Genesis Question
Azox
Are stories in Genesis of the Bible myth or historical fact? And are
there any published writings about this subject that gives proof either
way?
Pawel
Uzytkownik "Azox" <Az...@webtv.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:23369-3B...@storefull-286.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Hello Everyone.
>
> Are stories in Genesis of the Bible myth or historical fact?
YES. For example Noe build too small ship to take dinosaurus. Thats why they
do not survive.
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
myth.
Not directy related...but try http://www.talkorigins.org anyway.
Best Regards,
Dave
--
**************************************************************
* Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young-Earth Creationism *
* http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/supernova.html *
**************************************************************
Azox
Paul Barton
other religious books:
1. Humans have existed for more than one million years
The Genisis story places humans as being created about six thousand
years ago based on a calculation by an English Bishop, Bishop Cowther.
2. There were great civilizations that existed before Egypt, including
the Great West African civilization called 'The Zingh Empire," whose
territory included much of the continent of Africa and the parts of the
Middle East/ The standard of the Zingh Empire was red, black and green
According to the European point of view, civilization began with the
Greeks or Jews.
3. The bible came from a number of Great African historical texts
written as early as 10,000 years before Christ. Among these are the
DEVINE PYMINDER, THE KABALION, THE BOOK OF ANI, THE BOOK OF THE COMING
FORTH BY DAY and others...The Bible and the Jewish texts are copies of
these books which were passed to Egypt by the civilization that existed
long before Egypt.
The bible is thumped about and called "the word of God," and every
sunday, millions of Christians sink it in without any question about the
various interpretations of this sacred book
4. According to people who had prehistoric civilizations in the Sahara
and parts of Africa. Although there was a flood, it did not affect the
entire world, only the northern regions. The lands south of the Sahara
and in the Southern regions were dry for tens of thousands of years and
had no great icecap that melted thus causing flooding. THE SAHARA WAS
FILLED WITH WATER ABOUT 20,000 YEARS AGO AND WAS CRISS-CROSSED BY GREAT
SHIPS, INCLUDING SOME THAT SAILED TO THE AMERICAS (see
http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempre (Olmec Civilization)
5. The socalled "curse of Ham" is another GREAT RACIST LIE found in the
Bible. In fact, Noah, whose Egyptian name "nuach" means drunk, could
not curse Ham, so he cursed CANAAN, A SON OF HAM.
Yet, Canaan developed the maritime culture aroud the Mediterranean and
after years of spreading out, the Canaanites mixed with the later
Caucasian peoples from North Eastern Europe to create the olive-skinned
brown-eyed, brown-haired peoples of the Mediterranean. THE ONLY PURE
BLACKS DESCENDED FROM THE CANAANITES LIVING TODAY ARE THE "BLACK
PALESTINIANS' OF GAZA, WHO ARE CALLED, "THE TRIBE OF ASWAD."
6. The pyramids were not built by Jews or Hebrews, they were built and
designed by the Africans of Egypt, who were paid workers. The Jews
arrived in Egypt with the Hyksos about 1700 B.c., however most of the
Pyramids were build as early as the 2000-3000 B.c., rhe Sphynx with the
head of one of Egypt's Negro Pharaohs, Pharaoh Khufu, is about 10,000
years old.
One misunderstanding in the bible is that any criminal, hater and
wrongdoer can go to heaven as long as he/she "accepts Christ." THIS
GREAT LIE IS BELIEVED BY MANY EVIL PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY CAN COMMIT EVIL
ALL THIER LIVES AND JUST SAY, "I BELIEVE IN CHRIST AS MY SAVIOR," AND
ALL IS FORGOTTEN.
Well that is totally false and is nothing but a slavemaster's trick.
They wanted to make people believe they could treat Africans like
animals and simply accept Christ to assure their way to heaven.
ACCEPTING CHRIST WILL NOT GURANTEE GOING TO HEAVEN
Yet, what is said is that sinners must repent, make amends, atone and
change their evil ways along with accepting Christ before any
consideration will be given them.
This is one of the reasons why MANY CHRISTIANS ARE BORN AGAIN HATERS,
RACISTS AND EVIL. The idea that t;hey will go to heaven after
committing henious crimes against other people is NOTHING BUT A
BOLDFACED LIE. THEY WILL GO STRAIGHT TO HELL AND ANSWER TO THEIR GOD IF
THEY DO NOT MAKE AMENDS AND ATONE FOR THEIR SINS RIGHT HERE ON EARTH.
Nubi...@webtv.net
http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire
www.raceandhistory.com
Mr. Frink
wrote:
>Genisis is s myth and so are any of the texts written in the bible and
>other religious books:
>
>1. Humans have existed for more than one million years
>
>The Genisis story places humans as being created about six thousand
>years ago based on a calculation by an English Bishop, Bishop Cowther.
>
>2. There were great civilizations that existed before Egypt, including
>the Great West African civilization called 'The Zingh Empire," whose
>territory included much of the continent of Africa and the parts of the
>Middle East/ The standard of the Zingh Empire was red, black and green
I've never heard of it. Where was this great civilizations capital? What happen
to this civilization.
>According to the European point of view, civilization began with the
>Greeks or Jews.
Try Sumerian.
>3. The bible came from a number of Great African historical texts
>written as early as 10,000 years before Christ. Among these are the
>DEVINE PYMINDER, THE KABALION, THE BOOK OF ANI, THE BOOK OF THE COMING
>FORTH BY DAY and others...The Bible and the Jewish texts are copies of
>these books which were passed to Egypt by the civilization that existed
>long before Egypt.
So in 10,000 BC black Africans had mastered the art of writing. Why don't you
enlighten us as to the form of writing used, what it was recorded on, and where
it was found.
>The bible is thumped about and called "the word of God," and every
>sunday, millions of Christians sink it in without any question about the
>various interpretations of this sacred book
>
>4. According to people who had prehistoric civilizations in the Sahara
>and parts of Africa. Although there was a flood, it did not affect the
>entire world, only the northern regions.
Ah, you must have interpreted the writing to know this.
> The lands south of the Sahara
>and in the Southern regions were dry for tens of thousands of years and
>had no great icecap that melted thus causing flooding. THE SAHARA WAS
>FILLED WITH WATER ABOUT 20,000 YEARS AGO AND WAS CRISS-CROSSED BY GREAT
>SHIPS, INCLUDING SOME THAT SAILED TO THE AMERICAS (see
>http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempre (Olmec Civilization)
Unless you can come up with some solid factual proof I'll have to write this off
as "Black fantasy".
"To expect a man to retain everything that he has
ever read is like expecting him to carry about in
his body everything that he has ever eaten."
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
Rodger Dusatko
relationship with God. Moses very possibly received the geneologies from
Abraham, who himself lived at the same time as Noah lived. Noah's father was
alive before Adam died.
The records of Noah's Arch are not a myth, but rather a record of events.
Myths are not records, where the exact amount of days is mentioned again and
again.
Examples:
Gen 7,10 As soon as the seven days were over, the waters of the flood came
upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the
seventeenth day of the month: it was on that day that
All the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of
the sky were opened.
5 The waters continued to diminish until the tenth month, and on the first
day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains appeared.
Many of the places mentioned in Genesis exist today. (Bethel, pitching his
tent with Bethel to the west and Ai,
11,31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot, son of
Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son
Abram, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to go to
the land of Canaan. But when they reached Haran, they settled
there.
Abraham, Isaac and Jakob are the fathers of the jewish people.
Throughout the world there are seashells on mountains. There are huge
graveyards of corpses of animals frozen in the north pole, some still with
food in their bellys. The fossil record indicated clearly catastropie, not
naturally under normal conditions. In fact, under normal conditions it is
rare that a fossil forms. They must be enveloped in mud to form, which was
the case with the flood of Noah.
If you don't believe in the God of Israel, who also foretold in many places
in Genesis about the comming of the Messiah (Abraham attempted to sacrifice
his son at the same place where Jesus was offered about 1600 years later,
etc.)., then Genesis is just myth. If, however, you are jewish or believe in
Jesus Christ, then the book of Genesis is true and the foundation of many of
the other books of the bible (Abraham is mentioned again and again in the
jewish scriptures throughout their history as very matter of fact. Also
Moses, David, Solomon, etc. There are also from other cultures mention of
these men having lived. Some of the kings of Israel are found in the
babylonian chronicles. The story of Noah is known in many cultures, however
they changed the name of Noah to meet a name in their own culture
(babylonian, Vietnam, etc.) After almost 4000 years there are many who do
not believe the story. But any historical knowledge over 2000 years old has
a certain amount of uncertainity.
I didn't believe in anything in the Bible until I had my first experiences
with the Holy Spirit and began to experience Jesus Christ. Before this time
I believed in Evolution. If you believe in Evolution then the bible appears
as a lie, in fact Evolution is the religion of many athiests today. I
believed that 'chance' created everything. From my perspective today I can
see how my previous religion of Evolution was full of contradictions. Yet if
you don't believe in God as the creator, then you have to fight to get all
of the contradictions to fit the theory.
Rodger Dusatko
"Azox" <Az...@webtv.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:23369-3B...@storefull-286.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Tim Ingalls
find the truth about it from what anyone in this forum says (myself
included). I believe that the Bible is true but only as far as it is
translated correctly. I believe that the bulk of it is true, including
Genesis, but that the only way to find out for yourself is to read it,
ponder it, and then ask God, Himself, if what you read it true. If there
really is a God, he'll answer eventually and unmistakably. If not, well you
know what to do.
By the way, there are some other other books that corroborate the story of
Genesis, including the creation story. One of the books is from an ancient
Egyptian source. It was found in the clutches of an Egyptian mummy back in
the 1800s. It is published by the LDS Church (who purchased and translated
it) and can be found at http://scriptures.lds.org/. Look under "Pearl of
Great Price" and then under "Book of Abraham." Also part of the Pearl of
Great Price is the Book of Moses, which also contains an account of the
creation. Again, (I say this partly to stave off the predictable religious
attacks that will follow this posting) read it and pray about it to find out
for yourself. Who can challenge that approach?
I also like the way that Josephus recounts from his historical perspective
the same story of Genesis in his "Antiquities of the Jews." You can find
this online too at the Online Books Page
(http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/) if you search under Authors for
Josephus (or Flavius Josephus). One direct link is
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-pref.htm. I also find it
facsinating to read his version of how the Earth was peopled and who went
where after the Tower of Babel disaster. It's not all necessarily true, but
it is plausible.
If you are wondering, yes, I am a member of the LDS Church, and pleased to
be able to say so.
-Tim
"Azox" <Az...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23369-3B...@storefull-286.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Rodger Dusatko
> way?
There are very many writings from the jews which are very old and which
verify again and again the different happenings in Genesis. There are also
ancient writings of Historians who refer to many of these events. Of course,
the most well known is Josephus. If, however, someone doesn't wish to
believe these writings,...
An example:
Josephus, Antiquities I 1-3 (ca. 70 after Christ)
1. Now the sons of Noah were three, - Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one
hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the
mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded
others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood,
and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to
follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called
Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough
peopling of the earth, that they might not raise seditions among themselves,
but might cultivate a great part of the earth, and enjoy its fruits after a
plentiful manner. But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey
God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by
experience, of what sin they had been guilty: for when they flourished with
a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they,
imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God,
but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful
condition they were in, did not obey him. Nay, they added to this their
disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore
ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they
might the more easily be Oppressed.
He mentions many times in his writings events in Genesis, always as matter
of fact. However, since he was not there, he was basing his statements on
what the Jewish people at his time believed.
There are many other ancient writings mentioning the events in Genesis, but
they are jewish. Also, Jesus himself, himself being jewish, often refered to
events in Genesis, always as if they were facts and not myths.
Matt 8,11 (Jesus) I say to you, *many will come from the east and the west,
and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the
banquet in the kingdom of heaven,...
Also, all of the Apostles and leaders of the Jewish people refer to Abraham
and Noah as really existing and not just myths. The jewish writings are read
mainly by jews today (written in Hebrew), and taught in their schools. But
everyone on the complete earth can get a bible in their own language. The
Jews still believe that this is their 'history book' and the christians also
refer to the God of the Jews, the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob as being
their own God, as Isaiah foretold. You will find most all christians for the
jews, supporting them and believing their writings. If this is not the case
they are themselves destroying their own foundation. As Moses, David and
Isaiah foretold, there would come a time when 'the stone which the builders
refused would become the chief cornerstone (Ps.118,22). If you were
interested, I could mentioned more exact the many prophecies foretelling
that through the Jewish people the heathen would also come to find shelter
under the wings of the God of Israel.
If you wish for a lot of references, please let me know.
yours truly
Rodger Dusatko
"Azox" <Az...@webtv.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:23369-3B...@storefull-286.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Rodger Dusatko
christians have a high opinion of Joseph Smith, and many think he had a
problem with lying, which he insists were spiritual experiences. But I am
sincerly interested if you have a link to sources confirming its existence.
yours truly
Rodger Dusatko
"Tim Ingalls" <ting...@NoSpam.ideadynamics.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:S9kI7.23425$XJ4.14...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
Rodger Dusatko
> 1. Humans have existed for more than one million years
Your statement may agree with what many people think today and are taught
in the schools, but they are hypothetical in nature. The earliest
civilizations found
in a way which dating is a 'little bit' accurate (for example Sumerians) are
not able to
give any support that man has been around for a million years. This is based
on the theory of evolution and not on artifacts or evidence.
Rodger
b...@antispam.net
rdus...@ccos.de says...
Your posts in answer to this question are interesting, but
off the mark. He asked for other ancient writings that
confirm the accounts. In answer, you give him relatively
recent accounts that are based on the ancient Genesis
accounts.
Curiously, you do not give him the stories of Gilgamesh,
which are a thousand years older, and from which the
Biblical accounts were obviously taken.
> I really only want to comment on the single sentence,
>
> > 1. Humans have existed for more than one million years
>
> Your statement may agree with what many people think today
> and are taught
> in the schools, but they are hypothetical in nature.
But, based upon evidence, which is sadly lacking in, or
contradictory to, the accounts in Genesis.
> The earliest
> civilizations found
> in a way which dating is a 'little bit' accurate
> (for example Sumerians) are
> not able to
> give any support that man has been around for a million years.
> This is based
> on the theory of evolution and not on artifacts or evidence.
If you wish to reject that theory, you are still stuck with
the modern people who painted the caves in France and Spain
15 to 30 thousand years ago - well beyond the 6,000 year
"barrier".
Tim Ingalls
As to what happened to the papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the
Book of Abraham, please see one of the references I cite below.
The Book of Abraham has been the subject of many years of study and
speculation by historians, Egyptologists, and theologians. Many people have
attempted to criticize it as a hoax, but as the years go by, more and more
concrete evidence is found to establish it as authentic. I am not very
familiar with all of this scholarly research and warfare. I simply read it a
long time ago and prayed to find out whether it is true or not. In another
post, you mentioned that through the power of the Holy Ghost, you came to
realize that God really exists. Through the power of the Holy Ghost, I
received an answer that the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, and the
other scriptures brought forth by Joseph Smith are indeed true. It was also
by the power of the Holy Ghost that I learned that Joseph Smith really did
see God the Eternal Father (known as Elohim in Jewish scripture) and Jesus
Christ (Jehovah in Jewish scripture) in a grove of trees when he was praying
to know which of all religions was true.
Let Christians who don't have enough faith to study and pray about things
say what they want about Joseph Smith. I know that he was a great prophet.
I find it puzzling that so many people would doubt the Book of Abraham's
authenticity, when at the same time, the archealogical findings of other
scholars are taken at face value.
Although this doesn't prove or disprove any truth of these things, I did a
little search and found several articles which explain some things about the
Book of Abraham. Here are the references. Some of these are loaded with
outside references to the scholarly works of others. Remember, however, that
these writings don't have the power to prove the Book of Abraham true or
false. The only authoritative source that I trust is the power of God
manifested through the Holy Ghost. I challenge you to use the method of
study and prayer to find out the truth of these things.
How Joseph Smith got the papyri:
http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1997.htm/ensig
n%20march%201997.htm/the%20book%20of%20abraham%20a%20most%20remarkable%20boo
k.htm
What happened to the papyri:
http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1988.htm/ensig
n%20july%201988.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm
Corroborations for the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham:
http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensig
n%20january%201994.htm/news%20from%20antiquity.htm
http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensig
n%20march%201976.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm
There are many more references I could provide you with if you are
interested.
Best regards,
-Tim
"Rodger Dusatko" <rdus...@ccos.de> wrote in message
news:9st5b8$to3$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
Scotiusque
happen. Not only that, but they happened exactly as the Bible said
they did. The flood has been proven. Scientists fairly recently
discovered that there once was a layer of water vapor surrounding the
Earth at about the height of the ozone layer..."...and the windows of
Heaven opened, and it rained forty days and forty nights". The Bible
also said "...then were the great fountains of the deep broken up".
Scientists have discovered that indeed, there were underground
reservoirs of water under tremendous pressure. Keep in mind please
that scientists laughed at the idea that the land masses of the Earth
were at one time all one, until about the time of the first
satellites. They "discovered" Pangea in the 1950s. Pangea is the name
they have given to the SINGLE land mass that Earth once had. It's so
obvious of course, but they just didn't get it. There are other
instances of Bible descriptions being more accurate than anything said
by an archaeologist, or geologist, but one of the best shows probably
was one that was run by PBS channel 56 in Detroit. I think that's
where it's broadcast from, anyway. Check them out, and see if they
sell video copies of some of their programs.
b...@antispam.net
palo...@mnsi.net says...
> The best scientific evidence shows that in fact, they did
> happen. Not only that, but they happened exactly as the Bible said
> they did. The flood has been proven. Scientists fairly recently
> discovered that there once was a layer of water vapor surrounding the
> Earth at about the height of the ozone layer..."...and the windows of
> Heaven opened, and it rained forty days and forty nights". The Bible
> also said "...then were the great fountains of the deep broken up".
> Scientists have discovered that indeed, there were underground
> reservoirs of water under tremendous pressure.
As this is a history group, and your assertions fly in the
face of scientific knowledge, would you please give
citations in refereed scientific sources for your claims.
> Keep in mind please
> that scientists laughed at the idea that the land masses of the Earth
> were at one time all one, until about the time of the first
> satellites. They "discovered" Pangea in the 1950s. Pangea is the name
> they have given to the SINGLE land mass that Earth once had.
So?
> It's so
> obvious of course, but they just didn't get it. There are other
> instances of Bible descriptions being more accurate than anything said
> by an archaeologist, or geologist, ...
Instances and citations please.
*
b...@antispam.net
@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, sn...@hdltd.com says...
> In UR, a stone tablet that indicated a bill of sale was
found to be intact (with other bills of sales) when the
house they were in caught fire and made them into pottery.
Abraham's name is MENTIONED on one of thise bills of sales.
(Source: National Geographic)
Please provide a cite for this.
> Do you have any actual proof that the Hebrews
> were NOT in bondage?
One does not "prove" a negative. For examples, say I belive
that aliens from Zeta Reticulan colonized Earth and erased
all traces of their activity. Prove it didn't happen.
Mekon
"Scotiusque" <palo...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:3bf30c35...@news.mnsi.net...
> The best scientific evidence shows that in fact, they did
> happen. Not only that, but they happened exactly as the Bible said
> they did. The flood has been proven.
How and by whom?
>Scientists fairly recently
When?
> discovered that there once was a layer of water vapor surrounding the
> Earth at about the height of the ozone layer..."...
Who discovered this? Where is it published? What evidence was cited?
>and the windows of
> Heaven opened, and it rained forty days and forty nights". The Bible
> also said "...then were the great fountains of the deep broken up".
This phrase intrigues me....
What was a great fountain?
A pillar of water?
A big marble thing with statues?
Or just a body of water. If it is a body of water then what was it broken up
with? Land? Then how could the flood cover the whole earth.
> Scientists have discovered that indeed, there were underground
> reservoirs of water under tremendous pressure.
Who discovered this? Where is it published? What evidence was cited?
Where did the water all go afterwards?
>Keep in mind please
> that scientists laughed at the idea that the land masses of the Earth
> were at one time all one, until about the time of the first
> satellites. They "discovered" Pangea in the 1950s. Pangea is the name
> they have given to the SINGLE land mass that Earth once had. It's so
> obvious of course, but they just didn't get it.
What is your point? Probably too obvious for me.
>There are other
> instances of Bible descriptions being more accurate than anything said
> by an archaeologist, or geologist,
How can this possibly be proven?
>but one of the best shows probably
> was one that was run by PBS channel 56 in Detroit. I think that's
> where it's broadcast from, anyway. Check them out, and see if they
> sell video copies of some of their programs.
Your only cite is a television program that you saw sometime and maybe on
this channel! So in order to check your memory or go back to the original
source we must buy thousands of hours of video tape and scour them for the
snippets of information you allude to?
As you Americans say... puh leese!
One thing I always wondered about the Bible is the rainbow story. The
rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood as a promise to the
people of earth that God would never flood everything again.
Were the laws of physics different before the flood and after? Did light not
refract in the same way pre Noah? Did God just hold back on this bit of
creation, thinking that he might need it sometime in the future?
Please explain.
Mekon
Rodger Dusatko
> If you wish to reject that theory, you are still stuck with
> the modern people who painted the caves in France and Spain
> 15 to 30 thousand years ago - well beyond the 6,000 year
> "barrier".
There are many archeologists which, because they belive in the earth being
millions of years old, date their findings accordingly. Unfortunately
looking at stones and paintings on them cannot accurately tell us how old
they are.
I would recommend trying to discern between assumptions and fact. However,
this is not easy when hearing reports from others. The arguments may be very
convincing.
When documents are found, such as the stories of Gilgamesh it is also very
difficult to tell how old they are. But still, because there is references
to vents which have really once happened and places which have really once
existed we can 'very roughly' connect a time to the story. However, in just
looking at a few drawings on some stones all dating is hypothetical in
nature.
Rodger Dusatko
Neville Lindsay
What absolute rubbish. We have scientific dating methods, which even if they
have a margin for error, can still demonstrate the relative age of things.
Now obsessive religious loonies and cranks can deny their validity, but we
accept that this small minority will always exist, and the rest of us get on
with reality undisturbed by it.
NL
Brian P.
paint samples taken from cave drawings. You may live your life in denial if
you wish but you cannot counter the combined sciences of astronomy, physics,
chemistry, geology, cosmology, etc, that all contribute to the scientific
view that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old (not millions of
years as you state in your post).
I have read on other forums that many devout Christian fundamentalists
have real crises of faith when they venture into some of these sciences,
notably geology, and select them for their careers. They just can no longer
ignore the evidence that they encounter on a daily basis that the earth is
much older than they have been conditioned to believe. It is unfortunate
that fundamentalists put such incredible constraints on their faith, namely
that if the Bible is not literally true in all details, then their faith is
without value.
Just my $0.02 worth.
--
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------
respond to bdpli...@bellsouth.net
"Rodger Dusatko" <rdus...@ccos.de> wrote in message
news:9tniqa$gcd$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
Rodger Dusatko
They are hypothetical, and not factual.
The paint samples, as you say, are no different than the rocks they are
found on, unless the paints were of living substances, such as plants.
Please give a reference to how you know that the substance used by the
paints was living substances. I have not researched this question, but if
you have, please tell me the proportion between c12 and c14.
The c14/c12 ration is presently the best clock which is available to us. It
really is like a clock for 'pure organic substances'.
A very important difference between an evolutionist and someone who believes
in a younger earth is how much c14 would have been in the atmosphere in
earlier times.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in
the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit
ordinary nitrogen (N14) at lower altitudes, converting it into C14. Unlike
common carbon (C12), C14 is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to
nitrogen and releasing energy.
If the earth is young, it is very likely that the amount of C14 was much
lower near the beginning of the creation. Also the bible accounts that
before the flood it did not rain but there was a water above the firmament
which acted as a protection against cosmic rays (Gen.1,6 Let there be an
expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the
waters, Gen.2,4 while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass
of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth
and there was no man to till the soil, But a mist used to rise from the
earth and water the whole surface of the Ground)
Unless this were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood
would give ages much older than the true ages.
If you believe in the Bible, then you would expect that the many living
substances which were destroyed by the flood would have a similiar date.
With a half life of about 5730 years, the c14/c12 proportion is somewhat
accurate. Articles from the flood very often measured at about 35000 to
45000 years. This gives us then a way of knowing the approximate proportion
of c14/c12 at that time.
Coal is a good way of telling that the flood was not millions of years ago.
For such vast amounts of coal, only a great catastrophe such as a flood can
account for it. Normal decay today is not forming an any part of the world
coal. Coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is
supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal
should be devoid of C14 It isn't. No source of coal has been found that
completely lacks C14. If we believe the carbon clock, we have to totally
change our explanation of many 'facts'.
D.C. Lowe, "Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of 14C Free
Background Material," Radiocarbon, 1989, 31:117-120.
Also there have been many interesting finds in coal mines. Directly embedded
in coal there was found a golden chain (Morrisonville, Illinois).
A piece of wood was recently found in a rock. The rock is classified as
middle Triassic (230million years) but the wood had clearly measurable
amounts of C14 (33,720 years +/- 430).
Whenever bone is found in fossils, it has almost always a C14 amount,
asserting without question that the fossil is not millions of years old. The
'pure rock' fossils, for sure the vast majority, cannot be measured with C14
and any attempts are simply deceptive (minerals, which have replaced the
bone doesn't have C14).
Better however, is the measuring of C14 in frozon animals in the northern
ice graveyards. The measurements are usually between 15000 and 45000 years.
This doesn't mean that the animals were not killed and frozen in the same
flood, but simply there is an effect of external influences (Musk ox muscle
was dated at 24,000 years, but hair was dated at 17,000 years.)
I believe that no carbon readings are more accurate than chronologies,
simply because of the different assumptions connected with the ratings. In
fact, I am of the opinion that we can approximate the c14/c12 ratio using
chronologies and thereby be more accurate in our measurements of other dead
substances.
The writings of the story of Genesis are not hypothetical. They are
chronologies. And these chronologies go back to the very first man and the
creation. To disregard these and replace them with 'hypothetical stories' is
not at all scientific.
Using the basis that the earth is young, then the readings of 15000 years
for the caves would have placed them to a time probably shortly after
babylon. (according to the chronologies, Babylon Language dispersement in
2350 B.C.)
Unfortunately, not all people believe what the c14 clock tells. They choose
when to apply it and when not to apply it mattering on what they presuppose.
Rodger Dusatko
Brian P.
> know that you are convinced of evolution and datings supporting this
theory.
> They are hypothetical, and not factual.
Nonsense - they are only hypothetical to a fundamentalist who ignores the
wide body of science that is used to describe such things. Carbon 14 dating
is but one of the myriad tools available which are used to measure the ages
of things. It does appear as though you have swallowed your creationist
theories hook, line, and sinker. Without corrabotive evidence from other
areas of science (geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc.) your views can be
categorized as nothing more than fundamentalist Christian fiction. The
evolutionary model is directly observable in finches on a small island in
the Galapagos (beak size development related to grass length in any given
year). Molecular evolution is also an observable phenomenon in bacteria. It
is also well preserved in the fossil record. There is a rather complete
record of whale development, for example.
> Unfortunately, not all people believe what the c14 clock tells. They
choose
> when to apply it and when not to apply it mattering on what they
presuppose.
>
Of course, this describes you as well. You believe what you wish to believe
and deny scientific scholorship which proves the contrary. This is your
right but please don't try to push it off as credible science - it is
voodoo, pure and simple.
>
> Rodger Dusatko
>
>
>
zolota
"Rodger Dusatko" <rdus...@ccos.de> wrote in message
news:9topr7$3bh$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
> know that you are convinced of evolution and datings supporting this
theory.
> They are hypothetical, and not factual.
>
>
SNIP
>
> If the earth is young, it is very likely that the amount of C14 was much
> lower near the beginning of the creation. Also the bible accounts that
> before the flood it did not rain but there was a water above the firmament
> which acted as a protection against cosmic rays (Gen.1,6 Let there be an
> expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from
the
> waters, Gen.2,4 while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no
grass
> of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the
earth
> and there was no man to till the soil, But a mist used to rise from the
> earth and water the whole surface of the Ground)
>
> Unless this were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the
flood
> would give ages much older than the true ages.
We have used tree rings to give absolute age to wood samples then measured
the present C14 in them. This has been done for wood from the past 10,000
years and we know that the original carbon ratio varied somewhat. We also
know that it did not change enough to match your convoluted logic.
Noah's flood was a Freudian dream about birth, get over it.
Z
>
Scotius Maximus
called the "book of creation", and it tells things that modern science
has only just discovered. Do read "the Bible Code". It may be the best
book you'll ever read.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 20:06:30 -0500 (EST), Az...@webtv.net (Azox) wrote:
Rodger Dusatko
>
> Nonsense - they are only hypothetical to a fundamentalist who ignores the
Maybe you don't understand me. Carbon 14 does have hypothetical assumptions
which are the basis of using this method, for example, that the amount of
C14, created by cosmic rays, was in the past the same as today. There are
many who have different opinions and show also different research facts that
this is not the case. According to how you 'set the hypothetical
assumptions', you get fully different results.
> > Unfortunately, not all people believe what the c14 clock tells. They
> choose
> > when to apply it and when not to apply it mattering on what they
> presuppose.
> >
>
>
> Of course, this describes you as well. You believe what you wish to
believe
> and deny scientific scholorship which proves the contrary. This is your
> right but please don't try to push it off as credible science - it is
> voodoo, pure and simple.
>
Scientific scholarship shows us also the hypothetical assumptions on which
they base their results. If, for example, a scientist says that the theory
of evolution is based on the hypothetical assumption that life came from
non-living substance, that radiation or other chemical reactions are
accountable for the amazing forms of life that we see today, and that all of
the assumed missing links are extremely sparce that natural selection has
elimited a trace of them, then I have every right to say openly that I don't
accept their assumptions as 'factual' and therefore do not accept their
theory that is based on these hypothetical assumptions.
There are many other aspects of science which are very good and valuable.
Yet many people cannot discern the difference between scientific observation
and theoretical assumptions.
Rodger Dusatko
Rodger Dusatko
>
> We have used tree rings to give absolute age to wood samples then measured
> the present C14 in them. This has been done for wood from the past 10,000
> years and we know that the original carbon ratio varied somewhat. We also
> know that it did not change enough to match your convoluted logic.
About the 10,000 year trees. Please let me know where your references are,
where a tree shows rings of 10,000 years.
I don't believe you.
>
> Noah's flood was a Freudian dream about birth, get over it.
>
I think your 10,000 year old trees are not real. I do believe the very many
historical references to the flood and I do have their references. But I
don't believe you are interested in any historical information verifying
that the flood did occur.
Rodger Dusatko
Brian P.
> > > They are hypothetical, and not factual.
> >
> > Nonsense - they are only hypothetical to a fundamentalist who ignores
the
>
> Maybe you don't understand me. Carbon 14 does have hypothetical
assumptions
> which are the basis of using this method, for example, that the amount of
> C14, created by cosmic rays, was in the past the same as today. There are
> many who have different opinions and show also different research facts
that
> this is not the case. According to how you 'set the hypothetical
> assumptions', you get fully different results.
>
> > > Unfortunately, not all people believe what the c14 clock tells. They
> > choose
> > > when to apply it and when not to apply it mattering on what they
> > presuppose.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Of course, this describes you as well. You believe what you wish to
> believe
> > and deny scientific scholorship which proves the contrary. This is your
> > right but please don't try to push it off as credible science - it is
> > voodoo, pure and simple.
> >
>
> Scientific scholarship shows us also the hypothetical assumptions on which
> they base their results. If, for example, a scientist says that the theory
> of evolution is based on the hypothetical assumption that life came from
> non-living substance,
Evolution is certainly not based on this premise - you may wish to pick up a
book on this topic before you venture to criticize it further. You clearly
do not understand it. This is the hallmark of many fundamentalists' attacks
on evolution. They simply refuse to acquire knowledge of how it works - they
are fed these preposterous and outlandish ideas and views and perpetuate
them as they attempt to argue their cases. There is very active debate these
days on how organic matter was introduced to the world millions of years
ago.
that radiation or other chemical reactions are
> accountable for the amazing forms of life that we see today, and that all
of
> the assumed missing links are extremely sparce that natural selection has
> elimited a trace of them, then I have every right to say openly that I
don't
> accept their assumptions as 'factual' and therefore do not accept their
> theory that is based on these hypothetical assumptions.
Well, as I wrote earlier, you can believe whatever you wish. In doing so you
are ignoring the vast body of science that refutes your beliefs. You can
choose to ignore all this - it is a free country. Just understand you are
not arguing credible science here. You are simply developing fairy tales to
reinforce your stance that the Bible can be used as a book of science and
history as well as faith.
>
> There are many other aspects of science which are very good and valuable.
> Yet many people cannot discern the difference between scientific
observation
> and theoretical assumptions.
Yes, I know, I'm debating one right now.
>
> Rodger Dusatko
>
>
Brian P.
>
> >
> > We have used tree rings to give absolute age to wood samples then
measured
> > the present C14 in them. This has been done for wood from the past
10,000
> > years and we know that the original carbon ratio varied somewhat. We
also
> > know that it did not change enough to match your convoluted logic.
>
> About the 10,000 year trees. Please let me know where your references are,
> where a tree shows rings of 10,000 years.
> I don't believe you.
Zolota didn't state that trees were 10,000 years old - you erroneously
inferred this from his or her text. Individual trees are not 10,000 years
old. However individual trees can be used to develop a history that extends
back 10,000 years. See, for example,
http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/inyo/vvc/bcp/trees.htm. The following site describes
how dendrochronology (the study of tree rings) has extended climatic
investigations back 9,000 years with hopes to extend it to 10,000 years.
This was done studying bristlecone pine specimens in the White Mountains:
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html. This site also indicates how
these investigations have been used to recalibrate the C-14 dating process
which refutes many of your fantasies about the weakness of this procedure.
Information such as this is available with a few mouse clicks on the web or
in thousands of scientific texts in local and university libraries. I am
afraid the only response you will ever be able to muster is your statement,
above - 'I don't believe you'. Ultimately, you will discard all of science
in favor of your faith. As I said earlier, I find it sad that people feel
the need to draw this dichotomoy between faith and science which necessarily
develops when one tries to use the Bible as a strictly historical text. The
Bible is a book of allegory and metaphor used to teach us lessons on how to
conduct our lives and develop our faith (if we are Jews or Christians). The
Bible was written by people thousands of years ago for their contemporaries.
People of that era were largely illiterate, belonging to societies with a
richly develped oral history. These people could understand and relate more
to these types of lessons which is why Christ taught largely using
allegories (parables).
>
> I think your 10,000 year old trees are not real. I do believe the very
many
> historical references to the flood and I do have their references. But I
> don't believe you are interested in any historical information verifying
> that the flood did occur.
>
I would be amused to see such references which appear in the scientific
peer-reviewed press. No scientific- creationism mumbo-jumbo please. Just
about every culture on this planet has a flood story imbedded in it's
mythology. This is not unique to Judaism or Christianity. These stories most
likely find their roots in declining ice age activity which gave rise to
increases in sea levels as ice shelves melted.
b...@antispam.net
palo...@mnsi.net says...
> Incidentally to my other reply, there was a book written
> called the "book of creation", and it tells things that modern science
> has only just discovered.
Right, like flat earth, plants created before the sun, moon
and stars, etc. Now, I am having trouble finding
information on this "book of creation". Could it be:
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/genesis.funny.html
or
http://www.msu.edu/~ostran14/creation1.htm
Actually, I would like to know what are the "things that
modern science has only just discovered."
> Do read "the Bible Code". It may be the best
> book you'll ever read.
Only if you want humor. This concept has been debunked many
times, and is rejected by the scholarly community. The
"bible code" program has been used on _Moby Dick_ and found
the same things. And, given the vowel situation in the
original manuscripts, all sorts of creative interpretations
are possible.
For a little humor:
http://www.thamus.org/News/science/bible_code_predict.html
Finally, the original question was:
"Are stories in Genesis of the Bible myth or historical
fact? And are there any published writings about this
subject that gives proof either way?"
Given this is a history newsgroup, how about answering with
historical evidence, and not just answering the question
with other religious texts.
rudimike
Here is a foolish question for you I am sure you have a scientific answer.
Can you proof that there is no God?
Many answers you can find on the site dailylight.
till then
--
In His Service
Till He comes
<b...@antispam.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.166c4d74...@news.spwest1.tn.home.com...
zolota
>
> >
> > We have used tree rings to give absolute age to wood samples then
measured
> > the present C14 in them. This has been done for wood from the past
10,000
> > years and we know that the original carbon ratio varied somewhat. We
also
> > know that it did not change enough to match your convoluted logic.
>
> About the 10,000 year trees. Please let me know where your references are,
> where a tree shows rings of 10,000 years.
> I don't believe you.
>
US. Trees have rings with distinctive patterns of wider and narower periods
corresponding to the then climate. Dead trees from swamps or whatever also
have rings. By placing the patterns of a dead tree and a living one together
until they match the birth year of the dead tree can be found. Using many
trees confirms the same pattern in each, it distinguishes trees that may be
different. I.E. a tree may be temporarily flooded by water behind a beaver
dam and show twenty years of continuous growth where generally the trees in
that area experienced a five year drought in the same period. By means of
overlapping several trees a longer record can be read. The reason that you
don't want to believe me is that a single tree with over 6,00 rings would
violate your faith. I did not say one tree, I said "wood from the past
10,000 years". A reference to the oldest living tree is below.
http://biology.about.com/library/bldyknow102199.htm
A5,000 year old tree was cut down in the 60's
http://wneo.org/gasp/October1999/october8.htm
A 7,000 year record from Bristlecones is at:
http://www.imag-n-that.com/NOAA/www/treering.htm
Besides records of bristlecone trees in California and Nevada, there are
similar studies in other countries. In England one is 3,000 yeares old
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/newsrele.nsf/3bed6c66531ca34f80256a0a00470d95/80f
4ac92e9acf2328025688c005e2562!OpenDocument
Irish scientists amongs others have developed tree records.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/advance10k/publish.htm
Use of tree rings, astonomical events, and C-14 dating show the latter to be
out by about 370 years in the Egyptian middle kingdom era, the C14 giving an
older value. This means that The C-14 in the atmosphere was not constant but
was about 5% less then.
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/dating.html
PS, notice how much can be found in 1/2 hour on the internet.
> > Noah's flood was a Freudian dream about birth, get over it.
> >
>
> I think your 10,000 year old trees are not real. I do believe the very
many
> historical references to the flood and I do have their references. But I
> don't believe you are interested in any historical information verifying
> that the flood did occur.
Stop reading the bible for an hour a day and spend the time in a reading
comprehension class, it would do you a world of good. There is no geologic
evidence of a world wide flood, and there is no so called "historical
information". There is strong evidence that the Black sea was once much
lower and that the basin flooded when the rising Mediteranean broke through
the Bosphorous. It may have risen a meter a day, and it was a calamity for
the people of the time who were forced to evacuate and who later settled in
the Holy Lands, carrying the tale of THE GREAT FLOOD with them. This
apparently occured about 7,000 years ago, an exact time awaits the discovery
of a marker like tree rings from the bottom of the present sea. Yes, I am
aware of the legends of many cultures. I also know we all come into this
world in water which is also an explanation for the accounts.
Mekon
"rudimike" <ma...@onlyone.net> wrote in message
news:djEM7.91$oV1....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> very simple you ask foolish questions so you will get foolish answers.
> Here is a foolish question for you I am sure you have a scientific answer.
> Can you proof that there is no God?
>
>
No I cannot prove that there is no god
Nor can I prove thet there are no purple lions
Nor can I prove thet there are no fifteen headed mammals
Nor can I prove thet there are no hobbits
No one can prove a negative
Mekon
Rodger Dusatko
I really don't have a whole lot of time to get into some big debate.
I myself am very aquainted with evolution, was doing research on the subject
since I war 14.
>
> Evolution is certainly not based on this premise - you may wish to pick up
a
> book on this topic before you venture to criticize it further. You clearly
> do not understand it. This is the hallmark of many fundamentalists'
attacks
> on evolution. They simply refuse to acquire knowledge of how it works -
they
> are fed these preposterous and outlandish ideas and views and perpetuate
> them as they attempt to argue their cases. There is very active debate
these
> days on how organic matter was introduced to the world millions of years
> ago.
>
>
For many years I was convinced that the theory was true. Over the years I
became very aware of the bountiful assumptions that the theory is based on
and continually develops in an attempt to explain the fullness of what we
see around us.
I know that you may not, yet we need to respect one another's opinions and
not think simply because someone has a very different opinion they must be
wrong.
>
> Well, as I wrote earlier, you can believe whatever you wish. In doing so
you
> are ignoring the vast body of science that refutes your beliefs. You can
> choose to ignore all this - it is a free country. Just understand you are
> not arguing credible science here. You are simply developing fairy tales
to
> reinforce your stance that the Bible can be used as a book of science and
> history as well as faith.
>
It might seem funny to you, but I believe that people who really study
observable science must ignore most of what they see as facts or struggle
with it to try to explain how it could have ever happened with just 'chance'
and 'time' as factors. I think many of such people choose to ignore all this
simply because they rule out that there is a God who created everything.
My biology teacher as I was 13 said,
'mutations are very rare in nature. And mutations having a positive effect
are as rare as seeking a needle in a haystack' (approximately).
Yet I'm sure that your biology teacher told you the same thing. For the next
years I worked with chromosomal abnormalities, (won the Grand Prise of the
Bay Area Science Fair im my research). Although a convinced athiest,
convinced with evolution, yet eventually when you really start to become
'scientific', the contradictions become much more immense.
I'm sure you must be aware of this! There are uncountable expressed doubts
concerning this theory. Only in the classrooms does everything seem to
'fit'.
Someone who much much more extreme than myself, Dr. Heribert Nilsson
concluded:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more
than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused
of having started from a preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint. (he
worked also with chromosomes, fruit flies)
His doubt became so clear that he clearly discredited evolution.
.. It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a
caricature of an Evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil
material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new
classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being
due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never
be filled.
The Earth before Man, Part II, Nr. 20 , Doorway Publications, Brockville,
Canada, p.51
Brian,
I don't want to go further in this debate. I could spend hours, books, on
all of the aspects of the theory, how it has developed and changed, and is
changing. Yet for people who have discredited God with the creation and
insist it all, over vast amounts of time came itself into existance as we
see it today, there is nothing I can say or science can observe which will
change this.
Rodger Dusatko
Rodger Dusatko
When you refer to trying to 'place many trees together' to come to your 9000
(and attempts are being made to make it 10000) , can you not see that
someone is ATTEMPTING to put them together. Are you aware of the assumptions
that have to be true for these trees to be placed together? Trying to tell
which ring matches the other one?
Let's stick to observable science and not get off the track. And let us
always try to discern between 'assumptions' and facts.
If the oldest tree is 4700 years old (which is very close to the time of the
flood 2700BC) and it can be measured by its rings, then we have an
observable, reliable, scientific date. When we start 'attempting to match
rings of dead trees with living ones' by how the climate effected them, we
are no longer working with reliable facts.
> >
> The oldest living tree is 4,700 years old. It is a bristlecone pine in the
> US. Trees have rings with distinctive patterns of wider and narower
periods
> corresponding to the then climate. Dead trees from swamps or whatever also
> have rings. By placing the patterns of a dead tree and a living one
together
> until they match the birth year of the dead tree can be found. Using many
> trees confirms the same pattern in each, it distinguishes trees that may
be
> different. I.E. a tree may be temporarily flooded by water behind a beaver
> dam and show twenty years of continuous growth where generally the trees
in
> that area experienced a five year drought in the same period. By means of
> overlapping several trees a longer record can be read. The reason that you
> don't want to believe me is that a single tree with over 6,00 rings would
> violate your faith. I did not say one tree, I said "wood from the past
> 10,000 years". A reference to the oldest living tree is below.
I grew up in California near Calistoga. We have a huge petrified forest with
thousands of petrified trees, in often partially vertical positions. How
could these huge trees have become fossils, where you can even see the rings
, if not for being buried by a huge catastrope flood?
Rodger Dusatko
EndlsRayne
>Here is a foolish question for you I am sure you have a scientific answer.
>Can you proof that there is no God?
can you prove werewolves don't exist?
Doug Weller
> I really don't have a whole lot of time to get into some big debate.
>
evolution, avoiding the newsgroup that does, talk.origins. Where you wouldn't
stand a chance with your ignorance.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Brian P.
> Hello.
>
> When you refer to trying to 'place many trees together' to come to your
9000
> (and attempts are being made to make it 10000) , can you not see that
> someone is ATTEMPTING to put them together. Are you aware of the
assumptions
> that have to be true for these trees to be placed together? Trying to tell
> which ring matches the other one?
Lord, Rodger, if you looked at the cited web sites you would see that
all this stuff is observational science. Nobody is ATTEMPTING anything -
it's so straight-forward a child can do it. There isn't much assuming (if
any at all) going on when you start matching tree ring patterns. I guess you
do have to assume that one tree ring corresponds to one year's growth and
that trees of the same species in the same area grow at a proportional rate.
I think we can accept these as botanists have pretty much proved them in
other areas. I'm afraid with each passing post you are adding to the body of
science that you are denying as valid - now it's botany. By the way - this
matching of tree rings to calculate ages of things is pretty fundamental and
is use by archeologists, botanists, etc. It's been rigorously tested in a
variety of areas. This is one of the ways archeologists have dated some of
the Anastasi ruins at Mesa Verde.
zolota
"Rodger Dusatko" <rdus...@ccos.de> wrote in message
news:9tvvjv$mc8$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Hello.
>
> When you refer to trying to 'place many trees together' to come to your
9000
> (and attempts are being made to make it 10000) , can you not see that
> someone is ATTEMPTING to put them together. Are you aware of the
assumptions
> that have to be true for these trees to be placed together? Trying to tell
> which ring matches the other one?
In my work I sometime have to use statistics to prove a correlation between
two sets of observations. compared tp that, tree rings are a childs puzzle.
Why do fundys use words like attempting? Lining up a series of lines is not
attempting, it's doing. Note the following:
11121222123321121132112
233111211321123311111
Tree two overlaps tree one with one error. I would call it a fit, you would
say I'm assuming that trees in the same area experience the same weather. I
have news for you, tree rings line up over large distances between the
trees. There are no asumptions, that a fundy ploy.
>
> Let's stick to observable science and not get off the track. And let us
> always try to discern between 'assumptions' and facts.
I cannot look at a tree ring because you say it's not observable science,
yet you can read your bible and call it documented history. WOW, glad I'm
off to communist Russia Friday.
>
> If the oldest tree is 4700 years old (which is very close to the time of
the
> flood 2700BC) and it can be measured by its rings, then we have an
> observable, reliable, scientific date. When we start 'attempting to match
> rings of dead trees with living ones' by how the climate effected them, we
> are no longer working with reliable facts.
I don't attempt, that implies failure. I do line up tree rings. You are so
full of untruth and denial it makes me sad to read your post. And how you
can say "we are no longer working with reliable facts" whe naligning a dead
tree with a living one makes no sense at all. A house built in 1950 has wood
cut in 1950. It obviously line up with the 51st ring from the outside on a
living tree. What is your problem? Try the reding comprehension course,
yit'll do you good.
Near where I live there are trees dying and being covered by mud because the
land sank after an earthquake. You fundys have incredible tunnel vision. You
are ASSUMING a flood because it must be a flood to justify your bible. Land
subsidence, either fast or slow, rivers changing route, mudslides after a
rain, Drifting sand dunes, etc. are all perfectly valid reasons for trees to
become fossilized. In Wyoming there are veretical fossilized forests of
trees in layers, one above the other, for a total of about 20. If the last
one was drowned in noah's flood, why did HE do it so many times before. HE
doesn't need to practice.
Zolota
Rodger Dusatko
----- Original Message -----
> Lord, Rodger, if you looked at the cited web sites you would see that
> all this stuff is observational science. Nobody is ATTEMPTING anything -
> it's so straight-forward a child can do it.
Just for interest, I did look at the sites. I searched also in the world
database. It was disappointing.
I tried all countries, all of everything and with 2000 to 2200 years I got
the 2 findings. There is no tree data for trees older than 2200 years.
You tell me that it is so simple that a child can do it.
>This has been done for wood from the past 10,000
>years
I really looked at everything. I was expecting to find information like a
petrified tree which has the same sequence of ring types as on a living
tree. This I was not able to find. Please, if you are really convinced that
this is something very easy, then don't just say you believe someone else.
If it is so straightforeward, then tell me the exact living tree, connected
to an older, petrified tree, which is then connected to an older petrified
tree, going back 10000 years.
If you cannot do this, but have to refer to some complicated, months-long
work, then I must say it is not so simple that a child can do it.
Find me the first tree.
Find me the second tree which matches with the rings (telling a series of
all of the last rings agree with the second tree, and the second tree then
continues from there.
Find me the third tree which matches with the rings (telling a series of all
of the last rings agree with the second tree, and the second tree then
continues from there.
Find me the forth tree which matches with the rings (telling a series of all
of the last rings agree with the second tree, and the second tree then
continues from there.
If necessary, find me the 20th tree, so this can be followed 10.000 years
back.
And once this simple task is completed, then let's look at the information
together and we will get a true answer whether this proves that the earth is
at least 10000 years old.
As I was so convinced in evolution I would believe people when they would
tell me things which agreed with what I already believed (evolution). I
wasn't really interested in finding out if everything was as certain as they
made it seem, because I wanted to believe it.
When I myself began my scientific research on chromosomal abnormalities at
14, I wanted to find the results which agreed with what I wanted to prove.
And I did get them! But later I must say this is a very immature approach to
the subject.
When a scientist is attempting to find a missing link or prove some
experiment about the formation of life from non-living substances, or
inducing chromosomal abnormalities to try to 'simulate what Nature produces'
(i.e. new life forms), do you not think that they will try anything to have
success? I'm certain you are aware of the amazing amount of hoaxes which
have been produced. Results from labratory experiments are very often not
even checked. The scientists have a large freedom for what they claim before
someone really questions it.
I have been programming computers in almost all of the languages (macro
assembler, C, C++, Basic, Visual Basic, VAX DCL, COBOL, PASCAL, etc.) I have
a software house in Germany and we have very many companies which use our
licenses. Yet my 20 years of skillful programming, all of the functionality
I have written, cannot be compared in any way with the complexity of a
single, invisible cell and the genetic information in the chromosomes. The
reason nature cannot produce life forms is because there is no means by
which such complex programs can be written. Radiation compares with simply
shooting with a gun a computer, hoping to make the computer become more
complex by 'random' chance. Or deleting randomly individual characters in
the computer programs.
Being involved with microbiology (my father, a microbiologist, and myself
worked together in his labratory) gives me an overview of what must really
happen if 'evolution of species' were to happen. It is not mystical. The
general theory of evolution discredits God and therefore assumes that all of
the complex life forms which we can see (also in the mirror every morning)
had their origins in a simple 'miracle cell' which by some freak chance
somewhere in the universe formed. In nature there are few influences which
bring about chromosomal abnormalities, the most common being sickness,
malfunctions of cells or radiation. None of these methods can be considered
the mechanism whereby new, more complex genetical code is 'written'.
For me to believe in evolution, there must be a 'mechanism' working in
nature which really was capable of intelligently creating new, more complex
genetic codes. Otherwise the theory of 'evolution' is not possible. Natural
selection DOES NOT produce any more complex genetic code, it plays the role
in the general evolution theory of eliminating all of the less fit life
forms (survival of the fittest).
Where is this mechanism in nature? What mechanism in nature can account for
a single-celled organism developing over time into a person with 80 billion
cells, all working together, dependant on one another and supplying
one-another with all of the minerals, amino acids, cellular fluids, etc.?
Do you really think that I am purpose playing 'innocent', not accepting the
abundant amount of obvious data?
Even as an athiest, in the latter years my questions were growing and
growing. My defense as the contradictions were no longer reasonable was that
since there is no God it must be true, when I would try enough I would find
an answer of how evolution could be explained for the human eye, for the
mind, for the organs functioning and even for the ability of all of the
billions of cells being able to follow the instructions of the chromosomes
in a harmonious way.
If you think that these are something certain, that everyone excepts because
it is so obviously true, you are wrong. I know many athiests and non
christians who cannot accept this theory, even evolutionists which have
rejected it to their own discredit.
I am personally very supprised that so few people come to the place where
this theory 'falls apart before their eyes'. For myself and many others, it
was like a dogmatic religion.
You talked in your letter about organic matter from millions of years ago.
> There is very active debate these days on how organic matter was
introduced to the world millions of years ago.
Have you ever really considered the 'gap' between non-living amino acids,
minerals, etc. and a living cell?
If you haven't (I am sure you must have. The present theory of evolution
discredits God completely an must therefore hypothesize that this happened)
here are just a few thoughts.
1. There are few one-celled reproductive organisms which can live
independant of all other forms of life. Of course the first cell must have
been able to do this.
2. The millions of individual molecules, the 4 amino acids of the DNA and
the 14 different parts of a cell, the outer membrane, the plasma membrane,
the ectoplasm, the endoplasm, the centrosome, the centriole, the
chondriosome, the vacuole, the plastid, the chromatin, the reticulum, the
nuclear membrane, the nuclear sap, the nucleolus, the nucleus all formed by
chance?
If a scientist had the ability to put every molecule into its proper place
for this cell to exist, to bind the cells together to create the membranes,
nucleus, etc., still these 14 parts of the cell WOULD NOT FUNCTION. There is
not only the unimaginable complexity of the design of the cell, there is
something UNIMAGINABLY complexer, and that is the FUNCTIONING of the
cell!!!!! Starting with the simple RNA enzymes, which 'INTELLIGIBLY READ'
the information in the chromosomes they began relaying to other parts of the
cell these important instructions which then cause extremely amazing things
to happen where a single cell may form into 80 billion cells, all working
harmoneously together.
I don't want to get into depth, but this is for a normal, unbiased person
not something which just 'happened'? If I rule out God, then I have to
believe that this and even other things which were hundreds of time more
complex than this had to have happened by chance.
If you found on the seashore a golden watch, would you really say, 'What
amazing things are created by chance! Over millions of years chance has
created such a beautiful watch!
For sure, all of the elements necessary for the watch are in the sea, and it
is 'Imaginably possible' that this happened, but is it not more reasonable
to think 'Some intelligent being created this watch'? And yet are not cells
and life forms millions of time more complex than the most complex of all
watches?
If a scientist could put every molecule together to produce a cell, the
greatest he could achieve would be a dead cell.
Matter alone cannot explain life. Life 'rides' on very complex matter, but
as soon as the life departs from matter, deteriation of this complex matter
begins.
I don't expect from you to agree with me, but as I asked before, at least to
respect my opinions.
Why are you and the others so vehement against my claims that there is a
God, and he created everything?
Do you thing that it wouldn't be possible to express yourselves in a more
respectable way? Such comments do not strengthen your claims, but weaken
them!
>You may live your life in denial if
>you wish but you cannot counter the combined sciences of astronomy,
physics,
>chemistry, geology, cosmology, etc, that all contribute to the scientific
>view that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old (not millions of
>years as you state in your post).
>Brian
>Nonsense - they are only hypothetical to a fundamentalist who ignores the
>wide body of science that is used to describe such things.
> It does appear as though you have swallowed your creationist
>theories hook, line, and sinker. Without corrabotive evidence from other
>areas of science (geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc.) your views can be
>categorized as nothing more than fundamentalist Christian fiction.
> Unfortunately, not all people believe what the c14 clock tells. They
choose
> when to apply it and when not to apply it mattering on what they
presuppose.
>
>Of course, this describes you as well. You believe what you wish to believe
>and deny scientific scholorship which proves the contrary. This is your
>right but please don't try to push it off as credible science - it is
>voodoo, pure and simple.
>Brian
>Evolution is certainly not based on this premise - you may wish to pick up
a
>book on this topic before you venture to criticize it further. You clearly
>do not understand it. This is the hallmark of many fundamentalists' attacks
>on evolution. They simply refuse to acquire knowledge of how it works -
they
>are fed these preposterous and outlandish ideas and views and perpetuate
>them as they attempt to argue their cases.
>Brian
>I am afraid the only response you will ever be able to muster is your
statement,
>above - 'I don't believe you'. Ultimately, you will discard all of science
>in favor of your faith. As I said earlier, I find it sad that people feel
>the need to draw this dichotomoy between faith and science which
necessarily
>develops when one tries to use the Bible as a strictly historical text.
>Brian
If this is the case that you cannot speak more respectable, please
understand that I won't answer you.
Rodger Dusatko
Rodger Dusatko
interested in continuing this discussion if you can't attempt to write more
respectably.
>
> I cannot look at a tree ring because you say it's not observable science,
> yet you can read your bible and call it documented history. WOW, glad I'm
> off to communist Russia Friday.
>Zolota
>
> I don't attempt, that implies failure. I do line up tree rings. You are so
> full of untruth and denial it makes me sad to read your post. And how you
> can say "we are no longer working with reliable facts" whe naligning a
dead
> tree with a living one makes no sense at all. A house built in 1950 has
wood
> cut in 1950. It obviously line up with the 51st ring from the outside on a
> living tree. What is your problem? Try the reding comprehension course,
> yit'll do you good.
>Zolota
> Near where I live there are trees dying and being covered by mud because
the
> land sank after an earthquake. You fundys have incredible tunnel vision.
> Zolota
>
>We also know that it did not change enough to match your convoluted logic.
b...@antispam.net
rdus...@ccos.de says...
> If this is the case that you cannot speak more respectable, please
> understand that I won't answer you.
Please don't answer - or if you do, do it in an appropriate
forum, not this newsgroup.
Rodger Dusatko
I hope you carefully looked at what I wrote you.
just a quick note about a subject which we might have a difference on.
This is the understanding of the possibilities of 'chance'.
I know that the theory of evolution requires a huge amount of time.
The way that anything can be accepted and 'integrated' into the theory of
evolution is by believing the statement,
'with enough time anything is possible'.
I disagree with this for the following reason and wish to demonstrate this
with an analogy which evolutionists have often used.
They claim that a classroom of monkeys on computers, given enough time, can
write the complete work of Shakespear. (You have probably heard this)
If you use the rule of probability and unlimited amount of time, then the
chances of the first character being correct is 1 in 100 (assuming there are
100 keys including shift for large and small letters).
For 2 characters to be correct it would be 10(2), 3 characters 10(3), etc.
However, in the science of Probability this is not the case. There are
limits belonging to the realm of the possibe. In this science, anything
greater than 10(46) is impossible (this number was arrived at as the assumed
number of atoms in the telescopically observable universe).
Given this premise, even something as simple as work of Shakespear would be
impossible to be written by monkeys. In fact, even the first sentence is not
possible for 'chance' to account for. Only 23 characters remain plausable in
the science of probability (100(23) = 10(46))
Even 23 links in the hundreds of million long links of the DNA molecules
being particular to a certain Gene which would have to later be translated
by RNA enzymes in an understandable way so that the cell would properly
function would be vastly less likely than the 23 letters of the works of
Shakespear. How many different minerals, molecules, amino acids there must
be than just 100! And how shall 'blind chance' be able to discern that only
4 of these countless possibilities are valid (adenine, thymine , guanine
,cytosine )?
Is this the proven scientific facts concerning which you told me that I
choose to be ignorant? Is it really proven that this 'miracle' could happen
if you limit yourself to the rules set by the science of probability? I
think I do have a right to at least ask you to accept my opinions. You will
always be meeting people who don't agree with you concerning evolution. You
might as well try to understand them and accept their opinions. It really
doesn't lessen the importance of what you believe.
Rodger Dusatko
Brian P.
> I really looked at everything. I was expecting to find information like a
> petrified tree which has the same sequence of ring types as on a living
> tree. This I was not able to find. Please, if you are really convinced
that
> this is something very easy, then don't just say you believe someone else.
> If it is so straightforeward, then tell me the exact living tree,
connected
> to an older, petrified tree, which is then connected to an older petrified
> tree, going back 10000 years.
Why is it so important that you find a living tree? There may be one, I'm
not sure, but why is it so important? If you link a series of trees and end
up with several thousand rings then you have an historical record of several
thousand years. The authors claim 9,000 and still counting. What's your
problem?
>
> If you cannot do this, but have to refer to some complicated, months-long
> work, then I must say it is not so simple that a child can do it.
>
The investigations took a long time, the concepts are childishly simple.
> Find me the first tree.
> Find me the second tree which matches with the rings (telling a series of
> all of the last rings agree with the second tree, and the second tree then
> continues from there.
> Find me the third tree which matches with the rings (telling a series of
all
> of the last rings agree with the second tree, and the second tree then
> continues from there.
> Find me the forth tree which matches with the rings (telling a series of
all
> of the last rings agree with the second tree, and the second tree then
> continues from there.
> If necessary, find me the 20th tree, so this can be followed 10.000 years
> back.
It's not my lot in life to try and teach you science. This information is
available if you really want to read it. All you need do is refer to
technical reports or published articles from the scientists doing the
research. It's not my responsibility to educate you. Sorry. If you want to
live in your fantasy world of denial - I'm certainly not going to interfere
with you.
Rodger, the rest of your message is largely inintelligible gibberish. I
respect your religious views, your scientific ones are seriously flawed. I
am afraid you have the closed mind of a fundamentalist. You have forever
separated yourself from the wonderment of scientific discovery. If some new
discovery disputes your view that the earth is 6,000-8,000 years old, you
immediately lapse into nonsensical and illogical arguments to deflate the
findings as you did with your tree ring and evolution tirades. You seek out
those arguments proposed by fringe elements that support your attacks on
credible science. We haven't even touched on astronomical and cosmological
evidence for the age of the earth but please, do not bother - I am somewhat
frightened at what you would come up with here. I am in agreement with you
that further debate is fruitless.
>
> Why are you and the others so vehement against my claims that there is a
> God, and he created everything?
Why do you assume that I do not believe in God? I have a very strong faith
in God. I simply do not limit him in his creation as you do by forcing the
view that the earth is 6,000 years old when all scientific evidence is to
the contrary. In your criticisms of tree rings, evolution, etc., you claim
that assumptions are flawed, etc. Yet there is physical evidence to examine
to create theories of how these mechanisms work. Instead you claim that
Bible is historically accurate and can be used to measure the age of the
earth and, therefore, natural science is faulty. In fact, there is no
archeological evidence that Adam and Eve existed; there is no evidence that
Moses existed; there is no evidence that Abraham existed, and the list goes
on and on. The evidence for these and other events in the Old Testament are
vastly inferior to the fossil record that supports evolution. This should
not weaken your faith one iota. It is sad that you have to live in
scientific denial simply because you think your faith demands it.
If you examine the Bible as a historical record it fails on several counts.
If you read the Bible you will find numerous literary contradictions. If you
read how fundamentalists address these contradictions you will walk away
with the same degree of incredulity that I do when I read some of your
arguments. One the frequent defenses fundamentalists put forward in
explaining literary contradictions is copyist errors. In other words, the
person transcribing the text made errors. A rather desperate attempt to keep
the flame of fundamentalism alive but this is what they have reduced many of
their arguments to. They cannot explain a contradiction so it must be a
mistake made during transcription. The mental gymnastics that is called for
to create these explanations is extraordinary. They are far less convincing
than the 'assumptions' you fault scientists for making.
>
> Do you thing that it wouldn't be possible to express yourselves in a more
> respectable way? Such comments do not strengthen your claims, but weaken
> them!
>
I'm sorry you feel this way. Actually, I think I'm doing pretty well at
restraining myself here. You would be blasted in other scientific forums.
Brian P.
can
> write the complete work of Shakespear. (You have probably heard this)
Evolutionists certainly do not believe or support this analogy. Rodger, this
demonstrates your total lackof knowledge of how evolution works. This is an
example of the disinformation that fundamentalists use to attack the theory
of evolution. If you want a layman's explanation of evolution which will
answer your extreme error in logic then I suggest you read Carl Sagan and
Anny Druyan's book, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.
>
> Is this the proven scientific facts concerning which you told me that I
> choose to be ignorant? Is it really proven that this 'miracle' could
happen
> if you limit yourself to the rules set by the science of probability? I
> think I do have a right to at least ask you to accept my opinions. You
will
> always be meeting people who don't agree with you concerning evolution.
You
> might as well try to understand them and accept their opinions. It really
> doesn't lessen the importance of what you believe.
>
Your logic is flawed and you do not understand the theory - start reading a
book before you introduce such nonsense again.
zolota
"Rodger Dusatko" <rdus...@ccos.de> wrote in message
news:9u37p5$gd0$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Please read what I wrote to Brian. As I mentioned to him, I am not
> interested in continuing this discussion if you can't attempt to write
more
> respectably.
>
And since I'm to be exiled to Siberia, it's irrelevant. You have taught me
two things for which I must thank you.
1 Calling a fundamentalist a fundy is disrespectful.
2 Suggesting that a person who appears to be misunderstanding the written
word take a reading comprehension course is disrespectful.
You have re-confirmed what I have see with Islamic zealots, some Christians,
devout communists, and other fundamentalists with serious opinions. When a
person comes back with a reasonable answer that can be backed up by
verifiable observation, the idea of observing is attacked.
And for anyone here who was not aware of it, nothing, as far as I know, is
though to fossilize in 10,000 years. Rogers allusions to this rest on the
need for fossil wood to be from the great flood that was alleged to have
occured 6,000 odd years ago. Thus we could never overlap the rings of a dead
tree made of wood with one whose carbon (wood) has been replaced by minerals
(a fossil).
Notice folks how I came back with four other methods of initiating the
fossilisation of trees and Roger snipped it rather than accept the idea that
Ye Greate Floode is the only cause of petrification of satanding trees. He
specificaly dodged the question of how fossil forests can be found one above
another, either because it suggests many great floods or because it provides
evidence that sometime certain locations are conducive to fossilization
which negated the need for Ye Greate Floode theory. This is a debating
practice widely used by people who believe that they cannot be wrong.
Note also that I am being far too cynical which is also a poor debate
tactic. I tried reason and it didn't work, so I lost it I guess.
Seasons greetings to all
Zolota
Neville Lindsay
> Please read what I wrote to Brian. As I mentioned to him, I am not
> interested in continuing this discussion if you can't attempt to write
more
> respectably.
Good news. We are all pretty tired of your puerile attempts to justify the
unjustifiable, and at the same time impugning the knowledge and integrity of
those with a much greater grip on reality than yourself. Your fake
explanations and criticism of scientific knowledge belong in the
propitiative past before mankind gained basic knowledge of how the world and
universe works. Your level of knowledge is bordering the moronic. Please
discontinue pronto with our blessing.
NL
Neville Lindsay
propitiative - is it Freudian?
NL
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:wGkN7.383789$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Panourgos
> Maybe you don't understand me. Carbon 14 does have hypothetical
assumptions
> which are the basis of using this method, for example, that the amount of
> C14, created by cosmic rays, was in the past the same as today. There are
> many who have different opinions and show also different research facts
that
> this is not the case. According to how you 'set the hypothetical
> assumptions', you get fully different results.
>
> Rodger Dusatko
>
>
I do agree with some of the things you say Roger.
It is true that the main weakness with the carbon dating method is that the
ratio og C14 /C12 is unknown for very old datings. Because of that the
method is considered to be unreliable for dates more than 5000 years from
today. Nevertheless the method is used for datings up to 25000 years but
then the error can be up to 2000 years. But it can still give us an
indication of the age. The main problem is not the theory but the
implementation of the method. The differences in results is mainly due to
contamination. Fore example a book infected by fungus several centuries
after it was published will most likely give a dating coresponding to the
fungus development. When the method is used for dating precautions are taken
to avoid contamination, in any case contamination will make it younger not
older.
At about 10 times the half life decay of C14 the method can no longer be
used. The reason is that C14 is not only produced in the atmosphere but
through other processes as well, so there will always be a small amount of
C14 in all carbon substances.
>A piece of wood was recently found in a rock. The rock is classified as
>middle Triassic (230million years) but the wood had clearly measurable
>amounts of C14 (33,720 years +/- 430).
This is a typical example of contamination. Obviously wood can not survive
230 million years and remain wood so it is a contamination. If you trust the
carbon dating method than you also have to trust the other similar methods
used for geological dating which were used to date the rock as Triassic.
Right?
I do understand that this is not about scientific facts but rather to prove
the bible right. Unfortunately the 6day biblical theory of creation does not
hold at all from a scientific point of view. This planet must have been
created at least several million years ago otherwise we wouldn't be able to
see the far away galaxies that we can see today unless you want to doubt the
speed of light also. In any case mixing science and religion in never a good
idea.
Cheers
Panourgos
Panourgos
several indications that there must be more than one........
Cheers
Panourgos
PS.
Doesn't the bible say something like...
You should not take unto thee other gods except me.....
Doesn't this indicate there others must exist????
"Mekon" <blankotank...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:qQHM7.377901$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Larry Caldwell
bdpli...@nspmbellsouth.net writes:
> I have read on other forums that many devout Christian fundamentalists
> have real crises of faith when they venture into some of these sciences,
> notably geology, and select them for their careers. They just can no longer
> ignore the evidence that they encounter on a daily basis that the earth is
> much older than they have been conditioned to believe. It is unfortunate
> that fundamentalists put such incredible constraints on their faith, namely
> that if the Bible is not literally true in all details, then their faith is
> without value.
> Just my $0.02 worth.
You are wasting your time. Literalists do not worship God, they worship
a book. You can put God's handiwork right in their hands and they will
claim God got it wrong because it says so in the book.
If they are so stubborn they won't listen to God, they sure aren't going
to listen to you.
Mekon
"Panourgos" <Pano...@chello.no> wrote in message
news:o10O7.5457$Sa4.6...@news01.chello.no...
> Actually, although you can not prove that there is "no" god there are
> several indications that there must be more than one........
>
> Cheers
> Panourgos
>
> PS.
> Doesn't the bible say something like...
>
> You should not take unto thee other gods except me.....
>
> Doesn't this indicate there others must exist????
>
>
>
>
anything more than a collection of fairy stories for a primitive people in a
primitive time.
As Germaine Greer said..."If there is a god. Then she will understand why I
don't believe in her."
Mekon
Brian P.
people were worshipping, don't you think. This doesn't necessarily mean they
were real in His sense, only real in their sense.
--
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------
respond to bdpli...@bellsouth.net
"Panourgos" <Pano...@chello.no> wrote in message
news:o10O7.5457$Sa4.6...@news01.chello.no...
b...@antispam.net
atl1.usenetserver.com>, bdpli...@nspmbellsouth.net
says...
> Well, God was probably referring to all those idols and whatnot that the
> people were worshipping, don't you think. This doesn't necessarily mean they
> were real in His sense, only real in their sense.
Ah, yes. Bringing this back to something on-topic...
What other records are there of societies where a power
group attempted to consolidate power by forcing allegiance
to "their" god or "the Supreme" god?
The Biblical accounts are classic examples of this - Moses
consolidating and re-affirming power in this way. Moses
used his "god" and its anger to insure that he would be in
power for life, and his hand-picked successor would lead
after him.
Did the Mayas or Aztecs do this, but with a pantheon of
gods?
Panourgos
gave birth to the Gods" side than the "God made man in his image" part. I
rather like the concept in ancient greek mythology where mankind was
something of an accident of nature and a curiosity for the gods in that
mankind looked like the gods but were really mortal animals. So they kept
them like pets and learned them tricks like how to talk and how to use fire
etc. but they had no obligations towards mankind whatsoever.
Panourgos
"Brian P." <bdpli...@nspmbellsouth.net> skrev i melding
news:yTeP7.86001$8n4.5...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
FeralCAD - Dallas Millward
destroyed them for being heretical :)
"zolota" <zol...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:yPiN7.3132$nm3.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Larry Caldwell
> What other records are there of societies where a power
> group attempted to consolidate power by forcing allegiance
> to "their" god or "the Supreme" god?
That's just about every ancient civilization. Pharaoh was a god to
his people. The Fertile Crescent practiced henotheism, with a
pantheon divided up between cities. Each city had a god that they
placed higher than any other deity in the pantheon. That's Yahweh's
old neighborhood. When you grow up in a henotheism you grow up tough.
The Romans didn't get the idea of a thearchy until Constantine gave
the Christians a nod. The advantage of suppressing religious revolts
by controlling the religion was not lost on his successors, which is
how Christianity got to be the Roman Secret Police. Real Christianity
perished when the Roman emperors became head of the church and started
appointing bishops.
> The Biblical accounts are classic examples of this - Moses
> consolidating and re-affirming power in this way. Moses
> used his "god" and its anger to insure that he would be in
> power for life, and his hand-picked successor would lead
> after him.
If there is doubt about who Jesus really was, Moses lacks any
credibility at all. Certainly most of the stories about Moses are
pure fiction. Exodus never happened. Most of the Israelites were
natives of Canaan, and the tribe of Dan were Philistines. The Jews
were not even monotheists until after the Babylonian captivity.
Huge hunks of the Old Testament are pure fable, with no factual basis
at all. The stories were written to express a spiritual urge, but
then edited by the priesthood to underwrite their political control.
Akasha
poster from the feburary 1997 issue of National Geographic magazine. This
shows homo-sapiens originating in Africa and spreading from there to the
Middle-East, Asia, Europe and North America, South America. 125,000 years
ago the Saharah reagion was a tropical region. Between 1.9 and 1.2 million
years ago Tanzinia's Serengeti Plain was covered with a salt lake bordered
by forests and savanahs. 65,000 years ago the sea level was about 400 feet
lower than it is today due to an ice-age which allowed for the spread of
homo-sapiens to new regions. The acticle and pull-out in that issue are
quite detailed.
Dailey, P.
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
> Incidentally to my other reply, there was a book written
>called the "book of creation", and it tells things that modern science
>has only just discovered. Do read "the Bible Code". It may be the best
>book you'll ever read.
>
>On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 20:06:30 -0500 (EST), Az...@webtv.net (Azox) wrote:
>
>>Hello Everyone.
>>
>>Are stories in Genesis of the Bible myth or historical fact? And are
>>there any published writings about this subject that gives proof either
>>way?
>>
>
The same "Bible Code" that was discovered in Moby Dick?
Best Regards,
Dave
--
**************************************************************
* Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young-Earth Creationism *
* http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/supernova.html *
**************************************************************