the Bible
Jabriol
From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
Why all this talk about the bible?? Is it now a textbook?? Has someone
found that hard scientific evidence can be gleaned from this document
other than tracking the beliefs and culture of a people in a time period
in history where political and religious turmoil was common??? Where is
the logic in using the bible to argue evolution???? It has no frame of
reference, it is a document of great importance both moraly and
historically, but can it really be relied upon as a scientific document?
Even if it was written by the authors who fundamentalist christians
believe it was, was it not copied, many, many times?? (Though I know it
was done methodically). Could not political and cultural forces cause
the scribes to change the document over the ages? I think the chance is
there.
( here is another example of public school education. Now if tim or angela
study an alternative to evolution, they would realize the importance of the
Bible in ramification of other sciences as well)
G L 'Bonz' Newman
Uh... no. The bible is not of any importance to any science.
There are no alternatives to evolution, any more than there are to
gravity or electricity or 'melting' or 'running'.
>
David Johnston
Jabriol wrote:
>
> From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
>
> Why all this talk about the bible?? Is it now a textbook?? Has someone
> found that hard scientific evidence can be gleaned from this document
> other than tracking the beliefs and culture of a people in a time period
> in history where political and religious turmoil was common??? Where is
> the logic in using the bible to argue evolution???? It has no frame of
> reference, it is a document of great importance both moraly and
> historically, but can it really be relied upon as a scientific document?
> Even if it was written by the authors who fundamentalist christians
> believe it was, was it not copied, many, many times?? (Though I know it
> was done methodically). Could not political and cultural forces cause
> the scribes to change the document over the ages? I think the chance is
> there.
>
> ( here is another example of public school education. Now if tim or angela
> study an alternative to evolution, they would realize the importance of the
> Bible in ramification of other sciences as well)
Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
MJR
This is probably not what you were looking for, but the early
geologists went looking for evidence of a Global Flood and found instead
evidence of Recurring Ice Ages.
As certain people have pointed out, it is possible to do good
science starting from completely idiotic premises *provided* that one
treats intelligently and honestly the evidence one uncovers.
Mogens Johansonsen-Rasmussen
Jabriol
> Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
Archeaology as been supported by the historical event of the Bible.
as well as history. The Bible does mention astronmy as well as biology
and zoology.
Bob Casanova
On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, in talk.origins, "Jabriol"
<jab...@cris.com> wrote:
The Bible also mentions cud-chewing rodents and 4-legged grasshoppers.
(Just to keep things in perspective...)
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ pop3.clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
son...@utdallas.edu
Jabriol (jab...@cris.com) wrote:
> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
> Archeaology as been supported by the historical event of the Bible.
> as well as history. The Bible does mention astronmy as well as biology
> and zoology.
Did you even read the Bible, you quack?! (I'm sorry, but I *finally* lost
my temper here.)
The Bible has as much to say about those subjects as THE COMPLETE AND
UNABRIDGED WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE! They both mention *things* relating to
those subjects but only tangentially!
Next you'll be saying that the world is flat because it's compared to a
stage.
--
"Somewhere else the tea's getting cold." -- The Doctor
"In science there is only physics; everything else is stamp collecting."
--Ernest Rutherford
"Politics is for the moment. An equation is for eternity." -- A. Einstein
David Johnston
Jabriol wrote:
>
> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
> Archeaology as been supported by the historical event of the Bible.
> as well as history. The Bible does mention astronmy as well as biology
> and zoology.
The Bible is indeed a valuable historical document. Mentioning
astronomy isn't good enough when you are looking for substantive
insights. As for biology...isn't the Bible the document that defines
rabbits as ungulates and locusts as quadrupeds?
Mea Culpa
Bob Casanova wrote in message <3515f0bb...@news.clark.net>...
>On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, in talk.origins, "Jabriol"
><jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
<snipped>
>> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
<snipped>
Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
the earth.
It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
Just my two cents
--
Mea
Life is like a box of chocolates - sometimes sweet,
sometimes nutty and ultimately rubbish
I use a spam block.
Please replace at with @ to reply to me.
Jabriol
> Next you'll be saying that the world is flat because it's compared to a
> stage.
by the way didyou know that the world is flat because it's compared to a
stage?
Doug Weller
On 21 Mar 1998 00:44:03 -0500, in alt.archaeology, Mea Culpa wrote:
>
>
>Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
>testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
>to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
>the earth.
>
>It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
>Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
Where to start?
The world is not round, it is not a circle. It is *roughly* spherical. There
are, however, quite a few myths of a circular earth, I believe, and one of these
is in the Bible (which also talks of the 4 corners of the earth). And educated
people knew that the earth was not round *long* before Columbus.
Columbus knew, as did most sailors and educated people, the earth was a sphere.
BUT -- he thought it was smaller than it was, based on some old, inaccurate
figures (this was a minority viewpoint, most people had the size more or less
correct), and convinced the Spanish king and queen it was small enough for a
viable sailing trip to the Indies. It wasn't, but he died convinced he'd been
there!
Doug
G L 'Bonz' Newman
On 21 Mar 1998 00:44:03 -0500, "Mea Culpa"
<mk_harveyat...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
>
>
>Bob Casanova wrote in message <3515f0bb...@news.clark.net>...
>>On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, in talk.origins, "Jabriol"
>><jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>>
><snipped>
>
>>> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
>
><snipped>
>
>Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
>testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
>to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
>the earth.
>
>It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
>Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
>
>Just my two cents
Big news. Circles are flat. All the people who thought the Earth was
flat thought it was a circle.
Genesis starts with a universal ocean. God drew a circle on the face
of the waters, and stretched out a dome over it, separating the
waters above it from the waters below it. The world we live in was
like a bubble in the universal ocean.
It didn't rain for Noah's flood; god opened the doors in the dome
that he used to get in and out. The windows of heaven were opened.
The Old Testament has the Earth flat, a circle, with a metal
firmament over it. The stars and sun and moon are tiny, and not very
far up. The people at Babel were going to build a tower tall enough
to reach it.
G L 'Bonz' Newman
On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
>Archeaology as been supported by the historical event of the Bible.
>as well as history.
Uh.. no. For instance, Jericho was deserted when Joshua supposedly
defeated it. And Noah's flood has been disproven.
Thomas Scharle
In article <35135...@139.134.5.33>, "Mea Culpa" <mk_harveyat...@uunet.uu.net> writes:
[...deletions...]
|> Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
|> testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
|> to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
|> the earth.
|>
|> It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
|> Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
|>
|> Just my two cents
Unfortunately for your thesis, we didn't need Columbus to tell
us that the world was round. That was well known ever since the time
of the ancient Greeks. And what did Columbus do, anyway, to contribute
to the concept of the world being round?
There is a nice little book which talks about the tall tale of
how they laughed at Columbus for saying that the world is round:
Jeffrey Burton Russell: Inventing the Flat Earth
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Michael J Rogers
I have just realised where most of Jabriol comments originate. He simply
read the JW literature and then sends selected bits to these NGs. For
example the issue Jabriol talks about below has been printed in the 'Why You
Can Trust the Bible' tract number T-13-E.
>Jabriol (jab...@cris.com) wrote:
>
>> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
>> Archeaology as been supported by the historical event of the Bible.
>> as well as history. The Bible does mention astronmy as well as biology
>> and zoology.
Michael J Rogers
To answer this one, I shall quote from the same tract that Jabriol used in
his entire message, the 'Why You Can Trust the Bible', tract number T-13-E.
It's in Isaiah 40:22, 'There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the
earth'
But, as other messages have said, the earth was though to be a flat circular
thing, not spherical.
I hope that answers your question
>><jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>>
><snipped>
>
>>> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
>
><snipped>
Anpu
way, who was there and can say Jericho was deserted. Maybe I should check
with the Real Estate agent and find out about the last occupants of
Jericho...must have been somethig wrong to make them move out of a well
established city.
G L 'Bonz' Newman wrote:
> On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
> >
> >Archeaology as been supported by the historical event of the Bible.
> >as well as history.
>
> Uh.. no. For instance, Jericho was deserted when Joshua supposedly
> defeated it. And Noah's flood has been disproven.
>
roy.altholz
Anpu <an...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6f0nab$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> Hmmmm...can you name the studies that have disproven the flood?
You can start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
Thomas Scharle
In article <6f0l3k$433$1...@rockcake.bt.net>, Michael J Rogers <michae...@lineone.net> writes:
|> To answer this one, I shall quote from the same tract that Jabriol used in
|> his entire message, the 'Why You Can Trust the Bible', tract number T-13-E.
|> It's in Isaiah 40:22, 'There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the
|> earth'
|> But, as other messages have said, the earth was though to be a flat circular
|> thing, not spherical.
|> I hope that answers your question
Actually, that verse of Isaiah is not altogether clear.
And it is probably a coincidence that that part of the book of
Isaiah is contemporaneous with Pythagoras (who is usually
credited with belief in a spherical earth).
Splifford
In article <6f0nab$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Anpu
<an...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------A98CFB1F7DFF5BA3F8427010
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Hmmmm...can you name the studies that have disproven the flood?
1 Ye Arke was supposed to be (depending on the size of the cubit used)
between 450 and 750 feet long. it was supposed to be made of wood. The
largest all-wood ship built in the days of wooden ships and iron men was
under 250 feet... because they found that making them even that size
tended to cause the ships to break up before they even hit the water.
Example: the first rate line of battleship HMS _Victory_, still presevered
at Portsmouth, England, is less than 225 feet long on the gundeck. She was
one of the largest ships afloat when she was on active duty. Her later
decendant, the first rate liner HMS _Victoria_, the last wooden first rate
to lead the Channel Fleet, was 250 feet on the gundeck... and _she_ had
steel frames to give her strength or she would not have been seaworthy.
All battleships after _Victoria_ were iron or steel-hulled ships. You
can't build a wooden ship that size. It can't be done. If you say it can,
you are invited to prove it. Build one. You are saying its possible, do
it. Put up or shut up.
2 The maximum volume available for Ye Arke is easily calculated... and
it's too small to hold even the paltry 16,000 'kinds' that some
creationists have posited to get around Arke space probs, and their food,
for even a day, much less the year that Noah was allegedly at sea. If you
think it can, please stock the Arke which you have built in response to 1
above and see how long it takes to run out of food.
3 Noah had a crew of eight to feed and swamp out all those cages. Can't be
done. You think it can, you are invited to put to sea in your Arke which
you have built and stocked as per 1 and 2 and again see for yourself.
4 There is absolutely no evidence for a global Floode. None. There is
plenty of evidence (salt domes, sandstones, the geological column in
general) that there was no such thing. If you have some evidence, trot it
out.
5 At the time that Noah was allegedly floating on Ye Arke, the Egyptians
were building pyramids... how come they didn't notice that they were under
water?
Y'all might try reading the FAQs.
And, by the
> way, who was there and can say Jericho was deserted
Read the FAQs. You might learn something.
. Maybe I should check
> with the Real Estate agent and find out about the last occupants of
> Jericho...must have been somethig wrong to make them move out of a well
> established city.
They got zaped by an earlier invasion. The archelogical evidence is plain.
Sorry. Get a new realator.
Also, you're using Netscape 4. Turn off the damn HTML. And don't send that
stupid vcard thing to usenet unless you _want_ idiots to be able to call
you up at home. You may be a clueless newbie creationist twit, but even
you don't deserve telephone solicitors... which you will get if you don't
stop spreading your personal info around.
Posted and emailed to the clueless.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorace with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
David Johnston
Mea Culpa wrote:
>
> Bob Casanova wrote in message <3515f0bb...@news.clark.net>...
> >On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, in talk.origins, "Jabriol"
> ><jab...@cris.com> wrote:
> >
> <snipped>
>
>
>
> Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
> testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
> the earth.
>
> It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
> Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
...and flat. Circles are round and flat, you know. The world isn't
just round, it's spherical.
Doug Weller
On 21 Mar 1998 10:43:35 -0500, in alt.archaeology, Anpu wrote:
>Hmmmm...can you name the studies that have disproven the flood?
Not again. Agh. Most of what we know about the geology of the earth shows there
was no world wide flood.
Here's some of the faq [This is just the big about the geology -- with
references!]
Mark, hope you don't mind:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Problems with a Global Flood
Second Edition
Copyright © 1998 by Mark Isaak
[Last Update: Jan. 30, 1998]
[This is just the big about the geology -- with references!]
6. Implications of a Flood
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the
Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the
Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland
have been dated back more than 40,000
years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992; Alley et al, 1993] A
worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer
of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios,
fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in
trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show
up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood
would have provided sufficient buoyancy to
float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow
quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not
regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should
be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1)
an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size
distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope
ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive
extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none
of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go
back more than 10,000 years, with no
evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et
al, 1991; Stuvier et al, 1986]
References
Alley, R. B., D. A. Meese, C. A. Shuman, A. J. Gow, K.C. Taylor, P. M. Grootes,
J. W. C. White, M. Ram, E. W. Waddington, P. A. Mayewski, &
G. A. Zielinski, 1993. Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation at the end
of the Younger Dryas event. Nature 362: 527-529.
Becker, B. & Kromer, B., 1993. The continental tree-ring record - absolute
chronology, C-14 calibration and climatic-change at 11 KA.
Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 103 (1-2): 67-71.
Becker, B., Kromer, B. & Trimborn, P., 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring
timescale of the late glacial Holocene boundary. Nature 353 (6345):
647-649.
Johnsen, S. J., H. B. Clausen, W. Dansgaard, K. Fuhrer, N. Gundestrap, C. U.
Hammer, P. Iversen, J. Jouzel, B. Stauffer, & J. P. Steffensen, 1992.
Irregular glacial interstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core. Nature
359: 311-313.
Stuiver, Minze, et al, 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300 years BP
and the 14 C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone
pine chronologies. IN: Calibration issue / Stuiver, Minze, et al., Radiocarbon
28(2B): 969-979.
7. Producing the Geological Record
Most people who believe in a global flood also believe that the flood was
responsible for creating all fossil-bearing strata. (The
alternative, that the strata were laid down slowly and thus represent a time
sequence of several generations at least, would prove
that some kind of evolutionary process occurred.) However, there is a great deal
of contrary evidence.
Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet
evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological
column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed
divine creation, before Darwin even formulated his
theory. (See, for example, Moore [1973], or the closing pages of Dawson [1868].)
Why are geological eras consistent worldwide? How do you explain worldwide
agreement between "apparent" geological
eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating
methods? [e.g., Short et al, 1991]
How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution?
Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and
differential escape fail to explain:
the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make
it to the high ground with the elephants?
the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989,
describes beautifully preserved algae from Late
Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low
in the geological column?)
why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic
strata.
why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically
(all nearly the same size, shape, and
weight) are still perfectly sorted.
why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals
didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make
it to high ground?
how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact
with other fossils below them.
why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says
they would sink slower and thus end up in
upper strata.
why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes &
Droser, 1992]
why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If,
at the time of the Flood, the earth was
overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of
their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite
or dinosaur fossils?
why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and
spores are found in association with the trunks,
leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers.
Fossil pollen is one of the more important
indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and
distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the
fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different
strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood
water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column
there are formations which could have
originated only on the surface, such as:
Rain drops. [Robb, 1992]
River channels. [Miall, 1996, especially chpt. 6]
Wind-blown dunes. [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983;
Hubert & Mertz, 1984]
Beaches.
Glacial deposits. [Eyles & Miall, 1984]
Burrows. [Crimes & Droser, 1992; Thackray, 1994]
In-place trees. [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]
Soil. [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1986, 1994]
Desiccation cracks. [Andrews, 1988; Robb, 1992]
Footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur
footprints in one layer with water ripples in
layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more
examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of
a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
Meteorites and meteor craters. [Grieve, 1997; Schmitz et al, 1997]
Coral reefs. [Wilson, 1975]
Cave systems. [James & Choquette, 1988]
How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood?
How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set
of layers of sediments have been
extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers
were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at
least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one
unconformity) with long periods of time in between to
account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.
How were mountains and valleys formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of
sedimentary rocks. (The summit of
Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom
dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were
formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were
the valleys between them eroded away? Keep
in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a
slow process.
When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older
sediments and have younger sediments on their
eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor
does granite erode very quickly. [For example, see
Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain
Batholith and the Meugma Group of
sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.]
How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering?
One formation in New Jersey is six
kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible
compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters
of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of
the rock are neatly layered, with great changes
(e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical
direction. How does such a neat sorting process
occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment
per day? How can you explain a thin layer of
high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square
kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by
thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.? [Zimmer, 1992]
How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming
contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or
varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments
are so fine that each layer would have required
over a month to settle.
How could a flood deposit layered fossil forests? Stratigraphic sections showing
a dozen or more mature forests layered
atop each other--all with upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed
soil--appear in many locations. One example, the
Joggins section along the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters
thick (along a 48-km sea cliff) with multiple
in-place forests, some separated by hundreds of feet of strata, some even
showing evidence of forest fires. [Ferguson, 1988.
For other examples, see Dawson, 1868; Cristie & McMillan, 1991; Gastaldo, 1990;
Yuretich, 1994.] Creationists point to logs
sinking in a lake below Mt. St. Helens as an example of how a flood can deposit
vertical trunks, but deposition by flood fails to
explain the roots, the soil, the layering, and other features found in such
places.
Where did all the heat go? If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then
the events it records must also have occurred
within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.
Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows
and igneous intrusions. Assuming
(conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x
1027 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In
addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release
a great deal more heat.
Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 1023 grams of limestone in the
earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and
the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p.
D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were
formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be
enough to boil the flood waters.
Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown
number of impact craters on earth, but
Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen
on the Moon and Mercury occurred on
earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the
largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 1026
joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more
energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some
Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates
were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old
radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat
released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.
5.6 x 1026 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 1027 joules
will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air
have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the
temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At
these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.
Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it
to space, and it can't radiate significantly more
heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now.
(It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there
weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the
earth would still be unlivably hot.
As shown in section 5, all the mechanisms proposed for causing the Flood already
provide more than enough energy to vaporize
it as well. These additional factors only make the heat problem worse.
How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of
zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some
deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the
Flood started? If not, how do you explain the
well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of
calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean
floor each year. [Poldervaart, 1955] A deposition rate ten times as high for
5000 years before the Flood would still only account
for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.
How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies
of plankton 700 to 1000 angstroms in
diameter [Bignot, 1985]. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec.
[Twenhofel, 1961] In a year of the Flood, they
could have settled about half a meter.
How could the Flood deposit layers of solid salt? Such layers are sometimes
meters in width, interbedded with sediments
containing marine fossils. This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has
its fresh-water intake cut off, and then
evaporates. These layers can occur more or less at random times in the
geological history, and have characteristic fossils on
either side. Therefore, if the fossils were themselves laid down during a
catastrophic flood, there are, it seems, only two choices:
(1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same time, during the heavy
rains that began the flooding, or
(2) the salt is a later intrusion. I suspect that both will prove insuperable
difficulties for a theory of flood deposition of the
geologic column and its fossils. [Jackson et al, 1990]
How were sedimentary deposits recrystallized and plastically deformed in the
short time since the Flood? The
stretched pebble conglomerate in Death Valley National Monument (Wildrose Canyon
Rd., 15 mi. south of Hwy. 190), for
example, contains streambed pebbles metamorphosed to quartzite and stretched to
3 or more times their original length.
Plastically deformed stone is also common around salt diapirs [Jackson et al,
1990].
How were hematite layers laid down? Standard theory is that they were laid down
before Earth's atmosphere contained
much oxygen. In an oxygen-rich regime, they would almost certainly be
impossible.
How do you explain fossil mineralization? Mineralization is the replacement of
the original material with a different mineral.
Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized,
including some that biblical archaeology says are quite
old - a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian
geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners
buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized.
Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite variable
mineralization.
Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in different sites, fossils
of the same species are composed of different
materials.
How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of remains in a
single episode of global flooding?
How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is slowly
sapping the earth's rotational energy. The
earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day
would have been less than 24 hours, and there
would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of "daily"
growth layers per "annual" growth layer.
Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an
exceedingly strong correlation between the
"supposed age" of a wide range of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few
others -- collected from geologic formations
throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of
days per year that their growth pattern shows.
The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the theory of
superposition is a little hard to explain away as
the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long flood.
[Rosenberg & Runcorn, 1975; Scrutton, 1965; Wells,
1963]
Where were all the fossilized animals when they were alive? Schadewald [1982]
writes:
"Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks
as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge.
Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil
graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem
enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain
the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb
and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare
not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died
in the Flood.
"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has
studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals
fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a
cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work
with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo
formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for
every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think)
that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate
[land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at
least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews
to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded."
A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in
Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks.
Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying
that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before
this "event."
Even if there was room physically for all the large animals which now exist only
as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in a
stable ecology before the Flood? Montana alone would have had to support a
diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger
than anything now observed.
Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from? There are
1.16 x 1013 metric tons of coal reserves,
and at least 100 times that much unrecoverable organic matter in sediments. A
typical forest, even if it covered the entire earth,
would supply only 1.9 x 1013 metric tons. [Ricklefs, 1993, p. 149]
How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would
have washed over everything equally, so
terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more
abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater
land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine
environments account for by far the most fossils.
References
Andrews, J. E., 1988. Soil-zone microfabrics in calcrete and in desiccation
cracks from the Upper Jurassic Purbeck Formation of Dorset.
Geological Journal 23(3): 261-270.
Bignot, G., 1985. Micropaleontology Boston: IHRDC, p. 75.
Clemmenson, L.B. and Abrahamsen, K., 1983. Aeolian stratification in desert
sediments, Arran basin (Permian), Scotland. Sedimentology 30:
311-339.
Crimes, Peter, and Mary L Droser, 1992. Trace fossils and bioturbation: the
other fossil record. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:
339-360.
Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991. Tertiary fossil forests of the
Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic Archipelago, Geological
Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403., 227pp.
Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains,
and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp.
Donohoe, H.V. Jr. and Grantham, R.G. (eds.), 1989. Geological Highway Map of
Nova Scotia, 2nd edition. Atlantic Geoscience Society, Halifax,
Nova Scotia. AGS Special Publication no. 1, 1:640 000.
Eyles, N. and Miall, A.D., 1984, Glacial Facies. IN: Walker, R.G., Facies
Models, 2nd edition. Geoscience Canada, Reprint Series 1: 15-38.
Ferguson, Laing, 1988. The fossil cliffs of Joggins. Nova Scotia Museum,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Fezer, Karl D., 1993. "Creationism: Please Don't Call It Science"
Creation/Evolution, 13:1 (Summer 1993), 45-49.
Gansser, A., 1964. Geology of the Himalayas, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New
York.
Gastaldo, R. A., 1990, Early Pennsylvanian swamp forests in the Mary Lee coal
zone, Warrior Basin, Alabama. in R. A. Gastaldo et. al.,
Carboniferous Coastal Environments and Paleocommunities of the Mary Lee Coal
Zone, Marion and Walker Counties, Alabama. Guidebook
for the Field Trip VI, Alabama Geological Survey, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. pp.
41-54.
Gilette, D.D. and Lockley, M.G. (eds.), 1989. Dinosaur Tracks and Traces,
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 454pp.
Gore, Rick, 1993. Dinosaurs. National Geographic, 183(1) (Jan. 1993): 2-54.
Grieve, R. A. F., 1997. Extraterrestrial impact events: the record in the rocks
and the stratigraphic record. Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology,
Paleoecology 132: 5-23.
Hubert, J.F., and Mertz, K.A., Jr., 1984. Eolian sandstones in Upper
Triassic-Lower Jurassic red beds of the Fundy Basin, Nova Scotia. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, 54: 798-810.
Jackson, M.P.A., et al., 1990. Salt diapirs of the Great Kavir, Central Iran.
Geological Society of America, Memoir 177, 139pp.
James, N. P. & P. W. Choquette (eds.), 1988. Paleokarst, Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Kocurek, G., and Dott, R.H., 1981. Distinctions and uses of stratification types
in the interpretation of eolian sand. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, 51(2): 579-595.
Miall, A. D., 1996. The Geology of Fluvial Deposits, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Moore, James R., 1973. "Charles Lyell and the Noachian Deluge", in Dundes, 1988,
The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Newell, N., 1982. Creation and Evolution, Columbia U. Press, p. 62.
Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In:
Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America
Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.
Reinhardt, J., and Sigleo, W.R. (eds.), 1989. Paleosols and weathering through
geologic time: principles and applications. Geological Society of
America Special Paper 216, 181pp.
Ricklefs, Robert, 1993. The Economy of Nature, W. H. Freeman, New York.
Robb, A. J. III, 1992. Rain-impact microtopography (RIM); an experimental
analogue for fossil examples from the Maroon Formation, Colorado.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62(3): 530-535.
Rosenberg, G. D. & Runcorn, S. K. (Eds), 1975. Growth rhythms and the history of
the earth's rotation. Willey Interscience, New York.
Schadewald, Robert, 1982. Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer.
Creation/Evolution 9: 12-17.
Schmitz, B., B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink, M. Lindstrom, & M. Tassinari, 1997.
Accretion rates of meteorites and cosmic dust in the Early Ordovician.
Science 278: 88-90.
Scrutton, C. T., ( 1964 ) 1965. Periodicity in Devonian coral growth.
Palaeontology, 7(4): 552-558, Plates 86-87.
Short, D. A., J. G. Mengel, T. J. Crowley, W. T. Hyde and G. R. North, 1991.
Filtering of Milankovitch Cycles by Earth's Geography. Quaternary
Research. 35, 157-173. (Re an independent method of dating the Green River
formation)
Stewart, W.N., 1983. Paleontology and the Evolution of Plants. Cambridge Univ.
Press, Cambridge, 405pp.
Thackray, G. D., 1994. Fossil nest of sweat bees (Halictinae) from a Miocene
paleosol, Rusinga Island, western Kenya. Journal of Paleontology
68(4): 795-800.
Twenhofel, William H., 1961. Treatise on Sedimentation, Dover, p. 50-52.
Weast, Robert C., 1974. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 55th edition, CRC
Press, Cleveland, OH.
Wells, J. W., 1963. Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature 197: 948-950.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
Wilson, J. L., 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History. Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Wright, V. P. (ed.), 1986. Paleosols: Their Recognition and Interpretation,
Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Wright, V. P., 1994. Paleosols in shallow marine sequences. Earth-Science
Reviews, 37: 367-395. See also pp. 135-137.
Yun, Zhang, 1989. Multicellular thallophytes with differentiated tissues from
Late Proterozoic phosphate rocks of South China. Lethaia 22:
113-132.
Yuretich, Richard F., 1984. Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial
in place, Geology 12, 159-162. See also Fritz, W.J. & Yuretich, R.F.,
Comment and reply, Geology 20, 638-639.
Zimmer, Carl, 1992. Peeling the big blue banana. Discover 13(1): 46-47.
Doug Weller
On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, in alt.archaeology, Jabriol wrote:
>
> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
>Archeaology as been supported by the historical event of the Bible.
>as well as history. The Bible does mention astronmy as well as biology
>and zoology.
The question was name a scientific discovery that arose out of study of the
Bible. Not whether biology was mentioned -- and by now you must have been told
many times that the Bible's biology and zoology is absolute nonsense at times,
completely wrong.
So -- in the fields of science (not archaeology, which isn't a science) --
biology, zoology, chemistry, physics, even astronomy -- name a scientific
DISCOVERY that *arose out of* study of the Bible.
Doug
Raven
In article <6euemg$f...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
>
> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
> Archeaology as been supported by the historical event of the Bible.
> as well as history. The Bible does mention astronmy as well as biology
> and zoology.
Jabby, you brainless git. He said name one discovery. Not a vauge
statement.
----------------------------
Creationists can't spell.
"You miss spell words prolifically."
-John McCoy
"Richard, don't you have a dictnary?"
-ksjj,..karl,Mr C (Karl Crawford)
ra...@kaiwan.com
OR
cem...@sprintmail.com
Raven
In article <6evngc$6...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
Hmm, humor. Too bad God doesn't command JW's to be honest.
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com
OR
cem...@sprintmail.com
sregoR .M divaD
Anpu wrote:
>
> Hmmmm...can you name the studies that have disproven the flood?
The studies are inumerable and cover well over a hundred years of
scientific research. Certainly they were not _targetted_ at disproving
the flood, but the current geological models they support are
incompatible with said flood.
> And, by the
> way, who was there and can say Jericho was deserted. Maybe I should check
> with the Real Estate agent and find out about the last occupants of
> Jericho...must have been somethig wrong to make them move out of a well
> established city.
If I remember correctly, it was the Egyptian army which cleared out
Jericho well before the date of invasion given for the Hebrews in the
bible. Also, if I remember correctly, Egypt controlled that entire
region _after_ the invasion was supposed to have occurred as well.
--
The Young American
==========================
David Johnston
Thomas Scharle wrote:
>
> In article <35135...@139.134.5.33>, "Mea Culpa" <mk_harveyat...@uunet.uu.net> writes:
> [...deletions...]
> |> testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
> |> to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
> |> the earth.
> |>
> |> It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
> |> Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
Like a pizza? For you see, that picture is clearly the product of the
person looking around and noting that the horizon is circular.
> |>
> |> Just my two cents
>
> Unfortunately for your thesis, we didn't need Columbus to tell
> us that the world was round. That was well known ever since the time
> of the ancient Greeks. And what did Columbus do, anyway, to contribute
> to the concept of the world being round?
>
> There is a nice little book which talks about the tall tale of
> how they laughed at Columbus for saying that the world is round:
>
> Jeffrey Burton Russell: Inventing the Flat Earth
It's a recurrent myth, particularly among people with lunatic fringe
theories, that every great discoverer was generally mocked before his
acceptance. They forget the number of people who were mocked because
their ideas were useless drivel and the ones who made great discoveries
and were fairly quickly acclaimed by the majority of their peers.
Andy Spring
>
>Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
>testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
>to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
>the earth.
It talks about God tracing a circle on the waters to create earth; i.e.,
making a flat, two dimensional object.
>It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
>Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
He didn't. The idea that only Columbus knew the earth was round was a
myth perpetrated, I believe, by Washington Irving.
--
...computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March 1949
++++ PGP Public Key URL ++++++
<http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x78068A41>
Andy Spring
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------A98CFB1F7DFF5BA3F8427010
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Hmmmm...can you name the studies that have disproven the flood? And, by the
>way, who was there and can say Jericho was deserted. Maybe I should check
>with the Real Estate agent and find out about the last occupants of
>Jericho...must have been somethig wrong to make them move out of a well
>established city.
I believe it the archaelogist Kathleen Kenyon. Her studies on it
indicated that the site of Jericho was abandoned from the Middle Bronze
Age till the Early Iron Age. The reason she thought so, I suppose, was
that there were no artifacts that could be attributed to the Late Bronze
Age in the sites she studied.
It's no big deal for a city to be abandoned, in the Bronze Age, or in our
time. Ever heard of a 'Ghost Town'?
son...@utdallas.edu
Mea Culpa (mk_harveyat...@uunet.uu.net) wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote in message <3515f0bb...@news.clark.net>...
> >On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, in talk.origins, "Jabriol"
> ><jab...@cris.com> wrote:
> >
> <snipped>
> >> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
> <snipped>
> Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
> testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
> to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
> the earth.
> It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
> Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
> Just my two cents
Just to correct a little misinformation -- Columbus didn't prove that the
world was round. It was *already* known. The only problem was nobody
knew exactly how large it was. Most people thought it to be huge.
Columbus thought it to be small enough to sail to the East via the West.
It turned out he was *way* off.
Mea Culpa
Thank you one and all for clarifying that for me. Which was really what I
was after. The only way we find answers is to ask. though I think some of
you lumped me in the wrong basket there for a while.
--
Mea
Life is like a box of chocolates - sometimes sweet,
sometimes nutty and ultimately rubbish
I use a spam block.
Please replace at with @ to reply to me.
David Johnston wrote in message <351447...@telusplanet.net>...
>Thomas Scharle wrote:
>>
>> In article <35135...@139.134.5.33>, "Mea Culpa"
<mk_harveyat...@uunet.uu.net> writes:
>> [...deletions...]
>> |> Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
>> |> testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not
to up
>> |> to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the
circle of
>> |> the earth.
>> |>
>> |> It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have
needed
>> |> Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
>
..karl
In article <6esa3c$e...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
> From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
>
> Why all this talk about the bible?? Is it now a textbook?? Has someone
> found that hard scientific evidence can be gleaned from this document
> other than tracking the beliefs and culture of a people in a time period
> in history where political and religious turmoil was common??? Where is
> the logic in using the bible to argue evolution???? It has no frame of
> reference, it is a document of great importance both moraly and
> historically, but can it really be relied upon as a scientific document?
> Even if it was written by the authors who fundamentalist christians
> believe it was, was it not copied, many, many times?? (Though I know it
> was done methodically). Could not political and cultural forces cause
> the scribes to change the document over the ages? I think the chance is
> there.
>
>
> ( here is another example of public school education. Now if tim or angela
> study an alternative to evolution, they would realize the importance of the
> Bible in ramification of other sciences as well)
It should be quite obvious that if the flood did indeed happen as
mentioned in Genesis there should be a scientific record of it in the
geological columns.
The same can be said for some cities mentioned in the Old Testament. If
they existed we should be able to go to the location mentioned in the
bible and find some of the lost cities. As it turns out we do find some
of the cities and the flood has been captured in the geological record.
No Creationist claims the bible is a science book. It is a book of truth
which has portions that can be established through scientific research.
+++++
see ya,
karl
..karl
In article <35132C...@octane.kemi.aau.dk>, MJR
<Johan...@octane.kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > Jabriol wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
> > >
> > > Why all this talk about the bible?? Is it now a textbook?? Has someone
> > > found that hard scientific evidence can be gleaned from this document
> > > other than tracking the beliefs and culture of a people in a time period
> > > in history where political and religious turmoil was common??? Where is
> > > the logic in using the bible to argue evolution???? It has no frame of
> > > reference, it is a document of great importance both moraly and
> > > historically, but can it really be relied upon as a scientific document?
> > > Even if it was written by the authors who fundamentalist christians
> > > believe it was, was it not copied, many, many times?? (Though I know it
> > > was done methodically). Could not political and cultural forces cause
> > > the scribes to change the document over the ages? I think the chance is
> > > there.
> > >
> > > ( here is another example of public school education. Now if tim or angela
> > > study an alternative to evolution, they would realize the importance
of the
> > > Bible in ramification of other sciences as well)
> >
> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
> This is probably not what you were looking for, but the early
> geologists went looking for evidence of a Global Flood and found instead
> evidence of Recurring Ice Ages.
>
> As certain people have pointed out, it is possible to do good
> science starting from completely idiotic premises *provided* that one
> treats intelligently and honestly the evidence one uncovers.
Unfortunatly scientist still have uncovered any transitional fossil evidence.
Intelligence and honesty says evolution is a hoax.
>
> Mogens Johansonsen-Rasmussen
+++++
see ya,
karl
Dave Horn
[Posted and emailed]
* Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
personal property to do with as I see fit.
..karl wrote in message ...
>In article <6esa3c$e...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
>> From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
>> Why all this talk about the bible?? Is it now a textbook?? Has someone
>> found that hard scientific evidence can be gleaned from this document
>> other than tracking the beliefs and culture of a people in a time period
>> in history where political and religious turmoil was common??? Where is
>> the logic in using the bible to argue evolution???? It has no frame of
>> reference, it is a document of great importance both moraly and
>> historically, but can it really be relied upon as a scientific document?
>> Even if it was written by the authors who fundamentalist christians
>> believe it was, was it not copied, many, many times?? (Though I know it
>> was done methodically). Could not political and cultural forces cause
>> the scribes to change the document over the ages? I think the chance is
>> there.
>>
>> ( here is another example of public school education. Now if tim or
angela
>> study an alternative to evolution, they would realize the importance of
the
>> Bible in ramification of other sciences as well)
>
>It should be quite obvious that if the flood did indeed happen as
>mentioned in Genesis there should be a scientific record of it in the
>geological columns.
There should be. However the sort of evidence expected from such an event
simply isn't there. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
for details.
>The same can be said for some cities mentioned in the Old Testament. If
>they existed we should be able to go to the location mentioned in the
>bible and find some of the lost cities. As it turns out we do find some
>of the cities and the flood has been captured in the geological record.
The Bible has been used as a guide of sorts for archaeological discovery but
this, by no means, indicates that specific miraculous events can be verified
in this way. Certainly the failure to find support for the Flood as
described falsifies Karl's assertion that "the flood has been captured in
the geological record." Assertions such as this are all Karl has left after
having been debunked over and over again in this forum over an extended
period of time.
>No Creationist claims the bible is a science book.
In fact, I have had some creationists declare to me that it is the greatest
science book of them all. In any case, Karl is ill-advised to presume to
represent all creationists by citing what "no creationist" would do. Karl
speaks only for himself, as his rantings in this newsgroup indicate
underscored by the deafening silence of most of his fellow "Christians."
>It is a book of truth which has portions that can be established
>through scientific research.
And when that doesn't happen -- which is often -- Karl and his fellow
creationists simply add to the Scriptures while ignoring other portions.
These things, too, have been evidenced frequently in this forum.
And those cichlids still await...
roy.altholz
...karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
<ksjj-22039...@max9-11.phl.fast.net>...
And there is *NO* evidence for a WWF in the geological columns. None, zip,
nadda. But there is whole planets worth that refute a WWF.
> The same can be said for some cities mentioned in the Old Testament. If
> they existed we should be able to go to the location mentioned in the
> bible and find some of the lost cities.
Parts of the Bible are historicle in nature. So?
> As it turns out we do find some
> of the cities and the flood has been captured in the geological record.
So, the Odyssey is therefore true also, but you are wrong about there being
evidence of a WWF in the geological record. You are wrong karl.
> No Creationist claims the bible is a science book. It is a book of truth
> which has portions that can be established through scientific research.
But Creationists use it as a basic starting point (Their conclusion) from
which they attempt to "scientifically" explain a 6000 year old Earth, then
working backwards, ignoring the overwhelming evidence to to contrary, and
grab a straw here or there that appears to support their preconceived
notion.
roy.altholz
...karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
<ksjj-22039...@max9-11.phl.fast.net>...
> In article <35132C...@octane.kemi.aau.dk>, MJR
> <Johan...@octane.kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>
> > David Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
> >
> > This is probably not what you were looking for, but the early
> > geologists went looking for evidence of a Global Flood and found
instead
> > evidence of Recurring Ice Ages.
> >
> > As certain people have pointed out, it is possible to do good
> > science starting from completely idiotic premises *provided* that one
> > treats intelligently and honestly the evidence one uncovers.
>
> Unfortunatly scientist still have uncovered any transitional fossil
evidence.
> Intelligence and honesty says evolution is a hoax.
Karl, you been given this URL before, which contains a list and discription
of many transional fossils. You have never refuted them, and at best, you
have only whined, "Dose not!" You are a liar karl. What does the Bible
say about lying karl?
Transitional Vertibrate Fossils
:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
> >
Bob Casanova
On 21 Mar 1998 00:44:03 -0500, in talk.origins, "Mea Culpa"
<mk_harveyat...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>Bob Casanova wrote in message <3515f0bb...@news.clark.net>...
>>On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, in talk.origins, "Jabriol"
>><jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>>
><snipped>
>
>>> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
>
><snipped>
>
>Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
>testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
>to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
>the earth.
>
>It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
>Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
Three points:
1) You included *none* of anything I posted below "Bob Casanova wrote
in message <3515f0bb...@news.clark.net"; poor netiquette.
2) The Bible mentions a lot of things, several of them contradictory.
Just how would you propose to separate the wheat (if any) from the
chaff?
3) Columbus didn't discover the Earth was round; that was "common
knowledge" among the educated of the time. His claim was that the
Earth's circumference was 17,000 miles, as earlier proposed by one of
the Golden Age Greek philosophers (don't remember which); yes, the
knowledge was that old. Unfortunately, he was wrong; the more
commonly-accepted figure of 25,000 miles was correct. Fortunately for
him, there were a couple of unknown continents in the way, and he
didn't perish in the middle of the ocean. He *did*, however, believe
until his death that he'd reached the Indies (East, not West).
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ pop3.clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Hal Vickery
In article <35218cc3...@news.clark.net>, nos...@buzz.off (Bob
Casanova) wrote:
> 3) Columbus didn't discover the Earth was round; that was "common
> knowledge" among the educated of the time. His claim was that the
> Earth's circumference was 17,000 miles, as earlier proposed by one of
> the Golden Age Greek philosophers (don't remember which); yes, the
> knowledge was that old.
The first person to estimate the circumference of the spherical earth was
Eratosthenes, IIRC.
H. Vickery
Christopher A. Lee
Strike the twos and strike the threes,
The sieve of Eratosthenes.
When the multiples sublime,
The numbers that are left are prime.
Trivia question:- Where's that from?
son...@utdallas.edu
..karl (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
> No Creationist claims the bible is a science book. It is a book of truth
Forgetting of course that some creationist on this very newsgroup has
mentioned that the Bible contains biology, geology and whatnot.
I suggest you change that "no" in your statement to something else --
preferably "some".
jeff wiel
..karl (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: > From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
: >
: The same can be said for some cities mentioned in the Old Testament. If
: they existed we should be able to go to the location mentioned in the
: bible and find some of the lost cities. As it turns out we do find some
: of the cities and the flood has been captured in the geological record.
: No Creationist claims the bible is a science book. It is a book of truth
: which has portions that can be established through scientific research.
The great archeologist Heinrich Schliemann found and excavated the city of
Troy at the exact location described in the Iliad. Obviously the Iliad is
an inerrant historical document, and the Homeric Gods are real. Praise
Zeuss, Apollo, Hera, Demeter and Athena, you helot.
: +++++
: see ya, [in Hades}
: karl
mel turner
In article <ksjj-22039...@max9-11.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
wrote..[snip]
>> As certain people have pointed out, it is possible to do good
>> science starting from completely idiotic premises *provided* that one
>> treats intelligently and honestly the evidence one uncovers.
>
>Unfortunatly scientist still have uncovered any transitional fossil
>evidence.
Interesting version of English you've got there... Let me fix your
typos:
"Unfortunately for creationism, scientists have uncovered _many_
transitional fossils that are evidence for evolution."
[See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html]
There, that makes a lot more sense.
[No need to thank me, glad to help...]
>Intelligence and honesty says evolution is a hoax.
Looks like you misspelled "creationism", there.
cheers
mel turner
[snip]
>It should be quite obvious that if the flood did indeed happen as
>mentioned in Genesis there should be a scientific record of it in the
>geological columns.
>The same can be said for some cities mentioned in the Old Testament. If
>they existed we should be able to go to the location mentioned in the
>bible and find some of the lost cities. As it turns out we do find
some
>of the cities
Well, Atlanta exists, so "Gone with the Wind" must be accurate history...
They claim to have found Troy, so the Greek gods are real...
and the flood has been captured in the geological record.
No, it hasn't.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
>No Creationist claims the bible is a science book. It is a book of truth
>which has portions that can be established through scientific research.
And portions that are clearly not scientifically accurate. Like the
Flood story.
cheers
David Johnston
..karl wrote:
>
> In article <6esa3c$e...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
>
> > From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
> >
> > found that hard scientific evidence can be gleaned from this document
> > other than tracking the beliefs and culture of a people in a time period
> > in history where political and religious turmoil was common??? Where is
> > the logic in using the bible to argue evolution???? It has no frame of
> > reference, it is a document of great importance both moraly and
> > historically, but can it really be relied upon as a scientific document?
> > Even if it was written by the authors who fundamentalist christians
> > believe it was, was it not copied, many, many times?? (Though I know it
> > was done methodically). Could not political and cultural forces cause
> > the scribes to change the document over the ages? I think the chance is
> > there.
> >
> >
> > ( here is another example of public school education. Now if tim or angela
> > study an alternative to evolution, they would realize the importance of the
> > Bible in ramification of other sciences as well)
>
> mentioned in Genesis there should be a scientific record of it in the
> geological columns.
Unfortunately no such record was discovered.
> The same can be said for some cities mentioned in the Old Testament. If
> they existed we should be able to go to the location mentioned in the
> bible and find some of the lost cities. As it turns out we do find some
> of the cities
Did Apollo strike down soldiers outside of Troy with his golden arrows?
and the flood has been captured in the geological record.
> No Creationist claims the bible is a science book. It is a book of truth
> which has portions that can be established through scientific research.
>
> +++++
> see ya,
> karl
Thomas Scharle
In article <hvickery-ya02408000R2203981946220001@brownfox>, hvic...@tornado.svs.com (Hal Vickery) writes:
|> In article <35218cc3...@news.clark.net>, nos...@buzz.off (Bob
|> Casanova) wrote:
|>
|> > 3) Columbus didn't discover the Earth was round; that was "common
|> > knowledge" among the educated of the time. His claim was that the
|> > Earth's circumference was 17,000 miles, as earlier proposed by one of
|> > the Golden Age Greek philosophers (don't remember which); yes, the
|> > knowledge was that old.
|>
|> The first person to estimate the circumference of the spherical earth was
|> Eratosthenes, IIRC.
That is a well-known and rather accurate measurement of
the size of the earth. But some time earlier, Aristotle cites
unnamed mathematicians as giving an estimate of the size
of the earth, a circumference of 400,000 stadia, probably
about twice the modern value.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
*
In <Eq9By...@world.std.com> jw...@world.std.com (jeff wiel) writes:
>..karl (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
>: In article <6esa3c$e...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com
wrote:
>
>: > From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
>: The same can be said for some cities mentioned in the Old Testament.
If
>: they existed we should be able to go to the location mentioned in
the
>: bible and find some of the lost cities. As it turns out we do find
some
record.
>: No Creationist claims the bible is a science book. It is a book of
truth
>: which has portions that can be established through scientific
research.
>
city of
>Troy at the exact location described in the Iliad. Obviously the Iliad
is
>an inerrant historical document, and the Homeric Gods are real. Praise
>Zeuss, Apollo, Hera, Demeter and Athena, you helot.
>
Bob Casanova
On 22 Mar 1998 20:44:42 -0500, in talk.origins,
hvic...@tornado.svs.com (Hal Vickery) wrote:
>In article <35218cc3...@news.clark.net>, nos...@buzz.off (Bob
>Casanova) wrote:
>
>> 3) Columbus didn't discover the Earth was round; that was "common
>> knowledge" among the educated of the time. His claim was that the
>> Earth's circumference was 17,000 miles, as earlier proposed by one of
>> the Golden Age Greek philosophers (don't remember which); yes, the
>> knowledge was that old.
>
>The first person to estimate the circumference of the spherical earth was
>Eratosthenes, IIRC.
That was the 17,000-mile estimate? I recall that both figures dated
from the same general period, but can't remember who proposed which.
Anyway, thanks for the info.
Bob Casanova
On 22 Mar 1998 23:19:13 -0500, in talk.origins, chri...@netcom.com
(Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
>In article <hvickery-ya02408000R2203981946220001@brownfox> hvic...@tornado.svs.com (Hal Vickery) writes:
>>In article <35218cc3...@news.clark.net>, nos...@buzz.off (Bob
>>Casanova) wrote:
>>
>>> 3) Columbus didn't discover the Earth was round; that was "common
>>> knowledge" among the educated of the time. His claim was that the
>>> Earth's circumference was 17,000 miles, as earlier proposed by one of
>>> the Golden Age Greek philosophers (don't remember which); yes, the
>>> knowledge was that old.
>>
>>The first person to estimate the circumference of the spherical earth was
>>Eratosthenes, IIRC.
>
>Strike the twos and strike the threes,
>The sieve of Eratosthenes.
>When the multiples sublime,
>The numbers that are left are prime.
>
>Trivia question:- Where's that from?
One of Master Carl's teaching aids in _Drunkard's Walk_ by Frederik
Pohl.
Along with Gladiator-at-Law, one of my favorites by Pohl.
J.J. Gauch
Jabriol wrote:
> From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
>
> Why all this talk about the bible?? Is it now a textbook?? Has someone
> found that hard scientific evidence can be gleaned from this document
> other than tracking the beliefs and culture of a people in a time period
> in history where political and religious turmoil was common??? Where is
> the logic in using the bible to argue evolution???? It has no frame of
> reference, it is a document of great importance both moraly and
> historically, but can it really be relied upon as a scientific document?
> Even if it was written by the authors who fundamentalist christians
> believe it was, was it not copied, many, many times?? (Though I know it
> was done methodically). Could not political and cultural forces cause
> the scribes to change the document over the ages? I think the chance is
> there.
>
> ( here is another example of public school education. Now if tim or angela
> study an alternative to evolution, they would realize the importance of the
> Bible in ramification of other sciences as well)
I am going to worship a new God. His name is Physics. How do I know he
exists? I have UNDENIABLE PROOF!!!! I have two books that tell me so. There
is the Book of Serway and the Book of Krane. However since this religion is
new and still quite small I am willing to accept new converts. You cannot do
anything bad or you will go to the place where friction is all powerful and
planks constant is 5, but if you are good you will go to the place of
frictionless surfaces and ideal pulleys, where h is equal to zero. If you have
knowledge of any other books, please let me know.
May Physics watch over you.
[note: the above was sarcasm]
J.J. Gauch
Jabriol wrote:
> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
> Archeaology as been supported by the historical event of the Bible.
> as well as history. The Bible does mention astronmy as well as biology
> and zoology.
Because the Bible is a "textbook" of the society and geopolitical
situation of the ancient Hebrews. Nothing supernatural in the bible has
been independantly confirmed.
Just because teh city of Troy was found by looking at The Illiad, does not
make Homer a prophet.
James Coons
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On 21 Mar 1998 00:44:03 -0500, in talk.origins, "Mea Culpa"
> <mk_harveyat...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
>
> >Bob Casanova wrote in message <3515f0bb...@news.clark.net>...
> >>On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, in talk.origins, "Jabriol"
> >><jab...@cris.com> wrote:
> ><snipped>
> >>> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
> ><snipped>
> >Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
> >testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
> >to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
> >the earth.
> >It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
> >Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
>
> (snip)
> 3) Columbus didn't discover the Earth was round; that was "common
> knowledge" among the educated of the time. His claim was that the
> Earth's circumference was 17,000 miles, as earlier proposed by one of
> the Golden Age Greek philosophers (don't remember which); yes, the
> knowledge was that old. Unfortunately, he was wrong; the more
> commonly-accepted figure of 25,000 miles was correct. Fortunately for
> him, there were a couple of unknown continents in the way, and he
> didn't perish in the middle of the ocean. He *did*, however, believe
> until his death that he'd reached the Indies (East, not West).
Didn't the Greeks (with their "superior knowledge" of mathematics andgeometry
determine the radius of the earth *fairly* accurately using
known (and reproducible) geometric techniques a *long time ago*?
Something about having a meter-stick pointing straight at the sun at
noon in several distantly located cities (of which the distances were
know very accurately) and then observing the angles/sizes of the
shadows after a specific amount of time. Of course, I don't know how
accurate their timing could have been, but they could have been
pretty accurate on their distance. I think they could use similar
techniques to determine the moon's distance and radius, but I'm not
sure I've ever heard of them doing that before.
--- JaCo ---
HeWhoGetsSlapped
Mea Culpa wrote:
> Forgive a lurker for posting but I believe that somewhere in the old
> testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
> to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
> the earth.
>
> It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
> Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
Or studied astrology.
Anyhoo, the whole attack on the bible in this thread is based on such
complete and utter ignorance I refuse to participate...well, other than
this one post..
my two wooden nickels
bunbury
Humble Tafari
Greetings to all here,
The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself speaks to
men. It is a book of divine instruction. It offers comfort in sorrow,
guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our sins, and
daily inspiration for our every need.
The Bible is not simply one book. It is an entire library of books covering
the whole range of literature. It includes history, poetry, drama,
biography, prophecy, philosophy, science, and inspirational reading. Little
wonder, then, that all or part of the Bible has been translated into more
than 1,200 languages, and every year more copies of the Bible are sold than
any other single book.
The Bible alone truly answers the greatest questions that man of all ages
have asked: "Where have I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why am I here?"
"How can I know the truth?" For the Bible reveals the truth about GOD,
explains the origin of man, points out the only way to salvation and
eternal life, and explains the age-old problem of sin and suffering.
The great theme of the Bible is the LORD JESUS CHRIST and HIS work of
redemption for mankind. The person and work of JESUS CHRIST are promised,
prophesied, and pictured in the types and symbols of the Old Testament. In
all of HIS truth and beauty, the LORD JESUS CHRIST is revealed in the
Gospels; and the full meanings of HIS life, HIS death, and HIS resurrection
are explained in the Epistles. HIS glorious coming again to earth in the
future is unmistakably foretold in the Book of Revelation. The great
purpose of the written Word of GOD, the Bible, is to reveal the living Word
of GOD, the LORD JESUS CHRIST.
What will the Bible do for us?
The Bible discovers sin and convicts us.
The Bible helps cleanse us from the pollutions of sin.
The Bible imparts strength
The Bible instructs us in what we are to do.
The Bible provides us with a sword for victory over sin.
The Bible makes our lives fruitful.
The Bible gives us power to pray.
You do not need a whole library of books to study the Bible. For the Bible
itself is it's own best commentator and interpreter.
Blessings to you all.
Humble Tafari
--
" But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give
an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you
with meekness and fear: "
1Peter 3:15
http://www.ionet.net/~wildfire/
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<6esa3c$e...@examiner.concentric.net>...
David Johnston
Let us pray to Aphrodite
Although she's rather flighty
Well she wears that see through nighty
And that's good enough for me
Gimme that old time religion...
HeWhoGetsSlapped
Doug Weller wrote: There
> are, however, quite a few myths of a circular earth, I believe, and one of these
> is in the Bible (which also talks of the 4 corners of the earth). And educated
> people knew that the earth was not round *long* before Columbus.
What I've always understood is that the 'Four Corners' are making
reference to north, south, east & west.
bunbury
Mea Culpa
People can bag the bible all they want. The fact of it is that it is a
wonderful book that details the life and beliefs of people who lived long
ago. It is one of the oldest records around today of days past. It can be
viewed as the basis of most of our laws today, both legaly and moraly.
It must have something to it to make so many of you get so riled up.
I think (MY personal opinion) that it is full of wonderful poetry, but I no
longer read it on a daily basis. shakespear however felt it had some merit,
as alot of the words used in his plays come directly from the bible.
Belief in it is a personal choice - I would never pressure anyone to read it
or belive in it. After all most of us live in democratic countries, with
the freedom to believe what we want to.
--
Mea
Life is like a box of chocolates - sometimes sweet,
sometimes nutty and ultimately rubbish
I use a spam block.
Please replace at with @ to reply to me.
>>
Thomas Scharle
In article <351726A7...@ameritech.net>, James Coons <jac...@ameritech.net> writes:
...
|> Didn't the Greeks (with their "superior knowledge" of mathematics andgeometry
|> determine the radius of the earth *fairly* accurately using
|> known (and reproducible) geometric techniques a *long time ago*?
|> Something about having a meter-stick pointing straight at the sun at
|> noon in several distantly located cities (of which the distances were
|> know very accurately) and then observing the angles/sizes of the
|> shadows after a specific amount of time. Of course, I don't know how
|> accurate their timing could have been, but they could have been
|> pretty accurate on their distance. I think they could use similar
|> techniques to determine the moon's distance and radius, but I'm not
|> sure I've ever heard of them doing that before.
Aristotle ("On the Heavens" Book 2 Chapter 14 near the end)
refers to certain unnamed mathematicians who estimated the
circumference of the earth at 400,000 stadia. We're not sure just
how big a stadium was, but one guess would be a furlong, which
would make that estimate about 50,000 miles, or about twice the
modern value. (This book is available in the "Great Books"
series which is available in many libraries. Aristotle lived in
the 4th century BCE.)
Aristotle refers to the fact that different stars are visible
at different latitudes (which would give a way of making an
estimate) and the shape of the earth's shadow on the moon as
evidence for a round earth.
About a century later, Eratosthenes used the technique that
you mention to make another estimate, which was apparently about
15% too big.
Here's the story of Eratosthenes:
He worked in Alexandria, and had heard travelers' stories
about how, at the summer solstice at what is modern-day Aswan,
the sun stood directly overhead, so that the bottom of a well
would be illuminated. (Aswan is approximately on the Tropic of
Cancer.) Eratosthenes measured the angle of elevation of the sun
at Alexandria at the solstice. This gives the difference in
latitudes (that is, the fraction of the earth's circumference
through the poles) between Alexandria and Aswan. He then made an
estimate of the distance (in stadia) between Alexandria and Aswan
(by how long it took to travel). The two numbers then gave the
circumference of the earth.
There are a number of possible errors in Eratosthenes' method:
Aswan is not exactly on the Tropic, Alexandria is not directly
north of Aswan, and the distance between the two was not exactly
measured.
Peter Swindells
Mea Culpa wrote:
>
> Bob Casanova wrote in message <3515f0bb...@news.clark.net>...
> >On 20 Mar 1998 14:04:15 -0500, in talk.origins, "Jabriol"
> ><jab...@cris.com> wrote:
> >
> <snipped>
>
> >> > Name one scientific discovery that arose out of study of the Bible.
>
> <snipped>
>
> testament - and perhaps someone can help with where because I am not to up
> to date on my bible readings - it talks about god being above the circle of
> the earth.
>
> It would seem to me that if we had studied the bible we wouldn't have needed
> Christopher Columbus to tell us that the world was round.
>
A circle is not a sphere.
PETE
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Humble Tafari" <wild...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Greetings to all here,
>
>The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself speaks to
>men. It is a book of divine instruction. It offers comfort in sorrow,
>guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our sins, and
>daily inspiration for our every need.
How nice. Now maybe you can bring this wonderful discussion of
theology to a theology or religion newsgroup.
[snip of off topic opinion]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------
Rossignol's curious, albeit simply titled book, 'The Origins of a
World War', spoke in terms of 'secret treaties', drawn up between the
Ambassadors from Plutonia and Desdinova the foreign minister. These
treaties founded a secret science from the stars. Astronomy. The
career of evil.
Peter Swindells
Humble Tafari wrote:
>
> Greetings to all here,
>
> The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself speaks to
> men.
What evidence do you have for this statement?
>It is a book of divine instruction.
What evidence do you have for this statement?
>It offers comfort in sorrow,
> guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our sins, and
> daily inspiration for our every need.
>
> The Bible is not simply one book. It is an entire library of books covering
> the whole range of literature. It includes history, poetry, drama,
> biography, prophecy, philosophy, science, and inspirational reading. Little
> wonder, then, that all or part of the Bible has been translated into more
> than 1,200 languages, and every year more copies of the Bible are sold than
> any other single book.
Little wonder, too, that people find support within it for a very wide
range of views. In fact, people with views as different as Hitler and
Martin Luther King have found inspiration in the bible. Is a book which
can be used to support _any_ point of view actually worth anything at
all? All people find in it is confirmation for their own prejudices.
> The Bible alone truly answers the greatest questions that man of all ages
> have asked: "Where have I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why am I here?"
It _claims_ to answer these questions. Do you have any evidence that
the claimed answers are, in fact, true?
<Snip>
PETE
Jim Phillips and Helen Hart
On 24 Mar 1998, Thomas Scharle wrote:
> He (Eratosthenes) worked in Alexandria, and had heard travelers'
> stories about how, at the summer solstice at what is modern-day Aswan,
> the sun stood directly overhead, so that the bottom of a well
> would be illuminated. (Aswan is approximately on the Tropic of
> Cancer.) Eratosthenes measured the angle of elevation of the sun
> at Alexandria at the solstice. This gives the difference in
> latitudes (that is, the fraction of the earth's circumference
> through the poles) between Alexandria and Aswan. He then made an
> estimate of the distance (in stadia) between Alexandria and Aswan
> (by how long it took to travel). The two numbers then gave the
> circumference of the earth.
I remember an episode of "Cosmos" (PBS series hosted by Carl
Sagan from early 80's) that mentioned his measurement. Eratosthenes
hired someone to walk from Aswan to Alexandria and count how many
steps he took to cover the distance--that's where he got the number
(I believe it was within 5% of the actual value).
Jim Phillips
jphi...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us
David Johnston
Humble Tafari wrote:
>
> Greetings to all here,
>
> The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself speaks to
> guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our sins, and
> daily inspiration for our every need.
What it doesn't offer is accurate and applicable biological, geological,
and physical information.
*
>
>Humble Tafari wrote:
>>
>> Greetings to all here,
>>
>> The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself
speaks to
>> men.
>
>What evidence do you have for this statement?
>
>>It is a book of divine instruction.
>
>What evidence do you have for this statement?
>
>>It offers comfort in sorrow,
>> guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our
sins, and
>> daily inspiration for our every need.
>>
>> The Bible is not simply one book. It is an entire library of books
covering
>> the whole range of literature. It includes history, poetry, drama,
>> biography, prophecy, philosophy, science, and inspirational reading.
Little
>> wonder, then, that all or part of the Bible has been translated into
more
>> than 1,200 languages, and every year more copies of the Bible are
sold than
>> any other single book.
>
>Little wonder, too, that people find support within it for a very wide
>range of views. In fact, people with views as different as Hitler and
>Martin Luther King have found inspiration in the bible. Is a book
which
>can be used to support _any_ point of view actually worth anything at
>all? All people find in it is confirmation for their own prejudices.
>
>> The Bible alone truly answers the greatest questions that man of all
ages
>> have asked: "Where have I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why am I
here?"
>
>It _claims_ to answer these questions. Do you have any evidence that
>the claimed answers are, in fact, true?
>
===>If you want a REALLY COMPLETE set of answers, go to the Library of
Congress. Its collection contains many more books than the collection
in the Bible.
Libertarius
*DON't CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
*
In <3517E2...@telusplanet.net> David Johnston
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> writes:
>
>Humble Tafari wrote:
>>
>> Greetings to all here,
>>
>> The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself
speaks to
sorrow,
>> guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our
sins, and
>> daily inspiration for our every need.
>
geological,
>and physical information.
>
anything else? After all, it is a very limited collection of some very
ancient pieces of writing.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
Bob Casanova
On 23 Mar 1998 22:19:51 -0500, in talk.origins, James Coons
<jac...@ameritech.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Didn't the Greeks (with their "superior knowledge" of mathematics andgeometry
>determine the radius of the earth *fairly* accurately using
>known (and reproducible) geometric techniques a *long time ago*?
>Something about having a meter-stick pointing straight at the sun at
>noon in several distantly located cities (of which the distances were
>know very accurately) and then observing the angles/sizes of the
>shadows after a specific amount of time. Of course, I don't know how
>accurate their timing could have been, but they could have been
>pretty accurate on their distance. I think they could use similar
>techniques to determine the moon's distance and radius, but I'm not
>sure I've ever heard of them doing that before.
IIRC, the contending figures were both from the Golden Age. The figure
of 25,000 miles (the correct one) was accepted by most later educated
people, while the 17,000-mile one was the one CC accepted. Somewhere,
I have the data (from an Asimov essay), but I haven't located it yet.
..karl
> Humble Tafari wrote:
> >
> > Greetings to all here,
> >
> > The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself speaks to
> > men.
>
> What evidence do you have for this statement?
>
Prophecy...how many examples do you want?
>
> PETE
+++++
see ya,
karl
..karl
Amen!
In article <01bd56db$7dc60d40$f375...@wildfire.ionet.net>, "Humble
Tafari" <wild...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Greetings to all here,
>
> The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself speaks to
> men. It is a book of divine instruction. It offers comfort in sorrow,
> guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our sins, and
> daily inspiration for our every need.
>
> The Bible is not simply one book. It is an entire library of books covering
> the whole range of literature. It includes history, poetry, drama,
> biography, prophecy, philosophy, science, and inspirational reading. Little
> wonder, then, that all or part of the Bible has been translated into more
> than 1,200 languages, and every year more copies of the Bible are sold than
> any other single book.
>
> The Bible alone truly answers the greatest questions that man of all ages
> have asked: "Where have I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why am I here?"
> > From: Tim and Angela Willis <Timand...@toadnet.org>
> >
> > Why all this talk about the bible?? Is it now a textbook?? Has someone
> > found that hard scientific evidence can be gleaned from this document
> > other than tracking the beliefs and culture of a people in a time period
> > in history where political and religious turmoil was common??? Where is
> > the logic in using the bible to argue evolution???? It has no frame of
> > reference, it is a document of great importance both moraly and
> > historically, but can it really be relied upon as a scientific document?
> > Even if it was written by the authors who fundamentalist christians
> > believe it was, was it not copied, many, many times?? (Though I know it
> > was done methodically). Could not political and cultural forces cause
> > the scribes to change the document over the ages? I think the chance is
> > there.
> >
> >
> > ( here is another example of public school education. Now if tim or
> angela
> > study an alternative to evolution, they would realize the importance of
> the
> > Bible in ramification of other sciences as well)
> >
> >
+++++
see ya,
karl
..karl
In article <35160A...@telusplanet.net>, David Johnston
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >
> > It should be quite obvious that if the flood did indeed happen as
> > mentioned in Genesis there should be a scientific record of it in the
> > geological columns.
>
> Unfortunately no such record was discovered.
>
> > The same can be said for some cities mentioned in the Old Testament. If
> > they existed we should be able to go to the location mentioned in the
> > bible and find some of the lost cities. As it turns out we do find some
> > of the cities
>
The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is more proof of a
world wide flood.
+++++
see ya,
karl
roy.altholz
...karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
<ksjj-24039...@max6-37.phl.fast.net>...
No, it's not.
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
Dave Horn
[Posted and emailed]
* Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
personal property to do with as I see fit.
..karl wrote in message ...
[Snip]
>The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is
>more proof of a world wide flood.
How so, Karl?
By the way, "more proof" implies that SOME "proof" has already been given.
Where is it?
Still waiting, Karl...
Dave Horn
[Posted and emailed]
* Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
personal property to do with as I see fit.
..karl wrote in message ...
>Amen!
>
>In article <01bd56db$7dc60d40$f375...@wildfire.ionet.net>, "Humble
>Tafari" <wild...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Greetings to all here,
>>
>> The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD
>> Himself speaks to men. It is a book of divine instruction.
>> It offers comfort in sorrow, guidance in perplexity, advice
>> for our problems, rebuke for our sins, and
>> daily inspiration for our every need.
[Remaining preachathon snipped]
Well, this all may sound good in a fundamentalist church, but I don't see an
application here.
E - v - i - d - e - n - c - e?
Got any?
Dave Horn
[Posted and emailed]
* Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
personal property to do with as I see fit.
..karl wrote in message ...
>In article <3517BB...@wlv.ac.uk>, Peter Swindells <cs1...@wlv.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
>> Humble Tafari wrote:
>> >
>> > Greetings to all here,
>> >
>> > The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD
>> > Himself speaks to men.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for this statement?
>
>Prophecy...how many examples do you want?
Any that can be independently verified with empirical evidence, Karl.
Rock on, dude...
psych...@xpoint.at
In article <3517BB...@wlv.ac.uk>,
Peter Swindells <cs1...@wlv.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Humble Tafari wrote:
> >
> > Greetings to all here,
> >
> > The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself speaks to
> > men.
>
> What evidence do you have for this statement?
>
>
>
> > guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our sins, and
> > daily inspiration for our every need.
> >
covering
> > the whole range of literature. It includes history, poetry, drama,
> > biography, prophecy, philosophy, science, and inspirational reading.
Little
> > wonder, then, that all or part of the Bible has been translated into more
> > than 1,200 languages, and every year more copies of the Bible are sold
than
> > any other single book.
>
> range of views. In fact, people with views as different as Hitler and
> Martin Luther King have found inspiration in the bible. Is a book which
> can be used to support _any_ point of view actually worth anything at
> all? All people find in it is confirmation for their own prejudices.
>
> > have asked: "Where have I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why am I here?"
>
> the claimed answers are, in fact, true?
>
>
> PETE
>
People of this particular mentality just want ANSWERS. "Consistency" and
"Evidence" are quite unimportant.
Hans-Richard Grümm
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Peter Lamb
>> world wide flood.
>>
>No, it's not.
More curious is the question of why Karl thinks so.
--
Peter Lamb <peter...@cmis.csiro.au>
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of CSIRO Australia.
John Wilkins
In article <6fa6vi$j...@gutter.its.csiro.au>, p...@cbr.dit.csiro.au (Peter
Lamb) wrote:
|"roy.altholz" <Felis....@MCI2000.com> writes:
|>...karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
|>> The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is more proof of a
|>> world wide flood.
|>>
|
|>No, it's not.
|
|More curious is the question of why Karl thinks so.
Indeed, what karl actually thinks at all. IIRC Uluru (not "the Uluru") is a
dirty great rock about 4:1 below ground. If *that's* a flood deposition,
then *nothing* would have survived. I climbed it once, in summer heat
(never said I was clever), and it took me 45 minutes to ascend. It's a
nontrivial rock...
Now, what's the other thingy? Is that the Olgas as they were known and so
far as I understand still are? Where's Nedin when you need geological
advice mixed with indigenous folklore?
--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Peter Lamb
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
>In article <6fa6vi$j...@gutter.its.csiro.au>, p...@cbr.dit.csiro.au (Peter
>Lamb) wrote:
> |"roy.altholz" <Felis....@MCI2000.com> writes:
> |>...karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
> |>> The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is more proof of a
> |>> world wide flood.
> |>>
> |
> |>No, it's not.
> |
> |More curious is the question of why Karl thinks so.
>Indeed, what karl actually thinks at all. IIRC Uluru (not "the Uluru") is a
>dirty great rock about 4:1 below ground. If *that's* a flood deposition,
>then *nothing* would have survived. I climbed it once, in summer heat
>(never said I was clever), and it took me 45 minutes to ascend. It's a
>nontrivial rock...
>Now, what's the other thingy? Is that the Olgas as they were known and so
>far as I understand still are? Where's Nedin when you need geological
>advice mixed with indigenous folklore?
Kata Tjuta is indeed the Olgas and is probably now the preferred name.
I thought them more spectacular than Uluru, even if they are
individually smaller. Both are sedimentary rock, if I remember
correctly, and hence *must* be flood deposits :-)
Gratuitous tourist advice: if you visit Uluru, don't miss Kata Tjuta.
--
Peter Lamb <peter...@no.spam.for.me.cmis.csiro.au>
roy.altholz
Peter Lamb <p...@cbr.dit.csiro.au> wrote in article
<6faaq4$k...@gutter.its.csiro.au>...
I found this wb site that has lot's of pics of Uluru, Kata Tjuta, and
several other National Parks with features of geological intrest. It takes
a while to load, but the pics are worth the wait. Some of the pics of
Bryse Canyon are spectacular!
http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/gallery/geology.htm
David Johnston
> >>
> >> Greetings to all here,
> >>
> >> The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself
> speaks to
> sorrow,
> >> guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our
> sins, and
> >> daily inspiration for our every need.
> >
> geological,
> >and physical information.
> >
> ===>What is your evidence that it offers accurate information about
> anything else? After all, it is a very limited collection of some very
> ancient pieces of writing.
<shrug> Anything else is irrelevant to talk.origins which is where I'm
posting from. I do think that it offers some valuable historical
information in the more mundane bits, and there has been some
archaeological confimation of those parts. I have no evidence that
it constitutes direct communication from "GOD" but it does have some
good advice as well.
David Johnston
> > >
> > > Greetings to all here,
> > >
> > > The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself speaks to
> > > men.
> >
> >
>
Prophecy is unimpressive after the fact, and no prophecy in the Bible
has come true after the collation of the Bible.
JC Bordo
* wrote:
<snip>
> >> The Bible alone truly answers the greatest questions that man of all
> ages
> >> have asked: "Where have I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why am I
> here?"
> >
> >It _claims_ to answer these questions. Do you have any evidence that
> >the claimed answers are, in fact, true?
> >
>
> Congress. Its collection contains many more books than the collection
> in the Bible.
>
> Libertarius
> *DON't CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
It may be bigger, but the books in it do not pose a final answer like
the bible does. I would call it a complete set of new questions.
JC
JC Bordo
Dave Horn wrote:
>
> [Posted and emailed]
>
> * Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
> personal property to do with as I see fit.
>
> ..karl wrote in message ...
>
>
> >The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is
> >more proof of a world wide flood.
>
>
> By the way, "more proof" implies that SOME "proof" has already been given.
> Where is it?
>
> Still waiting, Karl...
I dont know about proof, but you start thinking, when you find molusk
shells at 4000 meters over sea level. And dont come saying that someone
ate them a threw it there because they were too small for a human to
enjoy.
JC
Daneel
JC Bordo wrote:
<snip>
> I dont know about proof, but you start thinking, when you find molusk
> shells at 4000 meters over sea level.
JC, have you ever heard of plate tectonics?
You know, what happens when two plates collide
or one gets pushed under another?
Yes, land is thrust up!
Yes, so do mountains build!
> And dont come saying that someone
> ate them a threw it there because they were too small for a human to
> enjoy.
I advise you to not make such jokes until you
learn more about what science says.
Bye
Daneel [a#323 | student at the U. of Ediacara, ID #000666]
*************************************************************
"May absolutely increased ignorance flourish with relatively
increased knowledge." _Stephen Jay Gould_
J.J. Gauch
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On 22 Mar 1998 20:44:42 -0500, in talk.origins,
> hvic...@tornado.svs.com (Hal Vickery) wrote:
>
> >In article <35218cc3...@news.clark.net>, nos...@buzz.off (Bob
> >Casanova) wrote:
> >
> >> 3) Columbus didn't discover the Earth was round; that was "common
> >> knowledge" among the educated of the time. His claim was that the
> >> Earth's circumference was 17,000 miles, as earlier proposed by one of
> >> the Golden Age Greek philosophers (don't remember which); yes, the
> >> knowledge was that old.
> >
> >The first person to estimate the circumference of the spherical earth was
> >Eratosthenes, IIRC.
>
> That was the 17,000-mile estimate? I recall that both figures dated
> from the same general period, but can't remember who proposed which.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the info.
>
> (Note followups, if any)
>
> Bob C.
>
Erathosthenes' estimate was pretty accurate but I think it was plato who said
the earth was 17 000 miles.
William J Caldecutt
On 25 Mar 1998, JC Bordo wrote:
> Dave Horn wrote:
> >
> > [Posted and emailed]
> >
> > * Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
> > personal property to do with as I see fit.
> >
> > ..karl wrote in message ...
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > >The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is
> > >more proof of a world wide flood.
> >
> > How so, Karl?
> >
> > By the way, "more proof" implies that SOME "proof" has already been given.
> > Where is it?
> >
> > Still waiting, Karl...
>
> I dont know about proof, but you start thinking, when you find molusk
> shells at 4000 meters over sea level. And dont come saying that someone
> ate them a threw it there because they were too small for a human to
> enjoy.
>
You start thinking?.... I'll beleive it when I see it....
Are there REALLY shells on top of mountains? Wow... I thought the flood
buried the ocean bottom first.. that's why mammals are in the upper
strata... right? Sounds like there's a problem with flood geology...
right? Or are these shells the kind that float?
I love it when Karl trips and falls on his sword like that...
--Bill Caldecutt
roy.altholz
JC Bordo <jcb...@ibm.net> wrote in article <351928...@ibm.net>...
> Dave Horn wrote:
> >
> > [Posted and emailed]
> >
> > * Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes
my
> > personal property to do with as I see fit.
> >
> > ..karl wrote in message ...
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > >The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is
> > >more proof of a world wide flood.
> >
> > How so, Karl?
> >
> > By the way, "more proof" implies that SOME "proof" has already been
given.
> > Where is it?
> >
> > Still waiting, Karl...
>
> I dont know about proof, but you start thinking, when you find molusk
> shells at 4000 meters over sea level. And dont come saying that someone
> ate them a threw it there because they were too small for a human to
> enjoy.
Depends upon what you think. If you think it was a WWF, then you still
have to explain how they got there if water runs down hill. Then you have
to explain multiple diffirentiated layers of sedimentary rocks and
deposits, as opposed to a single world wide undiffirentiated layer of mixed
sediment and fossils. Then, if you think about it, and get off you dead
ass and look around and find that there is no single undiffirentiated layer
of rock, you would then think that there was not a WWF.
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
..
>
> JC
>
>
*
answer", why are there HUNDREDS of denominations DISAGREEING about what
that answer is?
Doesn't seem that "final" to me. In fact, it has posed many more
questions than it has answered.
Bob Casanova
On 25 Mar 1998 14:34:15 -0500, in talk.origins, "J.J. Gauch"
<Physi...@technologist.coOm> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>
>Erathosthenes' estimate was pretty accurate but I think it was plato who said
>the earth was 17 000 miles.
Thanks.
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ pop3.clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
jeff wiel
Distribution:
William J Caldecutt (wcal...@ic.sunysb.edu) wrote:
: On 25 Mar 1998, JC Bordo wrote:
: > Dave Horn wrote:
: > >
: > > [Posted and emailed]
: > >
: > > * Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
: > > personal property to do with as I see fit.
: > >
: > > ..karl wrote in message ...
: > >
: > > [Snip]
: > >
: > > >The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is
: > > >more proof of a world wide flood.
: > >
: > > How so, Karl?
: > >
: > > By the way, "more proof" implies that SOME "proof" has already been given.
: > > Where is it?
: > >
: > > Still waiting, Karl...
: >
: > I dont know about proof, but you start thinking, when you find molusk
: > shells at 4000 meters over sea level. And dont come saying that someone
: > ate them a threw it there because they were too small for a human to
: > enjoy.
: >
: You start thinking?.... I'll beleive it when I see it....
: Are there REALLY shells on top of mountains? Wow... I thought the flood
: buried the ocean bottom first.. that's why mammals are in the upper
: strata... right? Sounds like there's a problem with flood geology...
: right? Or are these shells the kind that float?
: I love it when Karl trips and falls on his sword like that...
: --Bill Caldecutt
Don't you know that when the people headed for the hills as the Flood
water rose they carried some seashells with them. You evilutionists are
soooo hard to explain anythin to...
Dave Horn
* Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
personal property to do with as I see fit.
JC Bordo wrote in message <351928...@ibm.net>...
>Dave Horn wrote:
>>
>> ..karl wrote in message ...
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> >The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is
>> >more proof of a world wide flood.
>>
>> How so, Karl?
>>
>> By the way, "more proof" implies that SOME "proof" has
>> already been given. Where is it?
>>
>> Still waiting, Karl...
>
>I dont know about proof, but you start thinking, when
>you find molusk shells at 4000 meters over sea level.
>And dont come saying that someone ate them a threw
>it there because they were too small for a human to
>enjoy.
I would never claim such a thing, just as I hope that YOU would not claim
that this little piece of "evidence" is new or earth-shaking. It's probably
seen at least three to four times a year in this newsgroup alone.
Fossil remains of marine life are known to appear at high altitudes because
of the cyclic nature of the materials used in mountain building. Marine
organisms leave their remains in materials on the ocean floor. Due to the
dynamic nature of the Earth, these materials do find themselves above the
water eventually. The mechanics of this can be learned in any
first-semester geology course. These mechanisms are relatively
well-understood, observable, and evidenced. You will note that there is no
need for the intervention of the unevidenced (that is, either God or a
world-wide flood -- neither of which can be evidenced from nature).
Perhaps it would be best if you learned the first rule of an intellectual
discussion, JC: Never criticize what you do not understand.
Scott McMahan
In article <6fc9sh$b...@news3.newsguy.com>, "Dave Horn" <nos...@mymail.box>
wrote:
:Perhaps it would be best if you learned the first rule of an intellectual
:discussion, JC: Never criticize what you do not understand.
I thought the first rule of an intellectual discussion was to make sure you
have an intellect before joining one.
--
Scott McMahan
mcm...@oncology.wisc.edu
Mea Culpa
JC Bordo wrote in message <351928...@ibm.net>...
>Dave Horn wrote:
>>
>> [Posted and emailed]
>>
>> * Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
>> personal property to do with as I see fit.
>>
>> ..karl wrote in message ...
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> >The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is
>> >more proof of a world wide flood.
>>
I was taught, at school - and that would be an Aussie school, that the whole
of inland Australia was once an inland sea. that is only the inland of
Australia. Are you saying that the *worlwide flood* only went to central
australia. I'd have trouble believing that. The flood obviously must have
leapt over the coastal regions, and landed ka-plunk right in the middle.
--
Mea
Life is like a box of chocolates - sometimes sweet,
sometimes nutty and ultimately rubbish
I use a spam block.
Please replace at with @ to reply to me.
mel turner
In article <351928...@ibm.net>, jcb...@ibm.net wrote..
>Dave Horn wrote:
>> [Posted and emailed]
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> >The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is
>> >more proof of a world wide flood.
>>
>>
>> By the way, "more proof" implies that SOME "proof" has already been
>> given. Where is it?
>>
>> Still waiting, Karl...
>
>I dont know about proof, but you start thinking, when you find molusk
>shells at 4000 meters over sea level.
The word for today is "orogeny". Look it up.
Former seabottoms get uplifted & incorporated into new mountains.
And dont come saying that someone
>ate them a threw it there because they were too small for a human to
>enjoy.
Leprechaun picnics, maybe? That'd be just as "scientific" and plausible
an explanation of the shells as the flood story...
cheers
J.J. Gauch
Dave Horn wrote:
> [Posted and emailed]
>
> * Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
> personal property to do with as I see fit.
>
> ..karl wrote in message ...
>
> >Amen!
> >
> >In article <01bd56db$7dc60d40$f375...@wildfire.ionet.net>, "Humble
> >Tafari" <wild...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings to all here,
> >>
> >> The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD
> >> Himself speaks to men. It is a book of divine instruction.
> >> It offers comfort in sorrow, guidance in perplexity, advice
> >> for our problems, rebuke for our sins, and
> >> daily inspiration for our every need.
>
> [Remaining preachathon snipped]
>
> Well, this all may sound good in a fundamentalist church, but I don't see an
> application here.
>
> E - v - i - d - e - n - c - e?
>
> Got any?
You might want to rephrase that. I'm not sure how many creationists can
spell.
David Johnston
JC Bordo wrote:
>
> * wrote:
> <snip>
> > >> The Bible alone truly answers the greatest questions that man of all
> > ages
> > >> have asked: "Where have I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why am I
> > here?"
> > >
> > >It _claims_ to answer these questions. Do you have any evidence that
> > >the claimed answers are, in fact, true?
> > >
> >
> > ===>If you want a REALLY COMPLETE set of answers, go to the Library of
> > Congress. Its collection contains many more books than the collection
> > in the Bible.
> >
> > Libertarius
> > *DON't CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
>
> It may be bigger, but the books in it do not pose a final answer like
> the bible does. I would call it a complete set of new questions.
To what question?
Frank O Wustner
..karl (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: Peter Swindells <cs1...@wlv.ac.uk> wrote:
: > Humble Tafari wrote:
: > > Greetings to all here,
: > > The Bible is the greatest book ever written. In it GOD Himself speaks to
: > > men.
: > What evidence do you have for this statement?
: Prophecy...how many examples do you want?
How about something REAL? Prophecy in hindsight is much to convenient to
convince us of anything.
The Deadly Nightshade
--
this .sig down for repairs
Frank O Wustner
jeff wiel (jw...@world.std.com) wrote:
: William J Caldecutt (wcal...@ic.sunysb.edu) wrote:
: : Are there REALLY shells on top of mountains? Wow... I thought the flood
: : buried the ocean bottom first.. that's why mammals are in the upper
: : strata... right? Sounds like there's a problem with flood geology...
: : right? Or are these shells the kind that float?
: Don't you know that when the people headed for the hills as the Flood
: water rose they carried some seashells with them. You evilutionists are
: soooo hard to explain anythin to...
Oh, come ON, Jeff. I know that you are just trying to annoy the fundy
Christians with this troll, but nobody will really fall for something so
obvious. You need to be more subtle. I mean, J<censored>Y already tried
this little tract on alt.atheism a little while ago, so people are already
used to this particular phoney twist by the crapationists.
Frank O Wustner
Scott McMahan (mcm...@oncology.wisc.edu) wrote:
: "Dave Horn" <nos...@mymail.box> wrote:
: :Perhaps it would be best if you learned the first rule of an intellectual
: :discussion, JC: Never criticize what you do not understand.
: I thought the first rule of an intellectual discussion was to make sure you
: have an intellect before joining one.
I have to agree to Scott's suggestion for the first rule. It just seems a
bit better. I mean, before you can know whether you understand something,
you have to know HOW to understand something, which would seem to require
the capability to think. And we all know that fundies lack this ability.
^_^
JC Bordo
> >It may be bigger, but the books in it do not pose a final answer like
> >the bible does. I would call it a complete set of new questions.
> >
> >
> ===>If the collection of the lietarature in the Bible posed "a final
> answer", why are there HUNDREDS of denominations DISAGREEING about what
> that answer is?
Ok, maybe I missused some words. I do beleive that the answer to most of
humanities questions are on the bible. But if you ever notice, most of
the denominations disagree because of the political and personal
interests involved with religion. Religion It's been politically driven
since the beginin of time. That is the nature of men. Most of the
characters appearing in the Bible are politically involved, excluding
Jesus and Adam. As new denominations have emerged, because a King wanted
to marry again, because people despised the Spanish Inquisition or
someone decided that Mary had more children, so have new interpretations
that favor their own way of thinking.
> Doesn't seem that "final" to me. In fact, it has posed many more
> questions than it has answered.
And you are right, It has. But that is all because of interpretation.
JC
JC Bordo
It was just a comment. Not ment to change the theories of earth origins.
I know I am not the first to find something like that.
Dave Horn wrote:
>
> * Email address is dhorn at henge dot com - Unsolicited email becomes my
> personal property to do with as I see fit.
>
> JC Bordo wrote in message <351928...@ibm.net>...
>
> >Dave Horn wrote:
> >>
> >> ..karl wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> [Snip]
> >>
> >> >The Uluru and Kata Tjuta in ther middle of Australia is
> >> >more proof of a world wide flood.
> >>
> >> How so, Karl?
> >>
> >> By the way, "more proof" implies that SOME "proof" has
> >> already been given. Where is it?
> >>
> >> Still waiting, Karl...
> >
> >I dont know about proof, but you start thinking, when
> >you find molusk shells at 4000 meters over sea level.
> >And dont come saying that someone ate them a threw
> >it there because they were too small for a human to
> >enjoy.
The last comment regarding size was just to evade a stupid argument like
that.
> I would never claim such a thing, just as I hope that YOU would not claim
> that this little piece of "evidence" is new or earth-shaking. It's probably
> seen at least three to four times a year in this newsgroup alone.
Of course I don't claim that, in order to prove something you need
really strong evidence that backs you up on your claim. This is just a
token of things that trigger the immagination.
> Fossil remains of marine life are known to appear at high altitudes because
> of the cyclic nature of the materials used in mountain building. Marine
> organisms leave their remains in materials on the ocean floor. Due to the
> dynamic nature of the Earth, these materials do find themselves above the
> water eventually. The mechanics of this can be learned in any
> first-semester geology course. These mechanisms are relatively
> well-understood, observable, and evidenced. You will note that there is no
> need for the intervention of the unevidenced (that is, either God or a
> world-wide flood -- neither of which can be evidenced from nature).
It is not as if I had never felt and earthquake and wondered what caused
it.
> Perhaps it would be best if you learned the first rule of an intellectual
> discussion, JC: Never criticize what you do not understand.
How can you say I do not understand what you are saying? You don't even
know who I am. And to be honest with you, as a scientist (if you are
one) you are finished if you take what you know and what you been
lectured on as final. You need to open your mind and embrace ideas and
study them, not hammer them because they are different than yours.
You also need to learn how to read and interpret stuff. My comment has
two sides to the story. One, the side that targets your thinking you so
eager tend to defend. And the one you did not catch. Imagine How would a
Priest that does not know about Geology and Tectonic plates answer to
that. Wouldn't he invent something like a wwf to get of the hook?
Think openly and read before you flame someone.
And if you were wondering, YES I knew the message was gonna get flamed.
Thats why I posted it.
JC
*
In <351A8A...@ibm.net> JC Bordo <jcb...@ibm.net> writes:
>
>> >It may be bigger, but the books in it do not pose a final answer
like
>> >the bible does. I would call it a complete set of new questions.
>> >
>> >JC
>> >
>> ===>If the collection of the lietarature in the Bible posed "a final
>> answer", why are there HUNDREDS of denominations DISAGREEING about
what
>> that answer is?
>
>Ok, maybe I missused some words. I do beleive that the answer to most
of
>humanities questions are on the bible. But if you ever notice, most of
>the denominations disagree because of the political and personal
>interests involved with religion. Religion It's been politically
driven
>since the beginin of time.
===>WRONG. Religion has been driven by the same natural force of change
that drives everythinbg else in Nature. It is called EVOLUTION and
SPECIATION. EVERYTHING that is duplicated changes. That is just the way
Nature works.
That is the nature of men. Most of the
>characters appearing in the Bible are politically involved, excluding
>Jesus and Adam.
===>Wrong again. Doesn't the Genesis story depict Adam as somewhat of a
rebel? What is a rebel if not someone who is "pl;oitically motivated.
And as for Jesus, he and his fellow LESTAI (rebels) were EXECUTED
because of the rebellion they were instigating. Jesus was found, from
the Pro-Roman Imperialist point of view, "subverting our nation,
opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be Messiah, a
king...His teaching is causeing disaffection among the people all
through Judea. It started from Galilee and has spread as far as this
city." (Luke 23:1-5, New English Bible). If THAT is not a depiction of
"political motivation", what is?
As new denominations have emerged, because a King wanted
to marry again,
===>What is "political" about wanting to re-marry?
because people despised the Spanish Inquisition
===>Religious changes were not the CONSEQUENCE but the CAUSE of the
Inquisition.
or someone decided that Mary had more children, so have new
interpretations that favor their own way of thinking.
===>???
>
>> Doesn't seem that "final" to me. In fact, it has posed many more
>> questions than it has answered.
>
>And you are right, It has. But that is all because of interpretation.
===>Any arbitrary collection of books about which the authorities
claimed to have originated from the same source (i.e. "God") would have
created the same sort of confusion. There are just way too many books
in the Bible, many of which were written much too long time ago, so
even if each author differs in his opinions and in his idea of "God"
just ever so slightly, just like in the case of any other LIBRARY,
there is no way anyone can use that collection of books without
SELECTING certain books or certain passages, and INTERPRETING those
selection. Hence: the MUTATIONS and the development of new
denominations.