> TREAT OTHERS THE WAY YOU WOULD PREFER TO BE TREATED AND
>DO NOT
>>DO
>>>> TO OTHERS WHAT YOU DO NOT WISH OTHERS TO DO TO YOU.
>>>>
[blah blah blah]
>>
>> That is cute, but treating others the way you wish to be treated
>>implies a respect for THEIR taste, not yours.
>>
[More blah blah blah]
>
>That's what it implies to you... what does it imply to others?
>
>For a rule of law, "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You"
>is sufficiently vague to allow everything up to and including murder.
>If you don't want people messing in one another's lives then you have
>to state that, since not everyone adheres to the same moral code.
>
I agree. I think it would be a good idea to point out that the phrase "Do
unto others...etc.etc." comes after a particularly lengthy discourse in
morality- exactly what Mr. Tricarico asks for above and is a summation
statement of those morals. It is also in the larger context of the message
of Jesus. Anybody's statements about anything could be interpreted in many
different ways if they are not viewed in a larger context. I could take
Mr. Tricarico's statements above and perform some kind of syntactical
gymnastics on them and achieve a meaning completely opposite of what he
intended. To understand his comments, you have to have the rest of the
articles.
mailto:ke...@math.ohio-state.edu
Michael Grice
[Followups cut to talk.origins; feel free to change as necessary (as
if anyone wouldn't), but do we really need this on 9 newsgroups?]
fb...@ionet.net (Dan Hughes) blessed us with the following wisdom:
>In article <4th0bt$d...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>says...
>>
>>How did several species of Galapagos tortises manage to make it all the
>>way from the mountains of Ararat to a tiny spec in the Ocean 1500 miles
>>away from nearest land?
>>Especially as they cannot swim, being too heavy to even float.
>Here is where you make your mistake. The Galapagos tortoise didn't travel
>from Ararat to those islands. These species are the product of 'horizontal
>evolution' (think punk eek) of the original tortoise 'kind' released from
>the ark at Ararat.
How many "kinds" were on the Ark? How can I tell what kind an animal
is in? Doesn't this require your 'horizontal' evolution to be much
faster than anything in the theory of evolution?
>>Why are some 3000 species of Cactus found only in the Americas? And not
>>elsewhere? Why are some 2000 species of mesembryanthenums found only in
>>Africa?
>>
>>How did plant life so segregate itself out thusly?
>Speciation, as observed, tends to do exactly that; create sub-species out of
>founder populations.
>The examples you cite are exactly what we would expect to find if the world
>was repopulated after a massive extinction event. As plant and animal life
>moved out over a depopulated earth, the 'kinds' mentioned in the Bible would
>tend to 'speciate' over and over into all of the different species and
>sub-species that we see today.
No. You'd expect to see much less variation. The fact that there are
species that only live in narrow ranges on different continents does
not suggest that they are the result of organisms spreading over a
depopulated earth (especially when the organisms aren't exactly
mobile). If that were the case, you'd expect to see patches of these
cactuses and mesembryanthenums all over the world.
>This massive speciation is also the answer to the 'problem' of fitting all
>of the animals into the ark. The answer is that is was not necessary for
>two of every *existing* species (in todays terms) to fit on the ark. Only
>pair of 'kinds' (and their offspring) from which modern species 'evolved'
>after their release from the ark.
Again, this requires your 'horizontal' evolution to be faster than
required by the theory of evolution, although your definition of
"kind" is too vague to be sure.
Are chimpanzees, gibbons, gorillas and baboons in the same kind? How
could I tell?
>That odd species exist in Australia is not particularly problematic. It
>would depend on the founder populations that landed there. This is true
>even of evolutionary theory. Unless you are suggesting that life evolved
>independently in Australia and took a decidedly different track, which I
>don't think you are (or shouldn't).
No one does, Dan. But why were the "founder populations" so different
on Australia than elsewhere? Current theories suggest that the
organisms on Australia evolved differently because they've been
isolated from other organisms for quite some time. Current theories
explain this much better than the Ark does.
>The 'specialized environments' argument is also erroneous. Noah didn't need
>to create all of the specialized environments required for current species.
>These species (and their environmental requirements) 'evolved' after their
>release from the ark, not before.
>All life tends to 'evolve' this way. Trading fitness over the wider range
>of environments for fitness in a narrower or single environment and
>fragmenting gene pools is a characteristic of biological 'evolution'. All
>organisms that 'speciate' exhibit this trait. Lower variability and greater
>dependence on a specific environment when compared to the founder
>population.
This is an assertion. Please offer evidence to support it.
>That this behavior is considered an advantage is what is remarkable. It
>would appear to be a tremendous disadvantage and should be considered a
>tendency for extinction. If all life is trending toward extinction (as some
>scientists believe), this represents a tremendous loss of genetic
>information and variability that is unlikely to be recovered through random
>mutation and natural selection. This tendency is actually a serious problem
>for evolution, although few evolutionists realize it.
This is also an assertion. Although you are correct that the loss of
genetic information via extinction is permanent, evolution predicts
that mutation will produce new (but different) information. So? The
earth hasn't recovered information lost when the dinosaurs became
extinct, but new organisms have added new information since.
>That you think the examples listed above somehow disprove the ark hypothesis
>shows how you have limited your thinking to evolutionary answers. The
>evidence that science has found doesn't disprove the ark hypothesis. Only
>the interpretation of it.
In essence, you've attempted to co-opt evolution as much as possible
without giving up on the Ark.
Please note that the geological record does not provide any evidence
of the Flood. Local floods, yes, but no global floods.
>Be careful with 'interpretations' versus evidence. A bad 'interpretation'
>can lead you to erroneous conclusions when the evidence fits the true
>conclusion just as well.
All too true. However, the best interpretation of the Flood is as a
parable.
Michael Grice
gib...@mailbag.com
Ralph T. Edwards
Could y'all delete sci.lang (and the other non-religion-related groups)
from this thread? Pretty please?
Follow-ups trimmed.
--
R.T.Edwards r...@elmo.att.com 908 576-3031
Leonard Timmons
Wenthold Paul G. wrote:
>
> Where did I _ever_ say anything about certainty?
>
> The definition of faith that I use, belief despite the absence of
> evidence, is straight out of my American Heritage dictionary.
That definition is just a restatement of how the word is popularly
used. I was a bit too broad. Let me rephrase my response:
The generally accepted notion that faith is blind is incorrect.
Someone long ago decided that Paul meant that you should believe
something without understanding it. I don't think that that
is what he meant at all. In fact, if you deeply understand physics,
then you can have faith that its predictions in any given situation
will be correct. It's only if you don't understand physics, that
you have to depend on the prevailing notion of faith to be
sure that a prediction will be correct.
The importance of understanding, even for Jesus, who explained
very little, can be seen simply by counting the number of times
the word "understanding" is used in the gospels.
Blind faith is not faith, it's just blindness.
-leonard
Tom Johnson
In article <4tjhe1$7...@ionews.ionet.net>, Dan Hughes <DanH...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4th0bt$d...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>says...
>>
>>How did several species of Galapagos tortises manage to make it all the
>>way from the mountains of Ararat to a tiny spec in the Ocean 1500 miles
>>away from nearest land?
>>Especially as they cannot swim, being too heavy to even float.
>
>
>Here is where you make your mistake. The Galapagos tortoise didn't travel
>from Ararat to those islands. These species are the product of 'horizontal
>evolution' (think punk eek) of the original tortoise 'kind' released from
>the ark at Ararat.
>
So you are saying that tortoises which existed before there were Galapagos
tortoises had all the genetic material to produce Galapagos turtles?
>
>Speciation, as observed, tends to do exactly that; create sub-species out of
>founder populations.
>
Speciation... so would you say that red-wing blackbirds and all-black
blackbirds may have had a common ancestor (with or without red patches)
and that these ancestors carried the genetic material for the red patches?
Are you denying there is such a thing as mutation?
>
>This massive speciation is also the answer to the 'problem' of fitting all
>of the animals into the ark. The answer is that is was not necessary for
>two of every *existing* species (in todays terms) to fit on the ark. Only
>pair of 'kinds' (and their offspring) from which modern species 'evolved'
>after their release from the ark.
>
So you believe in some sort of evolution which produces sub-species, but
never produces new species? Then why don't we find fossils of ANY primates
before the Triassic (nor for quite a while AFTER the Triassic)?
>That odd species exist in Australia is not particularly problematic. It
>would depend on the founder populations that landed there.
Landed how?
>The 'specialized environments' argument is also erroneous. Noah didn't need
>to create all of the specialized environments required for current species.
>These species (and their environmental requirements) 'evolved' after their
>release from the ark, not before.
So you are saying that today's polar bear, Gila monster, and chimpanzee
all had common ancestors who could thrive in the same habitat? Were
these miniature, hairless polar bears and/or warm-blooded lizards with fur?
>
>All life tends to 'evolve' this way.
Not according to the fossil evidence.
> If all life is trending toward extinction (as some
>scientists believe).....
We are losing a lot of species right now, but the fossil record clearly
shows that the number of species INCREASED through many long periods of
time.
>That you think the examples listed above somehow disprove the ark hypothesis
>shows how you have limited your thinking to evolutionary answers. The
>evidence that science has found doesn't disprove the ark hypothesis. Only
>the interpretation of it.
The evidence certainly shows an increase in the number of species over
most of the earth's existence, EXCEPT for some fairly brief periods like
the end of the Cretaceous and modern (present) times.
>
>Be careful with 'interpretations' versus evidence. A bad 'interpretation'
>can lead you to erroneous conclusions when the evidence fits the true
>conclusion just as well.
Sorry, I don't buy your version of 'truth' since it is not supported
by the facts. Where in the Triassic do you find any species of primates?
There aren't any... they evolved later.
Evolution is real... the story of Noah is just a myth.
Eliyehowah
I recall a documentary film on the populating of a volcano
when it rises out of the sea. Not only did birds fly there, not only did
airborn seeds find their way, but seeds survived the saltwater
to the shores, and a tiger was seen swimming to the island.
As for plants they settle anywhere and everywhere after the Flood,
any which could not keep in the new climatic world died.
So you big brains out there...did you happen to think the plants
walked out from Noah's ark...or that only ark seeds survived.
Isnt it clear that your American cactus (its few seeds which
settled eleswhere) died out in other continents.
As for animals, not only do they make their own way....
but humans do bring animals with them....not their
stereos or cellular phone to keep in touch with Noah.
Tristrim Peter Murnane
Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
: I recall a documentary film on the populating of a volcano
: when it rises out of the sea. Not only did birds fly there, not only did
: airborn seeds find their way, but seeds survived the saltwater
: to the shores, and a tiger was seen swimming to the island.
yes, but what will the tiger live on? Grass? Guess it will have to
evlove before it dies.
: As for plants they settle anywhere and everywhere after the Flood,
: any which could not keep in the new climatic world died.
: So you big brains out there...did you happen to think the plants
: walked out from Noah's ark...or that only ark seeds survived.
: Isnt it clear that your American cactus (its few seeds which
: settled eleswhere) died out in other continents.
:
Would someone please explain the above paragraph?
: As for animals, not only do they make their own way....
: but humans do bring animals with them....not their
: stereos or cellular phone to keep in touch with Noah.
So, Noah wasn't the only one to survive (+ family etc)? If ppl
from elsewhere DID survive what was the prupose of the flood then?
William Barwell
In article <4tjhe1$7...@ionews.ionet.net>, Dan Hughes <DanH...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4th0bt$d...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>says...
>>
>>How did several species of Galapagos tortises manage to make it all the
>>way from the mountains of Ararat to a tiny spec in the Ocean 1500 miles
>>away from nearest land?
>>Especially as they cannot swim, being too heavy to even float.
>
>
>Here is where you make your mistake. The Galapagos tortoise didn't travel
>from Ararat to those islands. These species are the product of 'horizontal
>evolution' (think punk eek) of the original tortoise 'kind' released from
>the ark at Ararat.
>
an island thousands of miles from land and in 5 thousand years evolve
into several different species of giant tortises? Tortises just can't
swim, they sink. You are claiming evolution happens far faster than
evolutionists claim. So why do we not see that rapid evolution today?
Your 'solution' just gives you bigger headaches to explain away and
STILL does not tell how tortises made it to the Galapagos.
You still have no proof, no evidence, just laughable assertions.
The "kinds" argument is just a claim, and you nor any creationist has
shown an iota of proof for it. Of course many Creationists still argue
vehemently about just how old the Earth is too.
With no evidence in sight.
There is the embarressing counter-evidence that there is no sign of any
global flood of any sort. And much more.
>
>>Why are some 3000 species of Cactus found only in the Americas? And not
>>elsewhere? Why are some 2000 species of mesembryanthenums found only in
>>Africa?
>>
>>How did plant life so segregate itself out thusly?
>
>
>Speciation, as observed, tends to do exactly that; create sub-species out of
>founder populations.
>
No shit Sherlock. In six thousand years. So why do we see no such
rapid evolution today? Hmmm...? Now you have made an assertion, that
all these plant families evolved rapidly since the flood. Proof, evidence?
Or does creationism get to get away with silly assertions?
Note. You have given away the farm to evolutionists.
You admit evolution exists and can be rapid. Now all you have is a few
claims. A flood, and ark, this god guy, but no proof and much counter
proof exists to discount this foolish myth.
Starting with the fact that there was no flood as proven by lack of evidence
that such a flood would have left.
Why would such a flood leave a Grand Canyon carved of of hard schist in
North America, and yet leave vast sand seas in North Africa?
And a hundred other such embarressments could be sited.
A good geologist could probably site many more than that.
For example, parts of Oklahoma, Arkansas and Missouri consist of low
rolling hills. If there had been a flood, the vallies between these low
hills would have filled up with the mud and debris from such a vast flood.
But this simply isn't so.
Basically you are down to a foolish myth and the claim god exists.
>The examples you cite are exactly what we would expect to find if the world
>was repopulated after a massive extinction event.
No, it is not, for it posits evolution far faster than we see it occuring.
And it ignores facts. Like no flood or ark and evolution happening over
vast eons of time.
As plant and animal life
>moved out over a depopulated earth, the 'kinds' mentioned in the Bible would
>tend to 'speciate' over and over into all of the different species and
>sub-species that we see today.
>
No, it would not. Evolution simply cannot thousands of species from a
'kind' in a few thousand years.
>This massive speciation is also the answer to the 'problem' of fitting all
>of the animals into the ark. The answer is that is was not necessary for
>two of every *existing* species (in todays terms) to fit on the ark. Only
>pair of 'kinds' (and their offspring) from which modern species 'evolved'
>after their release from the ark.
The Ark would have been 400 feet long with teh smallest know cubit.
No ship 400 feet long will float long, about 300 feet is the largest ship
possible as shipwrights found out at the turn of the century.
How did Noah fit all the elephants, rhinos, Tricerotops, titanotherops,
allosauruses, mammoth, mastodon, giant ground sloths ect., ect, into a
three deck shit 300 feet long.
Sorry, it is still a stupid tall tale.
Oh yeah, show hard evidence the ark ever really existed.
>
We both admit evolution exists and is quite effecient.
You simply thrown in a foolish tall tale that ignoires many facts and
real scientific evidence of the history of what did happen,
while offering up a foolish tale with no proof or evidence
and much counter evidence.
How can you destroy your intellectual honesty so?
Why play such games with yourself?
William Barwell
In article <3201C2...@execpc.com>, Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
>I recall a documentary film on the populating of a volcano
>when it rises out of the sea. Not only did birds fly there, not only did
>airborn seeds find their way, but seeds survived the saltwater
>to the shores, and a tiger was seen swimming to the island.
>
>any which could not keep in the new climatic world died.
>So you big brains out there...did you happen to think the plants
>walked out from Noah's ark...or that only ark seeds survived.
>Isnt it clear that your American cactus (its few seeds which
>settled eleswhere) died out in other continents.
>
Mesembryanthemums are a problem here. They are very tiny and fragile.
Mesembs grow in arid parts of Southern Africa. The tiny fragile seeds
are exquisitely sensitive to moisture.
They sit in tiny 5 lobed seed capsules waiting for the spring rains to occur.
The moisture from impending rain causes the seed pods to open, and if
a raindrop hist that open capsule it splashes the seed out.
Thus seeing that the seeds are distributed during a good rain only.
Immediately upon being soaked in the slightest, they germinate quickly.
The plantlets are small and fragile.
These sort of fragile exquisitely moisture sensitive seeds would never
tolerate being tossed on a flood for a year. Nor would the seedlings
tolerate being in this sort of flood. Mesembs absorb water until they
literally pop their cells if overwatered. A few genuses, such as
Rhopallophylla grow in areas where the only water they see is heavy dews,
they almost never see rain. Their seeds must germinate without rain.
I can name many other plants where their seeds would not take this sort of
abuse of a flood. Asclepiadaceae for instance. Some plants such as Baobab
trees, (several species) MUST pass through the digestive system on an
elephant to germinate with much chance of success.
It doesn't wash. The flood and the ark are myths.
Eliyehowah
The question was regarding American cactus.
I ask what does that have to do with any Flood proof
or disproof !
> Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
> : As for plants they settle anywhere and everywhere after the Flood,
> : any which could not keep in the new climatic world died.
> : So you big brains out there...did you happen to think the plants
> : walked out from Noah's ark...or that only ark seeds survived.
> : Isnt it clear that your American cactus (its few seeds which
> : settled eleswhere) died out in other continents.
Tristrim Peter Murnane wrote:
> Would someone please explain the above paragraph?
The ark clearly had to store one year of food for all onboard.
Yet the plants around the world are not merely from this.
Seeds all over resprouted. Some plants or trees never died
from a mere year of water or pressure. As these plants existed all
over before the Flood (due to a greenhouse), it was just a matter
of what locations after the Flood they could survive in.
Many came up elsewhere but then died. The locations of these cactus
thus is a very vain argument and is very empty concerning Flood
proof or disproof.
Eliyehowah
Eliyehowah
William Barwell wrote:
> Mesembryanthemums are a problem here. They are very tiny and fragile.
> Mesembs grow in arid parts of Southern Africa. The tiny fragile seeds
> are exquisitely sensitive to moisture.
> They sit in tiny 5 lobed seed capsules waiting for the spring rains to occur.
> The moisture from impending rain causes the seed pods to open, and if
> a raindrop hist that open capsule it splashes the seed out.
> Thus seeing that the seeds are distributed during a good rain only.
> Immediately upon being soaked in the slightest, they germinate quickly.
> The plantlets are small and fragile.
> These sort of fragile exquisitely moisture sensitive seeds would never
> tolerate being tossed on a flood for a year. Nor would the seedlings
> tolerate being in this sort of flood. Mesembs absorb water until they
> literally pop their cells if overwatered. A few genuses, such as
> Rhopallophylla grow in areas where the only water they see is heavy dews,
> they almost never see rain. Their seeds must germinate without rain.
> I can name many other plants where their seeds would not take this sort of
> abuse of a flood. Asclepiadaceae for instance. Some plants such as Baobab
> trees, (several species) MUST pass through the digestive system on an
> elephant to germinate with much chance of success.
But we are not looking at how to make things survive,
but rather HOW the things we already have DID survive.
There are frequent times when scholars are amazed at the abuse
a seed has took when most have died. Nobody said that our
complete world of vegetation became matured 5 years after the Flood.
Was there an elephant with that seed in his stomach on the ark?
Could be, perhaps MUST be.
Did Noah have any of this seed which is sensitive on the ark where
it is dry?
Possibly, perhaps definately. It doesnt require that
he knew the seeds needed saving. Again he wasnt trying to save
seeds, but rather we probably DO have some vegetation that
would have died if it had not been on the ark. His collecting food
for animals no doubt saved some vegetation. Did not Americans
bring food over the oceans which then took seed. Sometimes the
original source location dies out, and the transfer though not
intending to save the world of vegetation does work out as something
good that happened.
Further as a secondary consideration, your example is with fresh rain...
perhaps slight salt
prevents germination until fresh water. Having trouble tracing
your own geneology doesnt prove your forefathers didnt
exist or knew how to procreate thus demanding that evolution
must be true.
Royce Buehler
In article <4u6cp1$4...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) writes:
>
> You still have no proof, no evidence, just laughable assertions.
> The "kinds" argument is just a claim, and you nor any creationist has
> shown an iota of proof for it.
That is far too generous. The "kinds" argument does not even amount
to a claim. I have not yet seen any creationist who is willing to
give a clear explanation of what a "kind" is. A species? A genus?
A subfamily? An order? A superorder? A phylum? They all refuse
to say.
"Things can evolve, but only within the same kind." As it stands,
any evolutionist can agree with that. For an evolutionist, the relevant
"kind" is "living things". For a creationist, the relevant definition
of "different kind" appears to be "not yet proven to my satisfaction to
have a common ancestor". The size of a "kind" slowly gets larger and
larger as the creationist's objections are demolished one by one.
You could call it a taxonomy of the gaps.
Once the creationists give a public operational definition of how to
distinguish whether two organisms are of "the same kind", then they
will have made a claim.
--
Royce Buehler bue...@space.mit.edu (617)-253-9766
"Comme un fou se croit Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels"
-- Pierre Delalande
Leo Mauler
Despite the fact that a "cloud canopy" of the size required to "flood the Earth" would
have killed off all life on this planet including plants and animals, there are no
plants which could have survived the "mere year of water or pressure".
This is because the level of water required to submerge the highest mountains to fifteen
cubits (about 22 feet) above their tops would put enough pressure on all the Earth's
plants to kill them all. I cite Genesis 7:19-20 "Higher and higher above the earth rose
the waters, until all the highest mountains everywhere were submerged, the crest rising
fifteen cubits higher than the submerged mountains."
This is not a few feet of flooding. To cover Mt. Everest, the water would have been
several hundred feet above most of the Earth's surface. Most deserts, the common
locations to find cacti, would have been under a MILE of water.
Suggesting that plants would have survived pressures of that magnitude is ignorant at
best.
--
Never do this at home. Look how easily it killed this sig.
/\ ___/\ ___/\ _____________________________________________
\/ \/ \/ gi...@cjnetworks.com (Leo Mauler)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
Ross Haight
Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
I wonder why Noah was given all of these seeds, yet had to collect the
various ( 2 clean & 7 unclean? ) sets of animals. At least, luckily,
the kangaroos, pandas, cockatiels, llamas, etc were kind enough to get
themselves to the Middle-East shanksmare, in any event.
Eric Magnus Lehnscherr
Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> submitted some sort of text:
>The question was regarding American cactus.
>I ask what does that have to do with any Flood proof
>or disproof !
>> Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
>> : As for plants they settle anywhere and everywhere after the Flood,
>> : any which could not keep in the new climatic world died.
>> : So you big brains out there...did you happen to think the plants
>> : walked out from Noah's ark...or that only ark seeds survived.
>> : Isnt it clear that your American cactus (its few seeds which
>> : settled eleswhere) died out in other continents.
>Tristrim Peter Murnane wrote:
>> Would someone please explain the above paragraph?
>The ark clearly had to store one year of food for all onboard.
>Yet the plants around the world are not merely from this.
>Seeds all over resprouted. Some plants or trees never died
>from a mere year of water or pressure. As these plants existed all
>over before the Flood (due to a greenhouse), it was just a matter
>of what locations after the Flood they could survive in.
>Many came up elsewhere but then died. The locations of these cactus
>thus is a very vain argument and is very empty concerning Flood
>proof or disproof.
Since James Greer inst around to play with.....
Here goes: Ummmm, yeah sure. Noah isnt. The end.
*MAGNUS*
It was a dark and
greery night. The
Mingus cat had run
away from his insane
owner. Tis a pity.
Eliyehowah
Argue til you are blue. But Jesus said that if you dont beleive his words
then you wont believe when the dead return who experienced these realities
on planet Earth. There WAS a Flood, it WAS global. And you waste the
opportunity of technology...when you could seek to prove it...you choose to defy
it, and when the destruction destroys this technology and all its secret copyrights,
the only knowledge spared will be that educated in survivers and the knwledge
in the minds of those who return to life resurrected. Newton will return to life
and puke on stories of this century.
> Eliyehowah wrote:
> > The question was regarding American cactus.
> > I ask what does that have to do with any Flood proof
> > or disproof !
> > > Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
> > > : As for plants they settle anywhere and everywhere after the Flood,
> > > : any which could not keep in the new climatic world died.
> > > : So you big brains out there...did you happen to think the plants
> > > : walked out from Noah's ark...or that only ark seeds survived.
> > > : Isnt it clear that your American cactus (its few seeds which
> > > : settled eleswhere) died out in other continents.
> > Tristrim Peter Murnane wrote:
> > > Would someone please explain the above paragraph?
> > The ark clearly had to store one year of food for all onboard.
> > Yet the plants around the world are not merely from this.
> > Seeds all over resprouted. Some plants or trees never died
> > from a mere year of water or pressure. As these plants existed all
> > over before the Flood (due to a greenhouse), it was just a matter
> > of what locations after the Flood they could survive in.
> > Many came up elsewhere but then died. The locations of these cactus
> > thus is a very vain argument and is very empty concerning Flood
> > proof or disproof.
Leo Mauler
On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Eliyehowah wrote:
> Argue til you are blue. But Jesus said that if you dont beleive his words
> then you wont believe when the dead return who experienced these realities
> on planet Earth.
Jesus didn't say anything about the Flood being real.
> There WAS a Flood, it WAS global.
Well, there was a flood, small "f", in the Mediterannean some time ago,
probably before the time Genesis came into existence. Not a global
flood, but enough to freak out the locals into writing a Global Flood
Myth. Incidentally, the Babylonians came up with the Flood Myth before
the Hebrews, and their Ark was bigger! Nyah Nyah Nyah! :)
> And you waste the
> opportunity of technology...when you could seek to prove it...you choose to
> defy it, and when the destruction destroys this technology and all its
> secret copyrights, the only knowledge spared will be that educated in
> survivers and the knwledge in the minds of those who return to life
> resurrected. Newton will return to life and puke on stories of this
> century.
When all the available evidence says there wasn't a Flood, its very
difficult to seek to prove something for which there is no evidence! Do
you defy the existence of Yggdrasil? Why, when you could attempt to use
all the technology to prove it? Never mind, you shall answer to Odin if
he comes back and you don't believe. :)
Richard Logan
Just a few questions: If everything died in the flood, what must the
world have smelled like when the waters receded? I mean, shouldn't there
have been rotting biological material in every nook and cranny of the
earth? Even if this rot was all carried into the ocean, wouldn't the
ocean have becoming a stinky brew of filth? How did Noah and his kids
survive this and and why didn't they see fit to record their observations
(in the bible)? Could it be that the great flood never really happened?
Or maybe a few aquatic dinosaurs survived the flood and ate all the filth
so that Noah didn't have to deal with it. It's possible.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
: Argue til you are blue. But Jesus said that if you dont beleive his words
: then you wont believe when the dead return who experienced these realities
: opportunity of technology...when you could seek to prove it...you choose
: to defy it, and when the destruction destroys this technology and all its
: secret copyrights, the only knowledge spared will be that educated in
: survivers and the knwledge in the minds of those who return to life
: resurrected. Newton will return to life and puke on stories of this century.
For the record, the above post did an 8.6 on the Incomprehensible Rant meter.
William Barwell
In article <32088A...@execpc.com>, Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
>The question was regarding American cactus.
>I ask what does that have to do with any Flood proof
>or disproof !
It was one example of many such problems. How did some three thousand
species of plants end up in the Americas only?
And not Africa? How did this sorting work?
It is a problem.
Some creationists claim 'kinds' can evolve, and as a matter of fact, they
not only accept evolution, but evolution working several orders of
magnitude faster that evolutionist. Which causes other problems.
All that such a 'kinds' evolutionsit has left is trying to prove an
unlikely myth and trying still to prove god exists.
Or you can stick to claiming evolution does not happen, but you have a
whole world of other problems, including explaining such sorting of plant
and animal genuses.
How DO 2000 species of Mesmbryanthemums end up only in africa but 3000
species of cactus end up in the New World only?
Why are many genuses world wide?
Which horn of the dillemma do you want to pick?
>
>> Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
>> : As for plants they settle anywhere and everywhere after the Flood,
>> : any which could not keep in the new climatic world died.
>> : So you big brains out there...did you happen to think the plants
>> : walked out from Noah's ark...or that only ark seeds survived.
>> : Isnt it clear that your American cactus (its few seeds which
>> : settled eleswhere) died out in other continents.
>
>Tristrim Peter Murnane wrote:
>> Would someone please explain the above paragraph?
>
"Bob" knows. Eliyehowah belives in fast evolution. a few cactii
would soon spread and evolve 3000 species spreading from Montana to
Tierra Del Fuego. On the other hand, many plants only have a few species.
Why do some evolve so rapidly ranging from epiphytic tropical cacti, to
monstrous saguaro trees, to dense prickly pear stands, to the tiny South
American fraileas to the giant barrel cacti? And many plants only have one
genus with a few species.
Many species are confined to relatively small areas. Why?
Many puzzles not answered.
>The ark clearly had to store one year of food for all onboard.
>Yet the plants around the world are not merely from this.
>Seeds all over resprouted.
Many species have seeds that sprout at the first sign of water.
Mesembryanthemums for instance. They are tiny and fragile seeds to boot.
They would never last floating in a flood for a year.
Orchids have the tiniest and most fragile seeds of all. That any
germinate is almost miraculous. I know of no orchid seeds that could
survive a year of floating in flood waters.
Many plants have to have a symbiotic relationship with certain
rhyzofungi, and without them will not successfully grow.
No such seeds and fungi could come together by accident, and no seed
floating for a year would have any chance of carrying it's own
fungi with it.
Get some knowledgable botanists and you can find hundreds of such
problems to tease creationists.
Not that it matters. Fact mean nothing to them anyway.
It just bzzz bzzz bzzz. Words and noises, not meaningful facts that must
be dealt with honestly.
Some plants or trees never died
>from a mere year of water or pressure. As these plants existed all
>over before the Flood (due to a greenhouse), it was just a matter
>of what locations after the Flood they could survive in.
Few plants will survive a year of floating in water.
>Many came up elsewhere but then died. The locations of these cactus
>thus is a very vain argument and is very empty concerning Flood
>proof or disproof.
No cactus can survive a year of floating in water. No cactus seeds will
either.
You are disproven. Many genuses have no seeds that will survive a year
floating in water.
To blandly claimm tis so, when any botanist knows it ain't so, just
exposes your ignorance.
William Barwell
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960809133147.2314A-100000@topeka>,
Leo Mauler <giant@topeka> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Eliyehowah wrote:
>
>> Argue til you are blue. But Jesus said that if you dont beleive his words
>> then you wont believe when the dead return who experienced these realities
>> on planet Earth.
>
>
>
>probably before the time Genesis came into existence. Not a global
>flood, but enough to freak out the locals into writing a Global Flood
>Myth. Incidentally, the Babylonians came up with the Flood Myth before
>the Hebrews, and their Ark was bigger! Nyah Nyah Nyah! :)
If you are refering to the fact that what is now the Mediterranian was
once a dry desert like the Dead Sea area, that was 6,000,000 years ago,
long before man, who only started his ascent from his primitive pre-hominid
ancestors about 5,000,000 years ago.
The secret is to notice the centers of civilization where writing was
developed and spread millenia ago.
Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus, ect. All river valleys, all prone to flooding.
Jack King
Leo Mauler (giant@topeka) wrote:
: Jesus didn't say anything about the Flood being real.
Please read Math 24:36-39
Jack
William Barwell
In article <32088E...@execpc.com>, Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>> Mesembryanthemums are a problem here. They are very tiny and fragile.
>> Mesembs grow in arid parts of Southern Africa. The tiny fragile seeds
>> are exquisitely sensitive to moisture.
>> They sit in tiny 5 lobed seed capsules waiting for the spring rains to occur.
>> The moisture from impending rain causes the seed pods to open, and if
>> a raindrop hist that open capsule it splashes the seed out.
>> Thus seeing that the seeds are distributed during a good rain only.
>> Immediately upon being soaked in the slightest, they germinate quickly.
>> The plantlets are small and fragile.
>> These sort of fragile exquisitely moisture sensitive seeds would never
>> tolerate being tossed on a flood for a year. Nor would the seedlings
>> tolerate being in this sort of flood. Mesembs absorb water until they
>> literally pop their cells if overwatered. A few genuses, such as
>> Rhopallophylla grow in areas where the only water they see is heavy dews,
>> they almost never see rain. Their seeds must germinate without rain.
>> I can name many other plants where their seeds would not take this sort of
>> abuse of a flood. Asclepiadaceae for instance. Some plants such as Baobab
>> trees, (several species) MUST pass through the digestive system on an
>> elephant to germinate with much chance of success.
>
>But we are not looking at how to make things survive,
Obviously because many would not survive a flood. It is easy to insist
that it's easy when you are bone, stone, stick to the core ignorant
about botany. Some of us are not. We know no mesembs would make it.
As a matter offact, few seeds or plants would.
OPf course being ignorant means it is easy to deny because, well ... you
are ignorant.
>but rather HOW the things we already have DID survive.
>
There was no flood so surviving a flood they could NOT survive is no problem.
The fact is that IF there was a flood very, very few plants or seeds
would survive is true, but beinng ignorant of this fact, one can simply
open one's mouth and blandy assert it isn't a problem.
What you have done here is simply deny obvious problems.
Again and again. Because they do not fit in with your silly myth.
For which you have not shown an iota of proof for. You simply must
settle for ignoring counter-evidence as you did above with trick rhetoric
that essentially asserts something without proof. Something impossible.
Something of which you know next to nothing about. And obviously never will.
Not caring a shit to find out about anything that would blow your
prescious idiot myth out of the water.
Never mind that you cannot explain such mysteries as whyy a univerasl
flood would gouge out a Grand Canyon in hard schist in Nevada, but leave
sand seas in North Africa. How fragile seeds eager to germinate at the
first sign of water would survive a flood. How plants that can be hard
to grow because a good overwatering will often turn them into mush would
survive floating a year in water.
And many, many, many more things you cannot explain.
So you never do explain anything, you handwave it away in a most
unsatisfactory manner and you do not even have the knowledge to see why
it is unsatisfactory and seem to not care anyway and have no inclination
to think as to why your argumenst are false and mere sophistries and word
games at best.
Intelligent debate with you is thus impossible.
You are not debating, you are playing word games and are not even close
to grasping the ideas, the thoughts, the concepts behind the words
I and others post.
Since you are not debating, but playing games, you have lost.
It is not a matter of how they survived as your bare assertion (for that
is what that is) blandly asserts. Mesembs and others simply will not
survive in water nor will their seeds for a year.
It simply is false to assert they can.
And that is a fact.
You refuse to accept facts and post no facts to support your own assertions.
You have now lost.
The problem in your case is how to make you start thinking so you can see
the obvious.
There are frequent times when scholars are amazed at the abuse
>a seed has took when most have died. Nobody said that our
Baloney.
>complete world of vegetation became matured 5 years after the Flood.
>Was there an elephant with that seed in his stomach on the ark?
>Could be, perhaps MUST be.
>
Baloney.
Assertions and bad ones.
Maybe, possible, perhaps doesn't cut it when you are making
absolutely, howling foolish bad hypotheses. These prove nothing. And it
is up to YOU to show that these things DID happen.
It is extremely unlikely.
Seeds in elephant's stomaches indeed.
And none shat these miraculous seeds out in over a year.
Come on!
Think, man, think!
You can't just spoon horseshit out like this.
Stacking desperate and ridiculous maybes high on each other.
This is no argument.
HazChem
> Argue til you are blue. But Jesus said that if you dont beleive his words
> then you wont believe when the dead return who experienced these realities
> on planet Earth. There WAS a Flood, it WAS global. And you waste the
> opportunity of technology...when you could seek to prove it...you choose
to defy
> it, and when the destruction destroys this technology and all its secret
copyrights,
> the only knowledge spared will be that educated in survivers and the knwledge
> in the minds of those who return to life resurrected. Newton will return
to life
> and puke on stories of this century.
I'd love to flame this guy until I'm blue. He completely ignores all the
scientific discussion that has passed back and forth, and instead makes
claim after claim without providing a snippet of evidence.
Unfortunately, one of the few commandments my religion has is a
commandment against flaming. So I leave up to your imaginations what I
would have said.
It would have been pretty vile, let me assure you.
--
HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages/hazchem/hazchem.html
"I say move and you're dead!" |"Cynic, n. A blackguard whose
"And I say I'm dead....and I move." | faulty vision sees things as
(The Crow) | they are, not as they ought
| to be."
THE CROW:CITY OF ANGELS coming soon! | (Ambrose Bierce)
William Barwell
In article <4uap2c$4...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
Royce Buehler <bue...@space.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <4u6cp1$4...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) writes:
>>
>> The "kinds" argument is just a claim, and you nor any creationist has
>> shown an iota of proof for it.
>
>to a claim. I have not yet seen any creationist who is willing to
>give a clear explanation of what a "kind" is. A species? A genus?
>A subfamily? An order? A superorder? A phylum? They all refuse
>to say.
>
>"Things can evolve, but only within the same kind." As it stands,
>any evolutionist can agree with that. For an evolutionist, the relevant
>"kind" is "living things". For a creationist, the relevant definition
>of "different kind" appears to be "not yet proven to my satisfaction to
>have a common ancestor". The size of a "kind" slowly gets larger and
>larger as the creationist's objections are demolished one by one.
>
>You could call it a taxonomy of the gaps.
>
>Once the creationists give a public operational definition of how to
>distinguish whether two organisms are of "the same kind", then they
>will have made a claim.
>
argumment collapses under it's weight immediately, or the 'argument'
consists of meaningless vague blather that simply shows the creationist's
lack of grasp of the issues supposedly under discussion.
A few have tried to develop the 'kinds', the 'baramin' argument, but to
no avail. Usually it ends up being some species of argument by definition.
You define kinds, claim no kinds can evolve beyond a certain point and
then refuse to discuss it further.
Don't laugh damn you, this is science!
Snort!
Sasquach
Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Argue til you are blue. But Jesus said that if you dont beleive his words
>then you wont believe when the dead return who experienced these realities
>on planet Earth. There WAS a Flood, it WAS global. And you waste the
>opportunity of technology...when you could seek to prove it...you choose to defy
>it, and when the destruction destroys this technology and all its secret copyrights,
>the only knowledge spared will be that educated in survivers and the knwledge
>in the minds of those who return to life resurrected. Newton will return to life
>and puke on stories of this century.
Thats the thing with those darn geologists. They can tell you when an
ice age was. They can tell you a huge asteriod hit us 60 million years
ago. But they can't find the slightest trace of the biblical flood. A
flood of such huge proportions it would surely have drastically
altered every area of the earths surface. It could be that all the
geologists are involved in an huge coverup. It could also be that
there was no flood and you are just wrong about this. Which do you
think it is?
Sasquach
ksjj
In article <4ug7sg$s...@atlas.xylogics.com>, jk...@alnitak.xylogics.com
(Jack King) wrote:
Now, what does the Bible say about the flood?
MAT 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming
of the Son of Man.
MAT 24:38 For in the days before the **flood**, people were eating and
drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the
ark;
MAT 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the
**flood** came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the
coming of the Son of Man.
The above words are colored red in my bible which means that Jesus said
them. It's quite apparent that Jesus Knew of the flood.
also
LUK 17:26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in
the days of the Son of Man.
LUK 17:27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in
marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the **flood** came and
destroyed them all.
Luke reports the same story. If I can't trust Luke here, then I can't
trust him aywhere.
Even Peter believed in the flood
2PE 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the
**flood** on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of
righteousness, and seven others;
Peter continues a little further down,
2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days
scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
2PE 3:4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever
since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning
of creation."
2PE 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the
heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
2PE 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was **deluged**
and destroyed.
I could aso mention the Genesis versus but I think you already know them.
Sorry if some of you don't agree with you No flood theology, but there is
two much biblical evidence for it.
--
see ya,
karl
*****************************************
For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes,
His eternal power and devine nature,
have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made,
so they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>: >Yes. The person known as Jesus may be a myth. As of yet I have
>: >not seen a shread of evidence outside of the bible that shows that such
>: >a man ever existed. ...
>I don't doubt Jesus's authenticity and think that most Biblical figures
>going back to Abraham were also authentic.
well, guess what. what you believe and what is true are seperate
things.
frank dever
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <4ug7sg$s...@atlas.xylogics.com>, jk...@alnitak.xylogics.com
>(Jack King) wrote:
>
>> Leo Mauler (giant@topeka) wrote:
>>
>> : Jesus didn't say anything about the Flood being real.
>>
>> Please read Math 24:36-39
>>
>> Jack
>
>Now, what does the Bible say about the flood?
>
>MAT 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming
>of the Son of Man.
And so it was in the days of Noah, so it was at the coming of
the Son of Man.. But the days of Noah were a time spoken of in story,
and Jesus knew that. He was saying that the reality represented by the
Noah story would cease to be a myth about a world that never was, and
become a spiritual reality. The world would be covered in water, as in
baptism, and it would rise again full of the spirit of God.
But the story of Noah needs no Noah, and the flood needs no
water for the coming of the Son of Man to be in the spirit as it was
spoken of in the story. All we need is the reality provided by our
imaginations, not the water nor the man.
When we talk of "Noah" we are talking about a character in a
story. The ideal is what we know of the story, not the details of its
existence. We don't know what kind of shoes Noah wore, so he could
have been barefoot. But there doesn't have to be an actual Noah for
there to have been a reason to leave that information out.
So mentioning "the days of Noah" what is conveyed, and what is
expected to be conveyed, is simply bringing spiritual symbolism of the
story to bear on a difficult to explain coming event. There is no hint
that the story was true (as in represented by real people), it was
used in an ideal sense.
>
>MAT 24:38 For in the days before the **flood**, people were eating and
>drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the
>ark;
And here he makes the symbolism even more telling. No longer a
story about a man who saved the animals. But a story about the poor
people who were destroyed in that story - monsterously. This is a
reference to the hardness of life, that when you do wrong, and you
suffer for it, the world does nothing to help you. So if you don't pay
attention, and you don't live your life truthfully, you will be
suddenly aware of what you had lost. So, while you are deep in denial,
laughing and drinking when you should be working and learning- you are
wasting your life... and the day will eventually come when you lose it
completely.
>
>MAT 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the
>**flood** came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the
>coming of the Son of Man.
And when you die, you will see , finally, that you had a
chance to do something with it, but you blew it, and there's nothing
you can do about it, dead.
>
>The above words are colored red in my bible which means that Jesus said
>them. It's quite apparent that Jesus Knew of the flood.
No, it's apparent that Jesus Knew of the story of the flood.
>also
>LUK 17:26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in
>the days of the Son of Man.
>
>LUK 17:27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in
>marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the **flood** came and
>destroyed them all.
>
>Luke reports the same story. If I can't trust Luke here, then I can't
>trust him aywhere.
If you trust Luke, you are trusing in a man..
>
>Even Peter believed in the flood
>
>2PE 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the
>**flood** on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of
>righteousness, and seven others;
Peter raises the flood story to symbolism. But true to form,
he was much too innocent and naiive to understand it as well as Jesus
did. Of couse, Peter was one of the first to realize Jesus was the
Christ, but he was slow, nonetheless. He understands that the flood
story is used as symbolism for the cleansing of the world, and makes a
crude analogy which instead of concentrating on the spirit of God
within a man that preserves him, talks about Noah being protected
because he was a preacher. <g>
>
>Peter continues a little further down,
>2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days
>scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
Scoffers were right there all the time. Not too long after,
they fed the Christians to the lions. I would think they were world
class "scoffers" far more talented than any here.
>
>2PE 3:4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever
>since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning
>of creation."
>
>2PE 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the
>heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
>
>2PE 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was **deluged**
>and destroyed.
>
>I could aso mention the Genesis versus but I think you already know them.
>
>Sorry if some of you don't agree with you No flood theology, but there is
>two much biblical evidence for it.
>
>--
>see ya,
>karl
>*****************************************
> For since the creation of the world
> His invisible attributes,
> His eternal power and devine nature,
> have been clearly seen,
> being understood through what has been made,
> so they are without excuse.
> Romans 1:20
Well, you get the idea. Think.
-frank
-----
I'm always right. Even when I'm wrong.
How can that be? It's a miracle!
Mike Turk
/On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 04:34:31 -0700, Leo Mauler <gi...@cjnetworks.com>
did inscribe into the ether:\
>Eliyehowah wrote:
>>
>> The question was regarding American cactus.
>> I ask what does that have to do with any Flood proof
>> or disproof !
>>
>> > Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
>> > : As for plants they settle anywhere and everywhere after the Flood,
>> > : any which could not keep in the new climatic world died.
>> > : So you big brains out there...did you happen to think the plants
>> > : walked out from Noah's ark...or that only ark seeds survived.
>> > : Isnt it clear that your American cactus (its few seeds which
>> > : settled eleswhere) died out in other continents.
>>
>> Tristrim Peter Murnane wrote:
>> > Would someone please explain the above paragraph?
>>
>> The ark clearly had to store one year of food for all onboard.
>> Yet the plants around the world are not merely from this.
>> Seeds all over resprouted. Some plants or trees never died
>> from a mere year of water or pressure. As these plants existed all
>> over before the Flood (due to a greenhouse), it was just a matter
>> of what locations after the Flood they could survive in.
>> Many came up elsewhere but then died. The locations of these cactus
>> thus is a very vain argument and is very empty concerning Flood
>> proof or disproof.
>Despite the fact that a "cloud canopy" of the size required to "flood the Earth" would
>have killed off all life on this planet including plants and animals, there are no
>plants which could have survived the "mere year of water or pressure".
>This is because the level of water required to submerge the highest mountains to fifteen
>cubits (about 22 feet) above their tops would put enough pressure on all the Earth's
>plants to kill them all. I cite Genesis 7:19-20 "Higher and higher above the earth rose
>the waters, until all the highest mountains everywhere were submerged, the crest rising
>fifteen cubits higher than the submerged mountains."
>This is not a few feet of flooding. To cover Mt. Everest, the water would have been
>several hundred feet above most of the Earth's surface. Most deserts, the common
>locations to find cacti, would have been under a MILE of water.
>Suggesting that plants would have survived pressures of that magnitude is ignorant at
>best.
>--
>Never do this at home. Look how easily it killed this sig.
>/\ ___/\ ___/\ _____________________________________________
> \/ \/ \/ gi...@cjnetworks.com (Leo Mauler)
>DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
Given the fact that the water level would even out to more or less
even worldwide, the flood would have to cover 29,051 feet, from sea
level to Mt. Everest top. Most deserts would have been significantly
more than a mile underwater. Here on the west coast of Florida, I am
only 9 ft above sea level. The depth of the water here would have been
a little over 5.5 miles. NOTHING that lives here now could survive
THAT. I know the palm trees are hardy things (they never fall over),
but COME ON! Furthermore, our ground is mostly sand. Over a year under
5.5 miles of water would give us a ground of sedimentary rock under
our sand. Under 9 feet of the sand here are a hundred feet of
limestone. Saltwater is corrosive to limestone. How could it still be
there? The sand on top would have washed away and exposed the
limestone to corrosive limestone. We would also find modern fish
embedded in the limestone, but we do not. We find small, ancient sea
organisms. Give the literalism a rest. It grows old.
Michael D. Painter
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote in article <4ugeru$2...@news.sas.ab.ca>...
> Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
> : Argue til you are blue. But Jesus said that if you dont beleive his words
> : then you wont believe when the dead return who experienced these realities
> : on planet Earth. There WAS a Flood, it WAS global. And you waste the
> : opportunity of technology...when you could seek to prove it...you choose
> : to defy it, and when the destruction destroys this technology and all its
> : secret copyrights, the only knowledge spared will be that educated in
> : survivers and the knwledge in the minds of those who return to life
> : resurrected. Newton will return to life and puke on stories of this century.
>
> For the record, the above post did an 8.6 on the Incomprehensible Rant meter.
I'm beginning to think this person is really somebody's experiment in artificial intelligence or may artificial stupidity.
ksjj
> When we talk of "Noah" we are talking about a character in a
> story. The ideal is what we know of the story, not the details of its
> existence. We don't know what kind of shoes Noah wore, so he could
> have been barefoot. But there doesn't have to be an actual Noah for
> there to have been a reason to leave that information out.
>
Next thing will be you telling everybody that Jesus is just a Man in a story.
rest deleted.
frank dever
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>
>> When we talk of "Noah" we are talking about a character in a
>> story. The ideal is what we know of the story, not the details of its
>> existence. We don't know what kind of shoes Noah wore, so he could
>> have been barefoot. But there doesn't have to be an actual Noah for
>> there to have been a reason to leave that information out.
>>
>
>Next thing will be you telling everybody that Jesus is just a Man in a story.
If you would use your mind, you would be able to see that even
YOU are nothing more than a man in a story to everyone who reads about
you, or reads your messages. You could be a program or the writings of
a prisoner in a state penitentiary who is preteding to be a Christian.
Things you say are true may be picked up by someone and repeated and
people could believe what you say. But it will all be nothing more
than what is heard... Even when you talk to someone in person, you
don't really know them... you just know what you perceive of what they
project.
The REALITY of the people in a story aren't important. It is
what you BELIEVE about that reality that makes all the difference. If
you are satisfied that something happened "for real," that doesn't
make you a better person. It's whether you believe that loving God
above all things and your neighbor as yourself is absolutely true or
not that matters.
The necessity, in religion, of something "being real" is
nothing more than an attempt at turning the spiritual into the
material. And you can't do that.
>
>rest deleted.
>
>--
>see ya,
>karl
>*****************************************
> For since the creation of the world
> His invisible attributes,
> His eternal power and devine nature,
> have been clearly seen,
> being understood through what has been made,
> so they are without excuse.
> Romans 1:20
-----
Earle D. Jones
[......]
> the only knowledge spared will be that educated in survivers and the knwledge
> in the minds of those who return to life resurrected. Newton will return
to life
> and puke on stories of this century.
============
My bible does not mention Newton. Neither does the word *puke* appear therein.
earle
=====
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
~zephyr
fde...@airmail.net (frank dever) wrote:
>ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
[snip]
>
>>
>>Next thing will be you telling everybody that Jesus is just a Man in a story.
>
> If you would use your mind, you would be able to see that even
>YOU are nothing more than a man in a story to everyone who reads about
>you, or reads your messages. You could be a program or the writings of
>a prisoner in a state penitentiary who is preteding to be a Christian.
>Things you say are true may be picked up by someone and repeated and
>people could believe what you say. But it will all be nothing more
>than what is heard... Even when you talk to someone in person, you
>don't really know them... you just know what you perceive of what they
>project.
>
> The REALITY of the people in a story aren't important. It is
>what you BELIEVE about that reality that makes all the difference. If
>you are satisfied that something happened "for real," that doesn't
>make you a better person. It's whether you believe that loving God
>above all things and your neighbor as yourself is absolutely true or
>not that matters.
>
> The necessity, in religion, of something "being real" is
>nothing more than an attempt at turning the spiritual into the
>material. And you can't do that.
>
And the spiritual water flows forth again... :)
>>
>>rest deleted.
ditto.
Wonder is the feeling of a philosophy and philosophy begins
in wonder ...Plato
~zephyr
Aaron Bergman
In article <4umbmb$r...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu
(Micheal Keane) wrote:
:In article <ksjj-11089...@abe-ppp344.fast.net>,
:ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
:>Next thing will be you telling everybody that Jesus is just a Man in a story.
:
:Jesus was just a man in a story.
:
:Perhaps you'd care to tell me why Apollonius is not the true savior?
Apollonius isn't the true savior because Mithras is.
Geesh.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
The quote left intentionally blank.
Eliyehowah
For a botanist your sure have a lot of
"Baloney" in your replies. I am not concerned with refuting your arguments,
my return posts are to show those who cant stand your assertions that
there are those like me willing to stand up against you. The posts
are for them to read...because as far as you go...I perceive you by
your original thread that you were unable to ever be convinced. So nothing
I said was ever intended to educate you.
A global disaster is about to wipe you out
as a know-it-all because the real Flood story
does not encourage you to see the rotten world as it is
filled with people who claim to know when they know nothing.
A mind full of your fabrications (no matter what field of school they create
for the topic) is no more than the empty minds of those who know nothing.
So since I know little (as you claim), at least it is more than you people
and your classes of fabricated knowledge. A person would have to be a fool
not to realize the amount of today's knowledge fabricated. Like
Jesus said, society flows back and forth like the sea for what they
consider as facts.
The world ever increasingly is faced with more causes of death
by human-tampored nature as well as man's inventions which
do not hold most manufacturers liable. When 20/20 shows
little kids with their intestines sucked out their ass from
a swimming drain...and they call this accidents then apparently neither
greedy unconcerned adult manufacturers or parental education
is of concern in this world. Avoiding death is no big deal because
you admire those who give their lives.....proving you didnt learn
from Jesus.
NOW you are more concerned with HOW plants or animals could
have come from a Flood when it is your own humans lives which
are greater at stake this year. Stupid people who would save their
cat before their neighbor. You are angering God...and I myself
find it hard not to wish this sweep of death hasn't already started
for you intelligent know-alls.
Eliyehowah
ksjj wrote:
> In article <4ug7sg$s...@atlas.xylogics.com>, jk...@alnitak.xylogics.com
> (Jack King) wrote:
>
> > Leo Mauler (giant@topeka) wrote:
> >
> > : Jesus didn't say anything about the Flood being real.
> >
> > Please read Math 24:36-39
> >
> > Jack
>
> Now, what does the Bible say about the flood?
>
> MAT 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming
> of the Son of Man.
>
> drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the
> ark;
>
> **flood** came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the
> coming of the Son of Man.
>
> them. It's quite apparent that Jesus Knew of the flood.
> LUK 17:26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in
> the days of the Son of Man.
>
> LUK 17:27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in
> marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the **flood** came and
> destroyed them all.
>
> Luke reports the same story. If I can't trust Luke here, then I can't
> trust him aywhere.
>
>
> 2PE 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the
> **flood** on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of
> righteousness, and seven others;
>
> 2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days
> scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
>
> since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning
> of creation."
>
> 2PE 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the
> heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
>
> 2PE 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was **deluged**
> and destroyed.
>
> I could aso mention the Genesis versus but I think you already know them.
>
> Sorry if some of you don't agree with you No flood theology, but there is
> two much biblical evidence for it.
>
Eliyehowah
> > then you wont believe when the dead return who experienced these realities
> > on planet Earth. There WAS a Flood, it WAS global. And you waste the
> > opportunity of technology...when you could seek to prove it...you choose
> to defy
> > it, and when the destruction destroys this technology and all its secret
> copyrights,
> > in the minds of those who return to life resurrected. Newton will return
> to life
> > and puke on stories of this century.
HazChem wrote:
> He completely ignores all the
> scientific discussion that has passed back and forth, and instead makes
> claim after claim without providing a snippet of evidence.
Does no good to produce any MORE scientific evidence than has
already been posted because you overlook the presented evidence,
you edit it out, and you find some phrase of grammar to start a new scoff at.
Jesus was wise to say...you will receive no sign other than what I give you.
Who do you really think you are...better come down if you wish to get
your ears close enough to your audience to hear their questions.
Stix
Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> bleated:
(newsgroups snipped)
>For a botanist your sure have a lot of
>"Baloney" in your replies. I am not concerned with refuting your arguments,
>my return posts are to show those who cant stand your assertions that
>there are those like me willing to stand up against you. The posts
>are for them to read...because as far as you go...I perceive you by
>your original thread that you were unable to ever be convinced. So nothing
>I said was ever intended to educate you.
Educate? How, by asserting biblical bullshit without a scrap of
evidence? Yep, nice education, bleater.
>A global disaster is about to wipe you out
>as a know-it-all because the real Flood story
>does not encourage you to see the rotten world as it is
>filled with people who claim to know when they know nothing.
Oh what *are* you babbling about?
>A mind full of your fabrications (no matter what field of school they create
>for the topic) is no more than the empty minds of those who know nothing.
Like creationists? They know nothing. :)
>So since I know little (as you claim), at least it is more than you people
>and your classes of fabricated knowledge. A person would have to be a fool
>not to realize the amount of today's knowledge fabricated.
Hmm, I smell a logical fallacy, but who'd suspect that from a bleater?
Can you show some of this "fabricated" knowledge and explain how
you've concluded it's fabricated?
> Like Jesus said, society flows back and forth like the sea for what they
>consider as facts.
Yeah well, fortunately Jesus is dead so who cares what a hallucinating
hippy thought or said.
>The world ever increasingly is faced with more causes of death
>by human-tampored nature as well as man's inventions which
>do not hold most manufacturers liable.
Yes, meathead, but you seem to conveniently forget all the lives we
save and all the causes of death we prevent with our
"human-tampering."
>When 20/20 shows
>little kids with their intestines sucked out their ass from
>a swimming drain...and they call this accidents then apparently neither
>greedy unconcerned adult manufacturers or parental education
>is of concern in this world.
No one wants a child to sit on a pool drain and now that the problem's
been realized it is up to people who own pools with that type of drain
to prevent such an accident occurring. You bleaters make me sick. Why
is it always someone's fault? Accidents happen.
> Avoiding death is no big deal because
>you admire those who give their lives.....proving you didnt learn
>from Jesus.
Fuck learning from Jesus. He had nothing but crap to teach anyway.
>NOW you are more concerned with HOW plants or animals could
>have come from a Flood when it is your own humans lives which
>are greater at stake this year.
Atheists aren't concerned about how plants or animals could have come
from a flood because we know there was no flood and nothing to
discuss. When you bleaters start making claims that the flood *did*
actually occur, we ask you to answer the impossibilities inherant in
your claims. When you can't and don't, because you *can't* we ignore
you like the fairy-tale bleaters you are.
>Stupid people who would save their
>cat before their neighbor.
If my neighbour was a wife-beating drunk or a christian I'd think
twice about saving my cat first. :)
> You are angering God...and I myself
>find it hard not to wish this sweep of death hasn't already started
>for you intelligent know-alls.
God-thingumy's don't exist, bleater.
Stix
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Nail 'em up I say! Nail some sense into 'em!"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
frank dever
dkc...@ix.netcom.com (~zephyr) wrote:
>fde...@airmail.net (frank dever) wrote:
>
>>ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>>Next thing will be you telling everybody that Jesus is just a Man in a story.
>>
>> If you would use your mind, you would be able to see that even
>>YOU are nothing more than a man in a story to everyone who reads about
>>you, or reads your messages. You could be a program or the writings of
>>a prisoner in a state penitentiary who is preteding to be a Christian.
>>Things you say are true may be picked up by someone and repeated and
>>people could believe what you say. But it will all be nothing more
>>than what is heard... Even when you talk to someone in person, you
>>don't really know them... you just know what you perceive of what they
>>project.
>>
>> The REALITY of the people in a story aren't important. It is
>>what you BELIEVE about that reality that makes all the difference. If
>>you are satisfied that something happened "for real," that doesn't
>>make you a better person. It's whether you believe that loving God
>>above all things and your neighbor as yourself is absolutely true or
>>not that matters.
>>
>> The necessity, in religion, of something "being real" is
>>nothing more than an attempt at turning the spiritual into the
>>material. And you can't do that.
>>
>And the spiritual water flows forth again... :)
>
>>>
>>>rest deleted.
>ditto.
"rest deleted" would be great for a headstone. <g>
-frank
>Wonder is the feeling of a philosophy and philosophy begins
>in wonder ...Plato
>
>~zephyr
>
>http://www.netcom.com/~dkcoats
-----
Roscoe A. Sincero
Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
: For a botanist your sure have a lot of
: "Baloney" in your replies. I am not concerned with refuting your arguments,
: my return posts are to show those who cant stand your assertions that
: there are those like me willing to stand up against you. The posts
: are for them to read...because as far as you go...I perceive you by
: your original thread that you were unable to ever be convinced. So nothing
: I said was ever intended to educate you.
The above is just an example of the creationist mentality. He never
bothered to quote the "botanist" he was speaking off. Do I have to
actually search the "References" list in the header to find out who he is
responding to? What happens if that post no longer exist?
: A global disaster is about to wipe you out
: as a know-it-all because the real Flood story
: does not encourage you to see the rotten world as it is
: filled with people who claim to know when they know nothing.
He looks down on "know-it-all" type people yet he is the one making
unsupported claims and expects us all to believe him.
: A mind full of your fabrications (no matter what field of school they create
: for the topic) is no more than the empty minds of those who know nothing.
: So since I know little (as you claim), at least it is more than you people
: and your classes of fabricated knowledge. A person would have to be a fool
: not to realize the amount of today's knowledge fabricated. Like
: Jesus said, society flows back and forth like the sea for what they
: consider as facts.
He and his kind make lies such as:
a) Mt. Ararat is the tallest mountain in the world
b) the highest mountain during the flood was 1 mile in height
c) the magnetic field is decaying exponentially
d) the sun is shrinking
e) human footprints found near dino prints at Paluxy River
f) the fossilized feathers of Archy are forgeries
g) Archy is 100% bird.
h) the speed of light is decaying
These lies are *ALL* supported by creationist liars. So it seems obvious
that it is the creationists who have "fabricated knowledge".
: The world ever increasingly is faced with more causes of death
: by human-tampored nature as well as man's inventions which
: do not hold most manufacturers liable. When 20/20 shows
: little kids with their intestines sucked out their ass from
: a swimming drain...and they call this accidents then apparently neither
: greedy unconcerned adult manufacturers or parental education
: is of concern in this world. Avoiding death is no big deal because
: you admire those who give their lives.....proving you didnt learn
: from Jesus.
Again, more examples of the typical creationist mentality.
The fool is correct that their are bad things occuring in the world.
But obviously, this has nothing to do with the flood. It is also equally
obvious that with these bad things occuring, he feels that it is more
important to lie to people, it is more important to take advantage of
people by lying than to do something about these "bad things".
: NOW you are more concerned with HOW plants or animals could
: have come from a Flood when it is your own humans lives which
: are greater at stake this year. Stupid people who would save their
: cat before their neighbor. You are angering God...and I myself
: find it hard not to wish this sweep of death hasn't already started
: for you intelligent know-alls.
The fool is more concerned with lying to people about the flood, religion
or anything else than the well-being of humankind. That is obvious. He
is trying to paint the picture that this unknown "botanist" cares more on
how plants or animals survived after the flood than the well-being of
his/her fellow human beings. At the same time, he wants us to believe
that he cares a lot about us humans. Nothing can be further from the
truth. When this idiot lies to us, it is obvious that he cares nothing
about anyone but himself. He has no purpose in life but to lie and he
found himself a newsgroup to do it in. Today it is talk.origins. Several
months from now, it will be some other newsgroup.
--
==========================================================================
Roscoe A. Sincero
B.S. Chemical Engineering, May 1993 University of Maryland College Park
Job Seeker
e-mail: leg...@eng.umd.edu
WWW: http://www.glue.umd.edu/~legion
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1761
http://www.gaianet.net/~legion
Honorary Faculty Member of University of Ediacara
- Professor of Creative Non Sequitur Engineering
- Thomas Barnes Chair of Philosophy
Research Interests: Analytical Modelling of Rectum Tunneling Effect on
the Creationist Mind and Its Effect on the Second Law
Second Law Efficiency of Nostril Mining and Digging In
Relation to Creationist Thought Processes
Michael Noreen
Replying to Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com>
: A global disaster is about to wipe you out
All together now: "Always look at the bright side of life..."
: NOW you are more concerned with HOW plants or animals could
: have come from a Flood when it is your own humans lives which
: are greater at stake this year.
Being at a stake may not be the worst of places when there's a flood.
You think that's what saved the plants, then? There may even have been
a kind of natural selection, in that plants and people tied to rocks
did rather worse than those tied to stakes and other wooden objects,
and the distribution of plants of course mirror how they floated about
on the water (of undetermined salinity). You may have something there.
: Stupid people who would save their
: cat before their neighbor.
Well... Exactly which neighbor are we talking about here? There's a
few around here I wouldn't half mind saving (huh-huh).
: You are angering God...and I myself
: find it hard not to wish this sweep of death hasn't already started
: for you intelligent know-alls.
Yeah, it'll serve'em right, darn pointy-heads! You will all burn in
the flood! No, wait, that didn't sound right...
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!
Johnny Marr
Aaron Bergman wrote:
>
> In article <4umbmb$r...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu
> (Micheal Keane) wrote:
>
> :In article <ksjj-11089...@abe-ppp344.fast.net>,
> :ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> :
> :Jesus was just a man in a story.
> :
> :Perhaps you'd care to tell me why Apollonius is not the true savior?
>
> Apollonius isn't the true savior because Mithras is.
>
> Geesh.
No he isn't because my dad is and he could deck them both.
Before you say how silly this thread is - prove I'm wrong :)
--
Johnny Marr - wadh...@sable.ox.ac.uk
Webpage at- http://www.wadham.ox.ac.uk/~jstacey
I left the North again, I travelled South again
B
How did Noah get all those different types of anaerobic bacteria that
live inside rocks and metabolise iron on board. Or cholera viruses.
Or prions. Oh wait a mo, of course no-one knew bacteria and viruses
existed when man made up that story.
Wayne Aiken
Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
: NOW you are more concerned with HOW plants or animals could
: have come from a Flood when it is your own humans lives which
: cat before their neighbor. You are angering God...and I myself
: find it hard not to wish this sweep of death hasn't already started
: for you intelligent know-alls.
My, my, what a nice "Christian" attitude you have.
The pathology boils down to:
I hate myself
therefore...I hate all of humanity
therefore...I project this hate onto all of reality
You claim (and apparently HOPE with all your heart) that some calamity will
strike down everyone you don't like very soon now. You wrote:
: This is a direct WARNING of condemnation to everyone whether they ever read this notice or
: not. The scoffers who read and laugh will face this event equally ripped apart as those both
: atheist or religious. ONE YEAR FROM TODAY those who have not sought safety on the March
: 23 Passover which falls on Palm Sunday will face exactly what that Palm Sunday
: represents...the arrival of the Christ. The impact of his words, the Christ, The Prophet, the King,
: the Savior, the second Noah and second Adam that he is and the impact he becomes when
: only his children survive this year-long destruction of forces sweeping thru the surface of the
: earth ripping havoc and merciless horror thru the world's societies who fail to listen or believe.
So, if all hell is going to break loose on March 24, 1997, then would you
have any objection to signing over all of your money, property, and
possessions to me effective March 25, 1997? After all, you won't be here,
will you? You won't need material things at that time will you? You *do*
have faith, don't you?
[Please feel free to change this magic date to September 1996 or whenver
the "destruction" is supposed to occur]
I want to know if you are a true Christian. I really want to know if you
really believe and follow this book you claim to be holy, which says:
"Therefore by their fruits shall you know them. Not everyone
who says to me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Many will say to me in that day Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by
your name and by your name cast out demons, and by your name do
many mighty works? And I will profess to them, I never knew you. Go
away from me you who work evil." Matt 7:22-23
Do you love Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Do you follow
his words, or are you just another hypocrite? I invoke the commands of
your own deity:
"Give to everyone that asketh thee; and from him that taketh
away thy goods ask not again." Luke 6:30
"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow
of thee turn not thou away." Matt. 5:42
With all of the readers of this newsgroup as my witnesses, I challenge you
to demonstrate your commitment to your religion, and deliver to the
address below, a contract legally turning posession of your worldly goods
to me, Jerry Wayne Aiken, on the aforementioned date. I'm being more than
fair- I'm waiting until *after* your prophecized "return"-- your prophecy
*is* correct, isn't it? I demand this on full authority of these quoted
verses, with failure to perform as your holy book requires, as positive
evidence of your lack of faith and commitment to your stated beliefs.
The world is watching.
[thanks to Ammond Shadowcraft]
--
Holy Temple of Mass $ >>> sl...@ncsu.edu <<< $ "My used underwear
Consumption! $ http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/ $ is legal tender in
PO Box 30904 $ users/a/aiken/htomc.html $ 28 countries!"
Raleigh, NC 27622 $ BBS: (919) 954-5028 $ --"Bob"
HazChem
I read the scientific evidence in the thread, and it was overwhelmingly in
favor of the flood never having happened. Either it never happened, or
your god covered his tracks very carefully (and then I'd have to ask why
he'd do something stupid like that.)
Floods, especially large ones, leave noticable physical evidence. I know
some geologists, I could ask them for details if you like.
On the other hand, I could (and have) show that the ark as described in
the bible isn't big enough for every species on the planet.
What scientific evidence did you claim to have again?
And what 'phrase of grammar' am I supposed to have scoffed at? All I did
was point out that you introduced an entirely non-scientific post into a
scientific discussion, and thus deserved to be flamed.
But I can't do the flaming, because my religion forbids it.
Oh, and next time TELL ME when you post and e-mail a reply, willya? I
hate writing an e-mail response and then realizing that you posted as
well.
Fridrik Skulason
> Sorry if some of you don't agree with you No flood theology, but there is
> too much biblical evidence for it.
Too bad it is only evidence that the individuals quoted (or those
that put words in their mouths) believed in a flood...not evidence
that a global flood actually took place - and real evidence for that is
non-existant.
-frisk
--
Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-5-617273
Author of F-PROT E-mail: fr...@complex.is fax: +354-5-617274
frank dever
ai...@unity.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) wrote:
Come on, aren't you being just a little bit hard on the boy?
He's just learning to write like Ambose Bierce or Lenny Bruce. Some
day, he'll be a big star. When you were 13, didn't you know any kids
like that?
>
>
>[thanks to Ammond Shadowcraft]
>--
>
>Holy Temple of Mass $ >>> sl...@ncsu.edu <<< $ "My used underwear
> Consumption! $ http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/ $ is legal tender in
>PO Box 30904 $ users/a/aiken/htomc.html $ 28 countries!"
>Raleigh, NC 27622 $ BBS: (919) 954-5028 $ --"Bob"
-----
frank dever
st...@ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> bleated:
>
>(newsgroups snipped)
<bleating>
How about some imagination? If you must tromp them down and
beat them, can't you at least show some style? And not simply
mean-spirited - but sophisticated. Show how much deeper and richer the
truth you live with is than the lies of everyone else.
We need to see the light, and you seem to stand right in the
light, so that we can't see it. What is it that characterizes the best
in man?
-frank
Eolai
Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
>> Sorry if some of you don't agree with you No flood theology, but there is
>> two much biblical evidence for it.
>>
>> --
>> see ya,
>> karl
>> *****************************************
>> For since the creation of the world
>> His invisible attributes,
>> His eternal power and devine nature,
>> have been clearly seen,
>> being understood through what has been made,
>> so they are without excuse.
>> Romans 1:20
Biblical Evidence is an oxymoron. Biblical hearsay is the
entire content of the Bible. Not a single bit of it is proof
of anything. It is a series of stories supposedly told to an
isolated individual and retold to another individual ad
infinitum and centuries later writen down by another
hearsay recorder. Later it is translated under the
influence of Kings, tyrants, fools, and scholars making it
utterly unreliable.
Eolai
Dante F LeVally
Christendom's churches got involved in World War II (and all other wars
for that matter) because they violated what Jesus said at John 17:16:
'my disciples are no part of the world'. The churches supported
whatever political nation they existed under. After all, Nazi Germany
was Catholic. So you had German Catholics killing American Catholics.
And vice versa. True Christians? Protestants were no better. National
God was put ahead of allegiance to Christ and His Kingdom.
(John 13:34,35; John 18:36) Revelation chapters 17 and 18 describe, in
symbol, all false religion as a whore named "Babylon the Great". All
the blood spilled throughout history is blamed on her.
Read Revelation 18:24. So, in view of Christendom's actions during war
she can be seen to be an apostate form of Christianity, not Bible
Christianity.
Jesus' true followers do not take up arms and kill their brothers of
another nationality. (Matthew 26:52) Where are true Christians then? A
prophecy at Micah 4:1-5 foretold they would exist in our time. Those
verses say these true Christians 'would learn war no more'. Who are
they? See Psalm 83:18 and Acts 15:14 in the King James Version. The
only group I know of that does not kill is Jehovah's Witnesses. Do you
know of another group that upholds Christian love and that does so 'in
the name of Jehovah'. (Micah 4:5)
Dante
Stix
frank dever wrote:
>st...@ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>>Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> bleated:
>>
>>(newsgroups snipped)
> <bleating>
> How about some imagination? If you must tromp them down and
>beat them, can't you at least show some style?
Err, style according to whom, Frank? Imagination according to whom?
I thought my article fulfilled its purpose quite nicely. If you hadn't snipped
my comments in their entirety you may have been able to demonstrate the
alleged error of my ways by posting a paragraph or two of your own that you
consider stylish and imaginative.
> And not simply mean-spirited - but sophisticated.
How about a mixture of both? Oh, whoops, I already did that.
> Show how much deeper and richer the
>truth you live with is than the lies of everyone else.
Did that, too.
>We need to see the light, and you seem to stand right in the
>light, so that we can't see it. What is it that characterizes the best
>in man?
Neat analogy. Mind explaining what it has to do with me or my post?
That which characterizes the best in a man is a matter of subjective opinion.
Some consider charity a noble trait, some consider altruism abhorrent. Much
like beauty, "what characterizes the best in a man" is in the eye of the
beholder.
>I'm always right. Even when I'm wrong.
>How can that be? It's a miracle!
......hate to burst your bubble, BUT........
Michael D. Painter
Wayne Aiken <ai...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in article <4uo2u3$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>...
> Eliyehowah (eli...@execpc.com) wrote:
[snip]
> With all of the readers of this newsgroup as my witnesses, I challenge you
> to demonstrate your commitment to your religion, and deliver to the
> address below, a contract legally turning posession of your worldly goods
> to me, Jerry Wayne Aiken, on the aforementioned date. I'm being more than
> fair- I'm waiting until *after* your prophecized "return"-- your prophecy
> *is* correct, isn't it? I demand this on full authority of these quoted
> verses, with failure to perform as your holy book requires, as positive
> evidence of your lack of faith and commitment to your stated beliefs.
>
> The world is watching.
>
>
> [thanks to Ammond Shadowcraft]
> --
>
> Holy Temple of Mass $ >>>
sl...@ncsu.edu <<< $ "My used underwear
> Consumption! $ http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/ $ is legal tender in
> PO Box 30904 $ users/a/aiken/htomc.html $ 28 countries!"
> Raleigh, NC 27622 $ BBS: (919) 954-5028 $ --"Bob"
You will have to stand in line for the money, many others have asked first. He won't even promise to stop jabbering if the day after comes.
Eliyahweh
> On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Eliyehowah wrote:
> > Argue til you are blue. But Jesus said that if you dont beleive his words
> > then you wont believe when the dead return who experienced these realities
> > on planet Earth.
Leo Mauler wrote:
> Jesus didn't say anything about the Flood being real.
> > There WAS a Flood, it WAS global.
> Well, there was a flood, small "f", in the Mediterannean some time ago,
> probably before the time Genesis came into existence. Not a global
> flood, but enough to freak out the locals into writing a Global Flood
> Myth. Incidentally, the Babylonians came up with the Flood Myth before
> the Hebrews, and their Ark was bigger! Nyah Nyah Nyah! :)
The real Flood was 2370 BC, but is recorded for us by Moses when he
was 80 and Egypt in the 1513 BC Exodus. The Gilgamesh story is from
before this Exodus. It was written when Peleg (Mesanipada founder of Ur)
died so that king Gilgemesh of Erech ran to Ararat and then Kttim to find
Noah (Utu-Napishtim) who was 940 years old in 2030 BC. The first Gilgamesh
tablet was broken and it was Gilgamesh that scholars presumed built the ark.
Only copies of Gilgamesh after 2020 BC are found...this is because scholars
have found older copies of Babylon's Xisuthros than Gilgamesh. They presume
Gilgamesh refers to dead Noah. Thus both stories could only have been written
after NOah's death in 2020 BC. HOWEVER this is WRONG. The Gilgamesh stroy
was altered to fit 2970 BC as the Flood and this placed Gilgamesh as dying
centuries AFTER Noah when the biblical truth is that Gilgamesh was of the
generations who were so confused about why they were dying before our father
Noah does. So the Gilgamesh story is OLDER than the BABYLON story, as is
the original biblical story though not saved as text until the 1513 BC Exodus.
> When all the available evidence says there wasn't a Flood, its very
> difficult to seek to prove something for which there is no evidence! Do
> you defy the existence of Yggdrasil? Why, when you could attempt to use
> all the technology to prove it? Never mind, you shall answer to Odin if
> he comes back and you don't believe. :)
This is where you do not see that I do accept that all false religion comes
from a true source. I dont presume that some story of Babel means that
all false relgion was fabricated out of direct lies with no origin but NImrod
and his lets go build a tower. Example: Vishnu in Aramaic means
V=exalted; ish = man; Nu= Noah thus Vishnu equated as being the spirit
who brought man thru a 3102 BC Flood (Hindu) is actually Noah presumed
to have gone to heaven. Thus the real fabricated concept of Vishnu could not
exist before Noah's death in 2020 BC. Babylon' Xisuthros claims Noah went up
to heaven immediately after the Flood (not living 350 years more)...clear
evidence supporting Hindu reason for sticking Vishnu right into the Flood.
Eliyahweh
frank dever wrote:
> If you would use your mind, you would be able to see that even
> YOU are nothing more than a man in a story to everyone who reads about
> you, or reads your messages. You could be a program or the writings of
> a prisoner in a state penitentiary who is preteding to be a Christian.
> Things you say are true may be picked up by someone and repeated and
> people could believe what you say. But it will all be nothing more
> than what is heard... Even when you talk to someone in person, you
> don't really know them... you just know what you perceive of what they
> project.
> The REALITY of the people in a story aren't important. It is
> what you BELIEVE about that reality that makes all the difference. If
> you are satisfied that something happened "for real," that doesn't
> make you a better person. It's whether you believe that loving God
> above all things and your neighbor as yourself is absolutely true or
> not that matters.
real life & death Flood means real life & death Armageddon.
Dont give me a hope to make me feel good,
by me believing before I die that doing things will save me,
when those things will not save me.
The false hopes in any field permit fleecing (rape).
Schools fleece and rape like churches do.
Hospitals and doctors fleece and rape like churches do.
Commerce fleeces and rapes as churches do.
Every field uses people thru false hopes.
Sell them what they want, not what is true, nor what they need.
I'm sorry but Bible stories are true so that they may be the real hopes for us.
The problem is false interpreatations of it.
Believe truth to get strength in hopes...not mere fantasies.
Catholics in Spain say an angel brought the church of James
on a cloud to there...will I actually place Bible hopes in with these
fabricated hopes. What should I hope my house is taken to OZ
if a tonado strikes with me inside !
Eliyahweh
> :>Next thing will be you telling everybody that Jesus is just a Man in a story.
> :Jesus was just a man in a story.
> :Perhaps you'd care to tell me why Apollonius is not the true savior?
> Apollonius isn't the true savior because Mithras is.
Who is Apollonius...man or god?
If he is Apollo isnt that the sun...
and if I recall God is frequently referred to our
creator and life-giver as the light from the sun is.
Eliyahweh
Roscoe A. Sincero wrote:
> He and his kind make lies such as:
> a) Mt. Ararat is the tallest mountain in the world
> b) the highest mountain during the flood was 1 mile in height
> c) the magnetic field is decaying exponentially
> d) the sun is shrinking
> e) human footprints found near dino prints at Paluxy River
> f) the fossilized feathers of Archy are forgeries
> g) Archy is 100% bird.
> h) the speed of light is decaying
> These lies are *ALL* supported by creationist liars. So it seems obvious
> that it is the creationists who have "fabricated knowledge".
For Roscoe's claim
a) false
b) nobody' knows how high mountains were before they were elevated.....
was Earth ever a global ocean...if so where were these highest mountains?
if not then what forces created this Pangaea?
c) dont know, Bible doesnt say
d) who said
e) I wouldnt be surprised this one is true,
but I know man walked with dinosaurs long before any claim to footprints
f) I dont care, but prove their not
g) I dont care, but prove it isnt
h) who says
Now everyone in this newsgroup can trust God and believe the Bible
without the required list Mr. Roscoe puts forth. In fact if you believe his list
holy you probably haven't read the actual meanings of the Bible. Roscoe does
so well speaking for ALL atheists. You atheists....do you agree with
Roscoe? Are these the required accusations that ALL atheists must hold
against those who believe the Bible? Do I have to be a creationist and believe
their views, I rather believe God and his biblical view of creation !
> The fool is correct that their are bad things occuring in the world.
> But obviously, this has nothing to do with the flood. It is also equally
> obvious that with these bad things occuring, he feels that it is more
> important to lie to people, it is more important to take advantage of
> people by lying than to do something about these "bad things".
I've gained no advantage from people for my beliefs. However, he
does. I fight for a God and for truth. What financially gives him time
to fight unless it means that society's shift in priorities will hinder
him economically should we gain a godly respect for the earth.
> The fool is more concerned with lying to people about the flood, religion
> or anything else than the well-being of humankind. That is obvious. He
> is trying to paint the picture that this unknown "botanist" cares more on
> how plants or animals survived after the flood than the well-being of
> his/her fellow human beings. At the same time, he wants us to believe
> that he cares a lot about us humans. Nothing can be further from the
> truth. When this idiot lies to us, it is obvious that he cares nothing
> about anyone but himself. He has no purpose in life but to lie and he
> found himself a newsgroup to do it in. Today it is talk.origins. Several
> months from now, it will be some other newsgroup.
Any of us can lie to ourselves. And we all propagate what we believe to others.
But lies destroy, they dont bring gain.....they only bring gain to those
who then manufacture things to support their lies. Products to improve health
their way, books to educate human behavior according to our evolution
emotions. Where is my gain. It has been all cost. Roscoe is another .edu
so ask him if he pays for his Net time as I do. Who is using your taxes?
Me or him.
Eliyahweh
Wayne Aiken wrote:
> : This is a direct WARNING of condemnation to everyone whether they ever read this notice or
> : not. The scoffers who read and laugh will face this event equally ripped apart as those both
> : atheist or religious. ONE YEAR FROM TODAY those who have not sought safety on the March
> : 23 Passover which falls on Palm Sunday will face exactly what that Palm Sunday
> : represents...the arrival of the Christ. The impact of his words, the Christ, The Prophet, the King,
> : the Savior, the second Noah and second Adam that he is and the impact he becomes when
> : only his children survive this year-long destruction of forces sweeping thru the surface of the
> : earth ripping havoc and merciless horror thru the world's societies who fail to listen or believe.
> I want to know if you are a true Christian.
God proves his Christians.
> With all of the readers of this newsgroup as my witnesses, I challenge you
> to demonstrate your commitment to your religion, and deliver to the
> address below, a contract legally turning posession of your worldly goods
> to me, Jerry Wayne Aiken, on the aforementioned date. I'm being more than
> fair- I'm waiting until *after* your prophecized "return"-- your prophecy
> *is* correct, isn't it? I demand this on full authority of these quoted
> verses, with failure to perform as your holy book requires, as positive
> evidence of your lack of faith and commitment to your stated beliefs.
> The world is watching.
I already emailed such a claim to someone
signed by my real name. Can't give the same stuff to two people.
Looks like he beat you to it.
Dont have their name or email address.
Only that one knows who he is.
And I'm good on my word.
I'm even giving what I have away now,
so there may not be anything left for Jerry the vulture.
Hey two-fang, you can quit looking for my jugular.
Wayne Aiken
Michael D. Painter (mpai...@maxinet.com) wrote:
: Wayne Aiken <ai...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in article: > With all of the readers of this newsgroup as my witnesses, I challenge
: you
: > to demonstrate your commitment to your religion, and deliver to the
: > address below, a contract legally turning posession of your worldly goods
: > to me, Jerry Wayne Aiken, on the aforementioned date. I'm being more
: than
: > fair- I'm waiting until *after* your prophecized "return"-- your prophecy
: > *is* correct, isn't it? I demand this on full authority of these quoted
: > verses, with failure to perform as your holy book requires, as positive
: > evidence of your lack of faith and commitment to your stated beliefs.
: You will have to stand in line for the money, many others have asked first.
: He won't even promise to stop jabbering if the day after comes.
Oh, I'd gladly settle for a cut of the proceeds.
But the bible verses make it *so* official. Since they're *his* rules,
its fun to pull them out and see if he'll obey them.
B
Roscoe is another .edu
>so ask him if he pays for his Net time as I do. Who is using your taxes?
>Me or him.
If you want to label groups; which part of society gave you the Net
in the first place. Edu. or you?
William Barwell
In article <320EF6...@execpc.com>, Eliyehowah <eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
>For a botanist your sure have a lot of
>"Baloney" in your replies.
I am no botanist, but I ain't ignorant either.
I am not concerned with refuting your arguments,
>my return blah de blah de blah...
Becase you cannot. So you must rant instead.
>
>A global disaster is about to wipe you out
>as a know-it-all because the real Flood story
Blah de blah de blah...
Yeah, end-o-de-world coming so you haven't git time to answer my facts.
>A mind full of your fabrications (no matter what field of school they create
>for the topic) is no more than the empty minds of those who know nothing.
A good definition of religion if you ignoe te twisted syntax.
Fabrications, pious frauds, ignorant assertions and blather.
That is religion alright.
>So since I know little (as you claim), at least it is more than you people
>and your classes of fabricated knowledge.
Fabricated knowledge = stuff I know so little about I cannot even begin
to argue with this atheist so I will pull up a soap box and rant instead.
Yadda yadda yadda....
Keep jabberin'...
A person would have to be a fool
>not to realize the amount of today's knowledge fabricated.
Like yiour religion. All of it. Check teh four gosples and see how
transparent it's fabrications are as proven by it's brazen contradictions
and four mutually dsctructive tall tales.
How many women went to the tomb? One, two, 5 or more?
Did Mary Magdalene run and tell two apostles or did they flee and tell no
man?
Books filled with lies fabricated by men dressing up bare boned rumors with
colorful lies they made up to gussy up these rumors to ressemble facts..
Lies, all lies. Fabricated like every other foolish myth fabricated by
ignorant religious fanatics.
********* ignorant tripe deleted **********
Testing the Bible FAQ
Christianity is one of the few religions that can actually be tested
scientifically. Testing claims is the very essence of science and is
why science works so well. Testing discards errors.
The New Testament represents Jesus as making claims that can readily be
tested. Below are four NT texts that are testable, and that fail such
testing, showing that Christianity cannot be true.
*******************************************************************
Mark 11:22-3
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have Faith in God.
23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this
mountain, be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and
shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that these
things he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever
he saith.
Jesus promises obvious and spectacular miracle working abilities to
those who 'shall not doubt in his heart'. But it does not work.
Nobody gets 'whatever he saith' merely from lacking doubt.
Nobody moves mountains or similar such tricks.
********************************************************************
Matthew 21:21
21 And all things, whatsoever you ask in prayer, believing, you shall
recieve.
Nobody gets all they ask in prayer, as promised by Jesus.
*********************************************************************
John 14:12-14
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works
that I do shall he do also; and greater works shall he do; because
I go unto my Father.
13 And whatever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, that the Father
may be glorified in the son.
14 If ye ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Nobody changes water to wine, finds his tax money in a fish, feeds
thousands with a few fishes and loaves, walks on water. Much
less betters these works. Nobody gets 'whatever ye shall ask'
despite this promise, even asking in the name of Jesus.
***********************************************************************
Matthew 18:18-19
19 Verily I say unto you, if two of you shall agree on earth as
touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them
of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the
midst of them.
No two Christians get 'any thing they shall ask' despite this solemn
promise from Jesus.
***********************************************************************
These are easily testable and unmistakable promises from Jesus,
alledged son of God, as found readily in the New Testament.
These promises are not attainable. Thus Jesus was wrong, the New Testament
is wrong, all of Christianity is based on errors.
If one cannot trust the solemn promises of Jesus that can readily be tested,
obviously, nobody can trust those not so readibly testable, such as the
existance of heaven or the claim only through Jesus can one get there.
Seeing how badly readily testable claims of Jesus fail, it is safe to
assume all other promises are equally false, equally erroneous.
Christianity is simply another superstition, nothing more.
These simple verses, easily tested, prove it.
William C. Barwell 4-6-96
************************************************************************
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <abergman-120...@remote4-line24.cis.yale.edu>,
Aaron Bergman <aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>In article <4umbmb$r...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu
>(Micheal Keane) wrote:
>
>:In article <ksjj-11089...@abe-ppp344.fast.net>,
>:ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>:
>:Jesus was just a man in a story.
>:
>:Perhaps you'd care to tell me why Apollonius is not the true savior?
>
>Apollonius isn't the true savior because Mithras is.
>
>
No, it's all about "Bob". Goosh!
It's a squirting Universe all right!
William Barwell
Think of the many parasites, worms, disease causing bacteria,
fungal infections and other nasties that only plague homo sapiens.
Noah and his family were the only vectors for these things.
What a miserable, disease ridden bunch they must have been.
Austin Cline
What flood?
I haven't seen any evidence of a flood.
And do you always make innane subject lines for the posts you write -
subject lines which don't accurately reflect the topic of the post?
Austin Cline; German Department; Princeton University
--- Man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him his
longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born of this
confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the
world.
[Albert Camus; The Myth of Sisyphus, p. 29]
Jim Mckenna
Eliyahweh <eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Wayne Aiken wrote:
>> : This is a direct WARNING of condemnation to everyone whether they ever read this notice or
>> : not. The scoffers who read and laugh will face this event equally ripped apart as those both
>> : atheist or religious. ONE YEAR FROM TODAY those who have not sought safety on the March
>> : 23 Passover which falls on Palm Sunday will face exactly what that Palm Sunday
>> : represents...the arrival of the Christ. The impact of his words, the Christ, The Prophet, the King,
>> : the Savior, the second Noah and second Adam that he is and the impact he becomes when
>> : only his children survive this year-long destruction of forces sweeping thru the surface of the
>> : earth ripping havoc and merciless horror thru the world's societies who fail to listen or believe.
Where did we get this date from? Can anyone tell me?
John Solder
>
> God proves his Christians.
>
> > to demonstrate your commitment to your religion, and deliver to the
> > address below, a contract legally turning posession of your worldly goods
> > to me, Jerry Wayne Aiken, on the aforementioned date. I'm being more than
> > fair- I'm waiting until *after* your prophecized "return"-- your prophecy
> > *is* correct, isn't it? I demand this on full authority of these quoted
> > verses, with failure to perform as your holy book requires, as positive
> > evidence of your lack of faith and commitment to your stated beliefs.
>
> I already emailed such a claim to someone
> signed by my real name. Can't give the same stuff to two people.
> Looks like he beat you to it.
> Dont have their name or email address.
> Only that one knows who he is.
> And I'm good on my word.
> I'm even giving what I have away now,
> so there may not be anything left for Jerry the vulture.
> Hey two-fang, you can quit looking for my jugular.
Eliyehowah wrote: 8/7/96
:Cant imagine what kind of pleasure a man would get to
:obtain all the belongings of those entering the kingdom.
:Certainly 6 months later with all that wealth (he refers to as a camel)
:he would bring his death upon himself when the public ravages
:these things from him in the disaster while real Christians who
:heeded warning have left town. I swear to all that he can have my
:belongings from September until he dies in March. The belongings
:wont help anyone...then too a distaster that hits the whole planet
:also ends all debt for those who survive.
:You must be the guy with the steel-cutters who stole
:my bike last week from my back yard. I should just charge
:your state bank again on my credit card. You can take over my debt,
:12 cards $35,000.....it's already your money spent.
John Solder wrote: 8/5/96
> Since there is widespread belief of an impending
> "re-orientation" of humanity by the return of God in 1997
> I would like to offer my help to believers.
> Since it would be impossible for a person of "physical" wealth
> to enter the kingdom of God, (the camel/eye-of-the-needle thing)
> I am offering to unburden true believers of worldly goods that
> would otherwise hinder their ascention.
> These worldly goods may include, but are not limited to,
> homes,jewlery, precious metals, stocks,bonds,cars,boats,
> businesses or hard currency.
> I am willing to start as soon as possible.
> Don't wait till the last minute.
> email me directly for more information.
Jerry Wayne Aiken, As you can plainly see Eliyehowah has already sworn (to God I assume)
that I can have all his camels.
So "Jerry the vulture", don't usurp my offer. I am still willing to sacrifice myself
so the true believers can attain rapture. Send ME your goods.
P.S. Eliyehowah, I have not recieved your goods yet, I hope your "swearing" was genuine.
A non-fearing Atheist
Eliyahweh
>> Now everyone in this newsgroup can trust God and believe the Bible
>> without the required list Mr. Roscoe puts forth. In fact if you believe his list
>It is real funny to see a loser like you talk about things you absolutely
>know nothing about.
You attack me as perhaps Catholic when Im Baptist, or as Jewish when Im
Pentecostal...better get your binoculars or wait til your off the horizon
before you cry out Oasis or Land Ho.
>For instance, concerning the Mt. Ararat claim, a fellow creationist here
>in Annapolis (he can be reached at the following number:410-360-4197, that
>is the number for his bulletin board system.) claimed a few years ago that
>Mt. Ararat was the tallest mountain in the world. I mentioned this
>several times before in this newsgroup but I will assume that you weren't
>around at the time.
He is NOT my fellow creationist...and I presume he is NOT yours since
you knock me as ONE of them.
>As for (b) on the list above, your creationist pal Karl Crawford here in
>talk.origins just a couple of months ago claimed that the highest mountain
>was only 1 mile high.
Mount Everest is 29,000 ft divided by 5280 feet per mile.
However, gravity is not equal because the highest mountain from earth's center
as revealed by satellite measurements is in South America. Further, oceans
are not level...the Pacific Panama is higher than the Atlantic Panama.
Oceans flow as rivers because they are seeking a level that evaporation and
precipitation never permit them to reach. I'm no dummy. I just skip a lot
of words when typing.
>As for (c), creationist "physicist" Thomas Barnes since the 1970's
>claimed that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially.
I worship God by believing God and his Bible according to accurate
scientific explanations and NOT of creationists who wish to be the
revelator of all discovered things. I never sought to discover what I
have discovered...and many times it has been a pain to know truth and
yet not know how to convey it.
>As for (d), the sun oscillates -- it grows big then shrinks, grows big,
>then shrinks, grows big, then shrinks, grows big, then shrinks, grows big,
>then shrinks, grows big, then shrinks, grows big, then shrinks, grows big,
>then shrinks, grows big, then shrinks, grows big, then shrinks . . . Are
>you still lost? Your creationist friends only mention the shrinking part.
You attempt to propagate (as in propaganda...defined for your benefit)
your desire to peg me as a creationist as the first step to winning
an argument NOT with truth but by political mud slinging. The above discription
sounds more like your sex life. No Im not lost, says you tried 10 times.
>As for (e), your pals at ICR claimed for a long time that "human"
>footprints were found side-by-side with dino prints
Gee, I got so many pals and friends could you ask them to call.
My phone never rings. Its always my girl asking me what I want for dinner
this time. PS. you think they'll finance my $35,000 debt or get me a job.
>As for (f), the feathers were not forgeries and that has been a known fact
>for a long time.
You are fighting me on a thread I started. Your intrusion has brought
in a relgious sect called creationists of whom all Christians should not
be judged as agreeing with their claims.
>As for (g), Archy has a pubic peduncle and abdominal ribs.
Cross features is NOT evolution. Several mammals do lay eggs.
They got ribs too...but this doesnt mean they evolved.
>As for (h), Scoffield (excuse me, I don't remember his last name but he
>was an Australian astronomer) claims that the speed of light is decaying.
Why must I listen to all these rebukes you have of others...none of which
are my claims. You are like those gang bangs they speak of. When you find out
the one your banging is not a no-good hooker but someone's daughter, or
not a homo but some passerby...you continue banging so you can rant on
in the victim's ear how much you hate the hookers and gays. HOPE THE ANALOGY
IS NOT TO DEEP FOR YOU. No trash-pun intended, but rather everyone seems to
think Im always cryptic or babbling.
>Your attempts at lying to people gives you some sort of satisfaction.
>I will give an example. Serial killers murder people. I bet you are too
>stupid to know that. What satisfaction do they get? They certainly are
>not getting any money for it. They get joy and a sense of power in
>torturing and killing their victims.
>You are a "serial liar". You derive great pleasure in annoying people
>with your lies as well as derive great pleasure in convincing a gullible
>person that you are telling the truth. There is nothing anyone can do to
>stop you from lying and you know it. All we can do is react to your lies
>but we can not stop you from lying. That gives you a sense of power
>knowing that you can say whatever you want. You are not fooling me loser.
>I know people like you. In fact, that is one of the reasons I made my web
>page in the first place. I want to educate people that there are losers
>like you out there in the world.
So who are you, George Costanza or Cosmo Kramer? You should join the losers.
People appear to like to watch that stuff. Or hear it.
>> > The fool is more concerned with lying to people about the flood, religion
>> > or anything else than the well-being of humankind. That is obvious. He
>> > is trying to paint the picture that this unknown "botanist" cares more on
>> > how plants or animals survived after the flood than the well-being of
>> > his/her fellow human beings. At the same time, he wants us to believe
>> > that he cares a lot about us humans. Nothing can be further from the
>> > truth. When this idiot lies to us, it is obvious that he cares nothing
>> > about anyone but himself. He has no purpose in life but to lie and he
>> > found himself a newsgroup to do it in. Today it is talk.origins. Several
>> > months from now, it will be some other newsgroup.
>> Any of us can lie to ourselves. And we all propagate what we believe to others.
>> But lies destroy, they dont bring gain.....they only bring gain to those
>> who then manufacture things to support their lies. Products to improve health
>> their way, books to educate human behavior according to our evolution
>> emotions. Where is my gain. It has been all cost. Roscoe is another .edu
>> so ask him if he pays for his Net time as I do. Who is using your taxes?
>> Me or him.
>Now you are asking as to whether or not I am paying for my "Net time".
>Now idiot, why don't you explain to us what that has to do with anything.
>It is simply more deception on your part. And to answer your stupid
>question, do you know that people pay tuition to go to college. I do not
>get any form of financial aid from the gov't. Two thousand dollars per
>semester is far more than you pay for your net access loser.
>As as for the gain you get, that is obvious. You derive great joy in
>misleading people and annoying those who know the truth. You are a loser,
>a bona-fide loser. You cloak your deception with religion but I have seen
>losers like you before.
Those with the biggest mouths and promises usually have others
financing them as in any political campaign. This includes educators.
My girl is a teacher and she has been given three computers...
says none are hers, they belong to the school. The point is THEY
cost the school...and ALL three are more at her access than the children's.
One of them being at HOME for home use as a teacher.
I went to a university to apply and enroll...and they said they offered
no info on what courses could be planned as a goal unless you apply and
enroll first......their pocket is all they look at.
You rant lose lose lose, loser loser, loser
Im surprised your school board doesnt catch you on the net
and remove you from .edu that they pay for. You stain their
reputation. I would never go to their school.
>=======================================================================>Roscoe A. Sincero
>B.S. Chemical Engineering, May 1993 University of Maryland College Park
>Job Seeker
>e-mail: leg...@eng.umd.edu
>WWW: http://www.glue.umd.edu/~legion
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1761
> http://www.gaianet.net/~legion
>Honorary Faculty Member of University of Ediacara
> - Professor of Creative Non Sequitur Engineering
> - Thomas Barnes Chair of Philosophy
>
>Research Interests: Analytical Modelling of Rectum Tunneling Effect on
> the Creationist Mind and Its Effect on the Second Law
>
> Second Law Efficiency of Nostril Mining and Digging In
> Relation to Creationist Thought Processes
Eliyahweh
>Becker, B., Kromer, B., and Trimborn P., 1991, A stable-isotope
> tree-ring timescale of the Late Glacial/Holocene boundary:
> Nature, vol. 353 (17 Oct 1991), 647-649.
>
>Edwards, R. L., Beck, J. W., Burr, G. S., Donahue, D. J.,
> Chappell, J. M. A., Bloom, E. R. M., Druffel, E. R. M.,
> Taylor, F. W., 1993, A large drop in atmospheric 14-C/12-C
> and reduced melting in the Younger Dryas*, documented with
> 230-Th ages in corals: Science, vol. 260 (14 May 1993),
>(Abstracts follow my signature.)
>The punch line is that C14 dating has been absolutely
>calibrated back to 13,000 years before the present using tree
>ring and U-Th data, providing both known values of the actual C14/C12 ratios,
>as well as correction tables for obtaining precise absolute dates
>from C14 dates for this period.
AGAIN all these tree-ring dates are used because they are not happy
with the Egyptian C-14 dates which they insist must be stretched 720 years
back to fit the Turin Papyrus canon (Septuagint Bible) instead of the Hebrew Genesis. The
C-14 of Egypt already fits the span between 2370 BC Flood
and 2000 BC without the tree-rings. But Egyptologists demanded Egypts
epoch as 3090 BC. (Claiming Thoth was always the first month.)
The Flood's C-14 shift of 20,000 years causes all things which C-14 date
as 13,000 years (in the 20,000 - 2270 BC range ...without using the
tree-rings as a supposed correction) to fall in the 100 years
from Flood 2370 BC to 2270 BC. The suicide pits of Ur are dated
as 2030 BC of those the Bible says are 240 years old (Peleg).
It is absolute foolishness to attempt a study on what may be a planet
one light year away while knowing little about planets orbiting our
sun. So too C-14 of ancient seas and corals and ice caps are the far
distant unknowns for a modern culture who has yet to get the human
history correct. Egypt's epoch is 2370 BC not 3090 BC, and Mena creating
the Pharaoh is NOT 3090 BC nor T.Papyrus canon's 2740 BC, but 2020 BC
when Noah died. C-14 agrees but unhappy Egyptologists insist on
their tree-ring corrections. You scholars, give some dates without the tree-rings. I have a
whole book of charts made by the Nobel symposium
12 in Uppsala Sweden verifying that tree-rings are used to add this
720 years.
PS. about 5 years per 1000
20,000 BP is equivalent to a biblical 2370 BC...the Flood.
13,000 BP is equivalent to a biblical 2335 BC...34 years after the Flood.
10,000 BP is equivalent to a biblical 2320 BC...50 years after the Flood.
when the Ice Age receded off Arizona and Wisconsin.
5,000 BP is equivalent to a biblical 2295 BC...75 years after the Flood.
4,220 BP is equivalent to a biblical 2270 BC..100 years after the Flood.
Tree-rings take the 4220 years (2270 BC) and add 720 years to make 2990 BC
so as to make Egyptologists happy. If the tree-rings are correct at all
what they show is that an Ice cap so close to Arizona,. and a planet
wiped clear of vegetation by a Flood leaving arid land under a new sun...
resulted in free-flowing weather producing multiple winters and multiple rings
in single years. Further...no species of pine does produce equal tree-ring
sizes for the same year...tree-ring size is dependent not merely on
the rainfall that year but also where the specific tree's roots are
located at to absorb water. The researchers DO NOT tell you how
some rings date younger than the outer newer rings. They PRESUME this
as laboratory contamination, though the Bible would indicate by rapid increase
of C-14 that warm air mass and cold air mass did not have the same levels of C-14. So the
Bible solves the C-14 problems which researchers PRESUME
have other answers more REASONABLE to them. Like one church believing
they are more reasonable than another. Anyone care to join the Church of
Evolution, or the Church of Tree Rings !
Eliyahweh
>Greetings Elijah,
>Thanks for the rapid reply. I think your explanation is
>interesting, and no doubt, you have powerful reasons for your
>beliefs. However, please note that scientists have very good reasons
>of their own for the things that they believe, but not one
>of these is an anti-Christian or anti-God sentiment.
>
>What counts the most in science is physical evidence. The reason
>the Flood was abandoned as an explanation of geologic phenomena
>is the simple fact that if you try to fit the observations of
>stratigraphy (the observed sequence of rock units) anywhere in
>the world, with a Flood model, you get massive contradictions.
>On the surface, the explanation of geologic processes by a
>"big Flood" may seem to be reasonable, but it simply does not
>work if you try to apply it in practice--it yields nothing
>but contradictions.
If the Flood had been real, imagine the challenge and the amazing
important laws of physics learned when a long search of several centuries
finally explains how it was so. The first plane didnt fly, what
makes you think the first Flood models will float.
I have been blessed in my chronological efforts to find out how
all cultures developed their chronology. This blessing of
discovery, makes it apparent the Flood was exactly so.
Not just local, but requiring the C-14 curve to agree with it,
and further to explain how Nimrod died at 500 in 1770 BC.