Flood info
Michael D. Painter
the dman wrote in article <33D3F4FB...@dtx.net>...
><<Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
>earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under
>heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
I would say that the earth is UNDER HEAVEN and that whales have the breath
of life. They were killed.
I would also say that 7 23 says "...every living substance..." and "...Noah
only remained alive and those that were with him in the Ark...".
Note this would include everything.
As usual the Christian picks and chooses those phrases that are useful and
ignores the other parts of the two myth stories.
karl
In article <33D3F4FB...@dtx.net>, dm...@dtx.net wrote:
> Since everyone seems to be unsure of what the Bible actually says about
> the flood, let me show you. If you do not believe the Bible is true,
> then that is fine, but please stop saying that the Bible says everything
> on the planet that wasnt on the ark died, because this is not true.
> First off lets see how God terms things:
>
> <<Ge 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering
> together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.>>
>
> The dry ground was Earth and the waters were seas, this is important so
> remember it.
>
> <<Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
> the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
> the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. >>
>
> He says he is going to destroy all from the face of the Earth, no
> mention of seas (remember the Earth is referring to dry ground)
>
> <<Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
> earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under
> heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.>>
>
> Again the Earth, no mention of the seas.
>
> <<Ge 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl,
> and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth
> upon the earth, and every man: >>
>
> Flesh upon the Earth died.
>
> <<Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that
> [was] in the dry [land], died.>>
>
> All in whose nostrils…in the dry land. No mention of seas.
>
> <<Ge 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the
> face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and
> the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah
> only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. >>
>
> Upon the face of the ground, not the seas.
>
> So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died. It
> doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark. The Bible says man,
> beast, fowl and creeping thing. The creatures of the sea were created
> several verses before the word beast is even used for the first time.
> The dman
I can't argue with the logic dman. Although the evolutionist will feel
compelled to refute you do to the fact they are forced to support their
secular humanistic religion of evolution.
--
+++++++++++++
see ya,
karl
+++++++++++++
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
1st Timothy 6:20
the dman
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> =
> In article <33D3F4FB...@dtx.net>, dm...@dtx.net wrote:
> > <<Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all tha=
t
> > [was] in the dry [land], died.>>
> > All in whose nostrils=85in the dry land. No mention of seas.
So whales don't breathe?
> > <<Ge 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon th=
e
> > face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, an=
d
> > the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and N=
oah
> > only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. >>
> >
> > Upon the face of the ground, not the seas.
Which part of "...and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were]
with him in the ark." don't you understand?
I cleaned my sink; and the stove; and the silverware; and I cleaned
everything in the kitchen.
How does this imply that the fridge or the floor is still dirty?
> I can't argue with the logic dman. Although the evolutionist will feel
> compelled to refute you do to the fact they are forced to support their=
> secular humanistic religion of evolution.
Karl, you could argue the logic till the cows come home, but can you
read the bible?
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is =
> falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
> =
> 1st Timothy 6:20
EX 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The last time I looked, this was still one of the Ten Commandments. =
Since there is *NO* paranthetical in 1 Tim 6:20, nor any *mention* of
evolution in the bible, why do you feel that *this* commandment doesn't
apply to you? =
Proverbs 12:
17 He *that* speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false
witness deceit.
20 Deceit *is* in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the
counsellors of peace *is* joy. =
=
19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue
*is* but for a moment.
=
22 Lying lips *are* abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly
*are* his delight. =
Has being saved absolved you from obedience of the Ten Commandments?
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis =93Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!=94
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884 =
******************************************************************
Douglas Cox
On 21 Jul 1997 22:20:15 -0400, "Michael D. Painter"
<mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
>the dman wrote in article <33D3F4FB...@dtx.net>...
> ><<Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
>>earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under
>>heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
> I would say that the earth is UNDER HEAVEN and that whales have the breath
>of life. They were killed.
Yes, very likely, some whales drowned in the great flood. How else
would you explain the discovery of fossils of the sperm whale in
Michigan? They certainly didn't leap over Niagara Falls!
You can read about these fossil discoveries at:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html
--
Douglas Cox
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc
Thomas Scharle
In article <ksjj-21079...@max4-46.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
...
|> I can't argue with the logic dman. Although the evolutionist will feel
|> compelled to refute you do to the fact they are forced to support their
Although you may disagree with the Pope, I think that you will
have to agree that he is not an adherent of a "secular humanistic
religion".
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Kathy Slater
I was just wondering how Noah managed to get all the animals unique to
China, Australia, and the America's on his ship. Also, how did he get
all the millions of different species of insects, the polar bears and
penguins in addition to all the necessary food to keep these creatures
alive? What if a spider accidentally ate a fly? Would there have then
been no more since two are required to produce offspring?
What about the fact that after six generations of inbreeding, no more
offspring can be produced because of the recessive genes? I would
appreciate it if someone had any anwers to these questions.
Brian D. Ostasiewski
21 Jul 1997 19:43:49 -0400 - the dman (dm...@dtx.net) was like:
: <<Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
: earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under
: heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.>>
What an evil bastard.
--
** Chief Miscer and Keeper of the Holy Misc Torch «osta...@wfu.edu»
** [CMNRC] http://www.wfu.edu/~ostasbd4 «osta...@mthcsc.wfu.edu»
ArachnomaniA
In talk.origins the dman <dm...@dtx.net> wrote:
> Since everyone seems to be unsure of what the Bible actually says about
> the flood, let me show you. If you do not believe the Bible is true,
> then that is fine, but please stop saying that the Bible says everything
[snip]
> So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died. It
> doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark. The Bible says man,
> beast, fowl and creeping thing. The creatures of the sea were created
> several verses before the word beast is even used for the first time.
I wonder how creationists account for the large mass extinctions in
the sea? Most fossils are marine right?
Jeff
> The dman
Mark Isaak
In article <33D3F4FB...@dtx.net>, the dman <dm...@dtx.net> wrote:
>So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died. It
>doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark. The Bible says man,
>beast, fowl and creeping thing.
Question for dman: Were insects, spiders, and slugs aboard the ark? How
about seals, walruses, and penguins? How about frogs and salamanders?
Question for others: Who was the creationist who started the idea of
insects surviving on vegetation mats?
--
Mark Isaak at...@best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden
Richard G. Henne, Jr.
the dman wrote:
>
> Since everyone seems to be unsure of what the Bible actually says about
> the flood, let me show you. If you do not believe the Bible is true,
> then that is fine, but please stop saying that the Bible says everything
> First off lets see how God terms things:
>
> <<Ge 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering
> together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.>>
>
> The dry ground was Earth and the waters were seas, this is important so
> remember it.
>
> <<Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
> the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
> the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. >>
>
> He says he is going to destroy all from the face of the Earth, no
> mention of seas (remember the Earth is referring to dry ground)
>
> earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under
> heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.>>
>
>
> <<Ge 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl,
> and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth
> upon the earth, and every man: >>
>
> Flesh upon the Earth died.
>
> [was] in the dry [land], died.>>
>
>
> <<Ge 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the
> face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and
> the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah
> only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. >>
>
>
> doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark. The Bible says man,
> several verses before the word beast is even used for the first time.
Mr. Dman,
Please name a plant that can survive submersion in salt water for one
year, is edible by all herbivores and can reproduce itself rapidly
enough to feed the herbivores when the waters subside. Such a plant
must have existed or nothing would have survived after the ark landed.
--
Rich
In science, nothing beats direct evidence!
Doug Quarnstrom
the dman (dm...@dtx.net) wrote:
: So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died.
Yes, and instead argue about how the fuck ANY corals survived.
:It
: doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark.
But Ciclids would have to, almost certainly.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
karl (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: I can't argue with the logic dman.
The punch lines come fast and furious on this line...
doug
Richard G. Henne, Jr.
karl wrote:
>
>
> I can't argue with the logic dman. Although the evolutionist will feel
> compelled to refute you do to the fact they are forced to support their
> secular humanistic religion of evolution.
>
Karl,
Can you name a plant that all herbivores can be sustained by, is able to
live after being submerged in salt water for a year and can reproduce
fast enough to feed the herbivores after they leave the ark? Please
provide detailed evidence to support your claim (the peer reviewed
published results of an experiment that proves all three claims will
suffice). If not, you have not provided evidence for your flood story.
>
> --
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
>
> 1st Timothy 6:20
--
Rich
Karl says, "Truth Hurts"! That's why he rarely uses it and adds words
to the scriptures!
JOEL KAPLAN
Believe it or not, a "science" teacher I know, who was called
up to the White House and given a national teaching award,
still believes in the bible's account of a flood.
But he believes in "a LOCAL flood" (my emphasis) which
occured in the immediate flood plain.
Even HE knows that a worldwide flood would be an impossibility!
But then a local flood is just as absurd. I mean, why build a
big ark and load up animals when all Nowah had to do was
take him and his family up over the nearest mountain range and
out of the flood plain?
Trying to fit the facts into an absurd story passed around the
tent fires of an ancient superstitious tribe is due to result
in even more illogical conclusions...until the whole thing
collapses under its own weight.
--
2
Stephen
the dman wrote:
> <<Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
> the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
> the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. >>
And then Ea said, "Yahweh, you are blatently copying Enhil's flood,
come up with an original idea."
> He says he is going to destroy all from the face of the Earth, no
> mention of seas (remember the Earth is referring to dry ground)
>
> <<Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
> earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under
> heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.>>
And then Yahweh said, "Sea going mammals, hold your breath for a few
months."
> <<Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that
> [was] in the dry [land], died.>>
>
> All in whose nostrils…in the dry land. No mention of seas.
And the whales which breath out of nostrils died, as they did not fit
onto the ark, as they had fit into the aquatic section of Utnapishtim's
much larger arc long ago.
> So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died. It
> doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark. The Bible says man,
> beast, fowl and creeping thing. The creatures of the sea were created
> several verses before the word beast is even used for the first time.
> The dman
Look, the story was much better written when it was still the original
Babylonian myth. The arc was much larger, the flood was shorter, and
the gods were more logical. To see where the bible stole this story,
go to:
http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/rs011/restrict/gilflood.htm
This story is probably thousands of years older than the bible.
Thomas Scharle
|> check out,
...
And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at the
time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
world came to Egypt for grain:
Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy
corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries came to
Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
I don't know why the so-called "literalists" don't seem to take
up the cause of supporting this text.
karl
In article <33D51032...@asu.edu>, "Richard G. Henne, Jr."
<Rich....@asu.edu> wrote:
> the dman wrote:
> >
> > Since everyone seems to be unsure of what the Bible actually says about
> > the flood, let me show you. If you do not believe the Bible is true,
> > then that is fine, but please stop saying that the Bible says everything
> > on the planet that wasnt on the ark died, because this is not true.
> > First off lets see how God terms things:
> >
> > <<Ge 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering
> > together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.>>
> >
> > The dry ground was Earth and the waters were seas, this is important so
> > remember it.
> >
> > <<Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
> > the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
> > the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. >>
> >
> > He says he is going to destroy all from the face of the Earth, no
> > mention of seas (remember the Earth is referring to dry ground)
> >
> > <<Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
> > earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under
> > heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.>>
> >
> > Again the Earth, no mention of the seas.
> >
> > <<Ge 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl,
> > and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth
> > upon the earth, and every man: >>
> >
> > Flesh upon the Earth died.
> >
> > <<Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that
> > [was] in the dry [land], died.>>
> >
> > All in whose nostrils…in the dry land. No mention of seas.
> >
> > <<Ge 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the
> > face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and
> > the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah
> > only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. >>
> >
> > Upon the face of the ground, not the seas.
> >
> > So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died. It
> > doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark. The Bible says man,
> > beast, fowl and creeping thing. The creatures of the sea were created
> > several verses before the word beast is even used for the first time.
> > The dman
>
> Mr. Dman,
>
> Please name a plant that can survive submersion in salt water for one
> year, is edible by all herbivores and can reproduce itself rapidly
> enough to feed the herbivores when the waters subside. Such a plant
> must have existed or nothing would have survived after the ark landed.
PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
There are many ways inwhich plants could have survived the flood of Noah.
The first and most obvious is that some of the seeds were aboard the ark.
The ark stored grains and other foods used to feed the animals. These
stored foods would have had seeds associated with them that later could
have germinated and grown outside of the ark. ItÄ…s possible/probable that
Noah could have brough an assortment of seeds on board of the ark so he
could re-populate the earth with these plants after the waters receded.
Other methods of preserving the seed is for them to float on the water
during the flood where after the water receded they could then germinate
in the soil. Of course not all seed would be able to survive in that
fashion, yet some would. Floating vegetation rafts would have also
provided a means for other plants to have survived the flood waters. As
the flood waters uprooted trees and other vegetation they would have
clumped together in extremely large rafts later settling on to the moist
ground after the waters receded and then begin to grow. Still others
seeds would have been buried during the flood only to sprout after the
waters had left the surface of the continents. Some of the seeds buried
deep in the flood sediment during the initial phase of the flood could
have been brought to the surface as flood waters eroded away the upper
layers as the water receded. Once that happened they to would have a
chance to germinate.
Trees like the olive or the locust can root just by sticking a branch
into the ground and certainly would have survived the flood if they were
buried or settled on the surface.
Ref, NoahÄ…s Ark a feasibility study, John Woodmorappe
>
> --
> Rich
>
> In science, nothing beats direct evidence!
--
karl
In article <5r314p$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, d...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Doug
Quarnstrom) wrote:
> the dman (dm...@dtx.net) wrote:
>
> : So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died.
>
> Yes, and instead argue about how the xxxx ANY corals survived.
>
> :It
> : doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark.
>
> But Ciclids would have to, almost certainly.
>
> doug
Nice lanquage Doug.
The answer is simple, The Å‚ancient reefsË› were not reefs and can be
understood in the flood model. One would expect to find these Å‚reefsË›
above and below sedimentary rocks.
Some of the ancient reefs can be understood as artifacts of erosion. For
example the Schlern dolomitic limestone of South Tyrol were originally
interpreted as a great barrier reef system.
The Silurian Å‚reefsË› of Ohio is another example of a formation once
believed to be a reef. Further studies of the flank material
demonstrated that it was not a reef, but rather a reef look a like. The
absents of reef organism from the Silurian Å‚reefsË› is decisive evidence
against them being reefs. Other portions of reefs may have been brought
about by a mechanical means. The flood waters would move some of the
flat-based colonies and redeposit them upright. The question arises
whether this is the growth location or growth orientation issue.
The Carboniferous reefs in England turned out to be mudbanks. Evidence
points to the rarity of framebuilders in the reefs. Thick Triassic
sequences in Germany, Austria, and Italy have long been shown as classic
reefs . Although Studies in the Northern and Southern alps have shown
that extensive coral framework is missing. Evidence has shown that these
formations were not grown over a long time by organisms that bind lime
mud.
Many forms of geometry of reef deposits can be explained by tectonics
during sedimentation. In fact many of the Å‚ancient reefsË› are now
considered dune-type flood deposits.
The above is just a *brief* summary of so-called reefs. The book inwhich
it comes from naturally does a much better job of explaining these
formations .
My guess is that the reefs you are mentioning are probably not reefs at all.
Until you can show other wise there is enough evidence that suggest your
example is a reef look-a-like and was deposited during the different
stages of the flood.
Ref:Studies in Flood Geology
by, John Woodmorappe B.S. Geology, B.A. Biology
karl
Hi Joel.
In article <5r35fb$o...@news.asu.edu>, joe...@aztec.asu.edu (JOEL KAPLAN) wrote:
And from your other post,
> A science teacher says that the flood of Noah was local,
> and couldn't have been worldwide, due to what is known about
> marsupials in Australia, parrots in South America, and other
> species whoich are to be found only in remote areas of the
> planet, far away from Noah's ark.
>
> But even THIS local flood theor y is absurd!
>
> Why build a huge ark and load up animals, if all Noah had to
> do was hike over the mountain range to another area where it
> wasn't going to rain for forty days and forty nights? And
> where the heck is the "local flood" area shaped like a bowl,
> where the waters could be contained for one year after
> the heavy rain? Completely absurd, but just another example
> of how the religious can twist their camprfire theories into
> even more ridiculous pieces of "logic".
For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
check out,
2PE 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and
destroyed.
It's quite obvious Peter thought the world was covered with water. Why?
Check out,
GEN 7:17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as
the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.
GEN 7:18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the
ark floated on the surface of the water.
GEN 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains
under the entire heavens were covered.
GEN 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more
than twenty feet.
Biblically a local flood is out of the question. How could the mountains
under the entire heavens be covered yet the flood be local?
Next, Scientific proof,
point 1) Evidence for a world wide flood can be seen when one looks at the
rather large area of the St. Peters Sandstone in the United States and the
750,000 Square mile thousands of feet thick and 3 mile high Tibetan
plateau.
It's obvious that these formations were not laid down in a little flood.
These rather large formations required a rather large amount of flood
water depositing the sediment. Something like...Noahs flood.
Point 2) The sudden appearance of fossils found fully complete in the
basement Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to them
indicates a sudden burial. This fits the flood model perfectly. As a
matter of fact the geologist have dubbed this period the Cambrian
explosion...due to the sudden appearance of fossils.
point 3) Look at all of the fossils the geologist have found. Animals and
plants need a quick burial in order to become fossils. If they are left
outside exposed to the elements they will be eaten by scavangers or rot
in place during the millions of years that is required for the sediment to
build up around them so the can form into a fossil. On the other
hand...the flood model presents a way to bury the animals quickly.
As far as the marsupials in Australia, parrots in South America, and other
species are concerned they could have easily migrated there or have been
placed there by man after the flood. History clearly shows animals migrate
and man has introduced many animals and plants to foreign soil.
Honestly, I don't think the creationist beliefs are "campfire ideas" as
you have indicated. The above has provided refutes to your claims. Perhaps
you can present them to your science teacher.
Michael D. Painter
karl wrote in article ...
>In article <5r314p$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, d...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Doug
>Quarnstrom) wrote:
>
>> the dman (dm...@dtx.net) wrote:
>>
>> : So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died.
>>
>> Yes, and instead argue about how the xxxx ANY corals survived.
>>
>> :It
>> : doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark.
>>
>> But Ciclids would have to, almost certainly.
>>
>> doug
>
>Nice lanquage Doug.
<karl crap cut.>
karl has out done himself here (or under done)
Corals are animals which everyone except you and perhaps dman agrees that
your bible says died.
If, as you do, we ignore the bible there are a couple of other problems.
1. They need precise warm temperatures, a flood would not allow this.
2. They require sunlight. They would be too deep to survive the flood myth.
They, like myriad intertidal creatures, could not have survived a flood.
The only thing smaller than your mind is your concept of a god.
I was an agnostic before starting to read T.O. People like you have made me
think. Now I am a confirmed atheist.
If I did believe I would laugh at your paltry, puny, purient god and glory
in a god who gave us real problems.
Your god seems to be like the parent who tells of Santa Claus bringing
presents. Most of us have grown out of that myth also.
karl
In article <5r3prn$i...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
Scharle) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(karl) writes:
> ...
> |> For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
> |> check out,
> ...
>
> And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at the
> time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
> world came to Egypt for grain:
>
> Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy
> corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
>
> Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries came to
> Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
>
> I don't know why the so-called "literalists" don't seem to take
> up the cause of supporting this text.
Tom, when the bible says the water was higher than the mountains, I think
it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
Of course once again, your religion, secular humanism which holds an
biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of the
bible.
>
> --
> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
--
Splifford
> In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(karl) writes:
> ...
> |> For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
> |> check out,
> ...
>
> And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at the
> time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
> world came to Egypt for grain:
>
> Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy
> corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
>
> Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries came to
> Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
Of course they did. And from the small islands in the Pacific they came,
by canoe; and yea, 'tis written that they came from the great Southern
Ocean, and from far Iceland's icy shores, and even from great China, they
came. And for some reason they _all_ forgot to note that they'd done so.
And they all forgot _how_ they'd done so, and had to work out, say, the
long-distance trans-oceanic transport systems they'd once had all over
again, so that the Polynesians could colonize places like New Zealand and
Hawaii. And the Eqyptians failed to note that they'd been submerged by the
population of the entire world, including assorted Asians, Pacific
peoples, Amerinds... Makes perfect sense to me...
>
> I don't know why the so-called "literalists" don't seem to take
> up the cause of supporting this text.
They're idiots, but they ain't crazy. (Well, except maybe for Karl and the
dman...)
>
> --
> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
--
Bore, n. A person who talks when you wish him to listen. --The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce.
My real email addy is patjames at super dot zippo dot com.
Geoff Sheffield
karl wrote:
>
> In article <5r3prn$i...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
> Scharle) wrote:
>
> > In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
> (karl) writes:
> > ...
> > |> For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
> > |> check out,
> > ...
> >
> > And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at the
> > time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
> > world came to Egypt for grain:
> >
> > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy
> > corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
> >
> > Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries came to
> > Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
> >
> > up the cause of supporting this text.
>
> it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
> In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
>
> Of course once again, your religion, secular humanism which holds an
> biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of the
> bible.
Your religion must give you some sort of reading comprehension problem.
Where is the word "flood" mentioned in the post you responded to?
And by the way, what is the motivation that secular humanists have in
trying to defeat the Bible? And why don't you capitalize the b in
Bible? Are you a secular humanist too?
> >
> > --
> > Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
>
> --
karl
In article <vlad-23079...@ntsa11.infochan.com>, vl...@tepes.com
(Splifford) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-23079...@max2-24.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
> (karl) wrote:
>
> > In article <5r3prn$i...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
> > Scharle) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
> > (karl) writes:
> > > ...
> > > |> For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
> > > |> check out,
> > > ...
> > >
> > > And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at the
> > > time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
> > > world came to Egypt for grain:
> > >
> > > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy
> > > corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
> > >
> > > Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries came to
> > > Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
> > >
> > > I don't know why the so-called "literalists" don't seem to take
> > > up the cause of supporting this text.
> >
> > Tom, when the bible says the water was higher than the mountains, I think
> > it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
> > In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
>
> And how does this answer his question? Karl, Karl, Karl, the question was:
>
> Did the peoples of the Americas and Australia come to Egypt during the
> 'Great Famine'? Please answer the question. If you can. Try not to indulge
> in non-sequitars... What am I saying? This is Karl. He can't do anything
> else.
Tom your comparing apples to oranges.
The bible has more information on what is mentioned by "world wide" when
we are talking about the flood (apples) compared to what is know by the
meaning of "world wide" when talked about a famine. (oranges)
As mentioned before, the bible is quite clear that the flood covered the
mountains, thus it had to cover the entire globe. This point is not open
for debate. It's been settled.
The term "world" when referring to the famine could have been used in a
fashion similiar to the way the colonist called america the new "world" or
the way people use the term, "worlds" apart. Ever been to Wally "world"
Then again, the famine could have very well been a global famine. Unlike
the flood story which has enough information to know for sure the flood
did encompass the entire earth, there is not enough information in the
famine story to be as certain.
Thomas Scharle
In article <33D66BB3...@asu.edu>, "Richard G. Henne, Jr." <Rich....@asu.edu> writes:
|> karl wrote:
...
|> > Tom, when the bible says the water was higher than the mountains, I think
|> > it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
|> > In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
|> >
|> > biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of the
|> > bible.
|> >
|>
|> Scharle quotes? If all countries came to Egypt for grain, why is there
|> no record of contact between the Egyptians and the Chinese? Is your
|> bible inaccurate on this matter?
...
I wonder (no, I don't, but this, for the literalists out there,
is a figure of speech) how Karl knows that my religion is secular
humanism, and that, in holding to that "religion", I must try to
defeat every aspect of the Bible. Where is the supporting evidence
for *that*?
In this case, I'm just posing the rhetorical question, to
paraphrase Origen, whether anyone is so silly as to think that all
the nations of the world came to Egypt; or whether any literate
person knows that "all" is often used to mean "many". I suppose I
could go to a concordance and find all of the uses of "all" in the
Bible, and see how many times it is used in hyperbole ... there is,
after all, a lot of hyperbole in the Bible ...
But, then, I suppose that Karl thinks that Origen was a secular
humanist, too.
Doug Quarnstrom
karl (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: In article <5r314p$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, d...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Doug
: Quarnstrom) wrote:
: > the dman (dm...@dtx.net) wrote:
: >
: > : So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died.
: >
: > Yes, and instead argue about how the xxxx ANY corals survived.
: >
: > :It
: > : doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark.
: >
: > But Ciclids would have to, almost certainly.
: >
: > doug
: Nice lanquage Doug.
One is constantly amazed you are capable of recognizing language.
Still, if a parrot can come close, one can reasonably hold you
to a higher standard. Nicely done.
: The answer is simple,
Which explains your ability to encompass it with your cortex.
> The Å‚ancient reefsË› were not reefs and can be
: understood in the flood model.
Oh, of course. I amn't talking about reefs nincompoop!
I am talking about coral itself.
: One would expect to find these Å‚reefsË›
: above and below sedimentary rocks.
: Some of the ancient reefs can be understood as artifacts of erosion. For
: example the Schlern dolomitic limestone of South Tyrol were originally
: interpreted as a great barrier reef system.
Not talking about reefs, nincompoop. Corals themselves are remarkably
fragile. Just try growing some in an aquarium sometime. You will
find out how well they would survive the turbulent flood environment.
They fucking wouldn't is the answer.
: The Silurian Å‚reefsË› of Ohio is another example of a formation once
: believed to be a reef.
... not talking about reefs, nincompoop.
: Further studies of the flank material
: demonstrated that it was not a reef, but rather a reef look a like. The
: absents of reef organism from the Silurian Å‚reefsË› is decisive evidence
: against them being reefs. Other portions of reefs may have been brought
: about by a mechanical means.
... not talking about reefs, nincompoop.
: The flood waters would move some of the
: flat-based colonies and redeposit them upright. The question arises
: whether this is the growth location or growth orientation issue.
: The Carboniferous reefs in England turned out to be mudbanks. Evidence
: points to the rarity of framebuilders in the reefs.
... not talking about reefs, nincompoop.
:Thick Triassic
: sequences in Germany, Austria, and Italy have long been shown as classic
: reefs . Although Studies in the Northern and Southern alps have shown
: that extensive coral framework is missing. Evidence has shown that these
: formations were not grown over a long time by organisms that bind lime
: mud.
... not talking about reefs, nincompoop.
: Many forms of geometry of reef deposits can be explained by tectonics
: during sedimentation. In fact many of the Å‚ancient reefsË› are now
: considered dune-type flood deposits.
... not talking about reefs, nincompoop.
: The above is just a *brief* summary of so-called reefs.
And a ringing example of your typical dull-witted missing of
the point.
: The book inwhich
: it comes from naturally does a much better job of explaining these
: formations .
Uh huh. Who read it to you?
: My guess is that the reefs you are mentioning are probably not reefs at all.
... not talking about reefs, nincompoop.
: Until you can show other wise there is enough evidence that suggest your
: example is a reef look-a-like and was deposited during the different
: stages of the flood.
You are a remarkable jackass!
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
Michael D. Painter (mpai...@maxinet.com) wrote:
: 1. They need precise warm temperatures, a flood would not allow this.
Corals are shockingly easy to kill.
: 2. They require sunlight. They would be too deep to survive the flood myth.
: They, like myriad intertidal creatures, could not have survived a flood.
Exactly, in much the same way as Karls remote grasp of language
cannot survive a flood of inelligent words...
: The only thing smaller than your mind is your concept of a god.
Various subatomic particles probably are smaller as well...
doug
Richard G. Henne, Jr.
karl wrote:
>
> In article <33D51032...@asu.edu>, "Richard G. Henne, Jr."
> <Rich....@asu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Please name a plant that can survive submersion in salt water for one
> > year, is edible by all herbivores and can reproduce itself rapidly
> > enough to feed the herbivores when the waters subside. Such a plant
> > must have existed or nothing would have survived after the ark landed.
>
> PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
> There are many ways inwhich plants could have survived the flood of Noah.
>
Rest of Karl's cut and paste snipped because it NEVER ANSWERED THE
QUESTION! Karl, I would like you to provide the name of any plant that
survived the flood in a quantity sufficient to provide sustenance for
the herbivores immediately after the ark landed. You must be able to
demonstrate that the plant is edible by all herbivores, the method in
which it survived, and its rate of growth. Your previous answer was a
bunch of BS and you know it!
> --
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
>
> 1st Timothy 6:20
--
Rich
Karl says, "Truth Hurts"! That's why he rarely uses it in his posts and
feels compelled to add to scripture!
Doug Quarnstrom
Elmer Bataitis ("nyli...@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com) wrote:
: karl wrote:
: > The answer is simple, The "ancient reefs" were not reefs...
: Well, I suppose this is one way of disarming your critics. How about:
: "ancient animals" were not animals; "ancient books" were not books;
: "ancient history" was not history; or how about: "preflood people" were
: not people. Perhaps this explains why god wiped them out ;-)
Or better yet, how about just addressing the point of how corals
would survive the flood.
doug
Marc A. Moniz
karl wrote:
[snip]
> Tom your comparing apples to oranges.
> The bible has more information on what is mentioned by "world wide" when
> we are talking about the flood (apples) compared to what is know by the
> meaning of "world wide" when talked about a famine. (oranges)
So the term "world wide" means one thing at this point, but the same
term means another thing at another point? Your literal interpretation
of the bible demands that it means the same - when the bible says "world
wide" it means world wide, everytime it is used. I guess it means world
wide only when it suits your religions beliefs but it means something
else when it doesn't. But I guess you'll come back with that tiresome
retort that although the bible is the direct word of god it was written
down by men who were fallible and thus made mistakes.
"Oh? What? What the bible says doesn't make sense? Ummm ... Yah. You
see... ummm...the scibes ... yah the scibes ... you see, they were mere
mortal men, and men are fallible and make mistakes. So anything in the
bible that doesn't make sense is because of that and not because god was
wrong or anything like that or that that the bible isn't suppose to
represent reality - for heaven's sake - ... you know it's kinda like "it
was lost in the translation" type of thing.
If they screwed that up, who knows what else they messed up.
Richard G. Henne, Jr.
karl wrote:
>
> In article <5r3prn$i...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
> Scharle) wrote:
>
> > In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
> (karl) writes:
> > ...
> > |> For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
> > |> check out,
> > ...
> >
> > And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at the
> > time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
> > world came to Egypt for grain:
> >
> > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy
> > corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
> >
> > Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries came to
> > Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
> >
> > I don't know why the so-called "literalists" don't seem to take
> > up the cause of supporting this text.
>
> it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
> In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
>
> Of course once again, your religion, secular humanism which holds an
> biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of the
> bible.
>
So, Karl, where can one find supporting evidence for the text Tom
Scharle quotes? If all countries came to Egypt for grain, why is there
no record of contact between the Egyptians and the Chinese? Is your
bible inaccurate on this matter?
Here's a case where you can examine some of the direct evidence that
contradicts the bible. Science looks at the real world evidence and
draws its conclusions from the evidence. If direct evidence of contact
between China and Egypt were found, Egyptian writings of contact between
the Chinese, Chinese writings of a famine from which relief came from
Egypt, this story would not be in dispute.
You have repeatedly claimed the bible is infallible in all of its
stories. If this one is false, others may be as well.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
>
> --
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
>
> 1st Timothy 6:20
--
Rich
Karl says, "Truth Hurts"! That's why he rarely uses it in his posts and
why he feels compelled to add to scripture!
Splifford
> In article <5r3prn$i...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
> Scharle) wrote:
>
> > In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
> (karl) writes:
> > ...
> > |> For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
> > |> check out,
> > ...
> >
> > And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at the
> > time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
> > world came to Egypt for grain:
> >
> > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy
> > corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
> >
> > Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries came to
> > Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
> >
> > I don't know why the so-called "literalists" don't seem to take
> > up the cause of supporting this text.
>
> Tom, when the bible says the water was higher than the mountains, I think
> it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
> In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
And how does this answer his question? Karl, Karl, Karl, the question was:
Did the peoples of the Americas and Australia come to Egypt during the
'Great Famine'? Please answer the question. If you can. Try not to indulge
in non-sequitars... What am I saying? This is Karl. He can't do anything
else.
>
> Of course once again, your religion, secular humanism which holds an
> biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of the
> bible.
My religion is Roman Catholic. Never seen a Church of Secular Humanism.
Could you please point one out? What liturgy do they use? If they still
have a Latin Mass, I might pay a visit one day...
ad majorem dei glorium
> >
> > --
> > Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
>
> --
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely
called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
>
> 1st Timothy 6:20
--
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> The answer is simple, The "ancient reefs" were not reefs...
Well, I suppose this is one way of disarming your critics. How about:
"ancient animals" were not animals; "ancient books" were not books;
"ancient history" was not history; or how about: "preflood people" were
not people. Perhaps this explains why god wiped them out ;-)
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is =
> falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
> =
> 1st Timothy 6:20
EX 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The last time I looked, this was still one of the Ten Commandments. =
Since there is *NO* paranthetical in 1 Tim 6:20, nor any *mention* of
evolution in the bible, why do you feel that *this* commandment doesn't
apply to you? =
Proverbs 12:
17 He *that* speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false
witness deceit.
20 Deceit *is* in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the
counsellors of peace *is* joy. =
=
19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue
*is* but for a moment.
=
22 Lying lips *are* abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly
*are* his delight. =
Has being saved absolved you from obedience of the Ten Commandments?
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis =93Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!=94
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884 =
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
Heh hee. Anything but believe the simple word of the bible. Genesis
6:17.
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is =
> falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
> =
> 1st Timothy 6:20
EX 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The last time I looked, this was still one of the Ten Commandments. =
Since there is *NO* paranthetical in 1 Tim 6:20, nor any *mention* of
evolution in the bible, why do you feel that *this* commandment doesn't
apply to you? =
Proverbs 12:
17 He *that* speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false
witness deceit.
20 Deceit *is* in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the
counsellors of peace *is* joy. =
=
19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue
*is* but for a moment.
=
22 Lying lips *are* abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly
*are* his delight. =
Has being saved absolved you from obedience of the Ten Commandments?
=
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> Next, Scientific proof,
> =
> point 1) Evidence for a world wide flood can be seen when one looks at =
the
> rather large area of the St. Peters Sandstone in the United States and =
the
> 750,000 Square mile thousands of feet thick and 3 mile high Tibetan
> plateau.
> It's obvious that these formations were not laid down in a little flood=
=2E
Especially since the St Peter is overlain by massive salt beds ;-)
> These rather large formations required a rather large amount of flood
> water depositing the sediment. =
Why would one think this water would *have* to be flood water. The St
Peter is incredibly pure sandstone. Why are no drowned veggie mats or
disarticulated dino bones found??
> Something like...Noahs flood. =
Nah.
> Point 2) The sudden appearance of fossils found fully complete in the
> basement Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to them
> indicates a sudden burial. =
Karl, this is simply untrue. Look up "ediacara" in any geology book.
> This fits the flood model perfectly. =
Well, since this is trivially wrong, it certainly fits the "flood model"
;-)
> As a
> matter of fact the geologist have dubbed this period the Cambrian
> explosion...due to the sudden appearance of fossils.
The sudden appearance of fossilized hard parts, Karl.
> point 3) Look at all of the fossils the geologist have found. Animals a=
nd
> plants need a quick burial in order to become fossils. =
They do?
> As far as the marsupials in Australia, parrots in South America, and ot=
her
> species are concerned they could have easily migrated there or have bee=
n
> placed there by man after the flood. =
All those kaolas and emus swimming the Indian ocean?
> History clearly shows animals migrate...
True, but then where is the evidence of those massed migrations of
kangaroos and wombats from South America?
> and man has introduced many animals and plants to foreign soil.
What is "foreign" soil?
And this has exactly what to do with the flood?
> Honestly, I don't think the creationist beliefs are "campfire ideas" as=
> you have indicated. =
;-)
> The above has provided refutes to your claims. Perhaps
> you can present them to your science teacher.
Try a science class?? Horrors!
Mark Isaak
Michael D. Painter (mpai...@maxinet.com) wrote:
> The only thing smaller than your mind is your concept of a god.
You exaggerate. His concept of god is approximately 14 cubic inches
(depending on the binding, type size, and thickness of paper). That has
got to be larger than his mind.
--
Mark Isaak at...@best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden
Splifford
In article <ksjj-23079...@max12-10.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(karl) wrote:
> In article <vlad-23079...@ntsa11.infochan.com>, vl...@tepes.com
> (Splifford) wrote:
>
> Tom your comparing apples to oranges.
This ain't Tom, moron. Read the 'from' line.
> The bible has more information on what is mentioned by "world wide" when
> we are talking about the flood (apples) compared to what is know by the
> meaning of "world wide" when talked about a famine. (oranges)
>
> As mentioned before, the bible is quite clear that the flood covered the
> mountains, thus it had to cover the entire globe. This point is not open
> for debate. It's been settled.
Hmm... You're right. It's been settled alright. The Flood never happend.
Glad you agree.
> The term "world" when referring to the famine could have been used in a
> fashion similiar to the way the colonist called america the new "world" or
> the way people use the term, "worlds" apart. Ever been to Wally "world"
Oh? Y'all want to show me just one place in the Bible where that term is
used in such a fashion? Just one place...
>
> Then again, the famine could have very well been a global famine. Unlike
> the flood story which has enough information to know for sure the flood
> did encompass the entire earth, there is not enough information in the
> famine story to be as certain.
So the Bible does contain errors after all? Thanks for admitting that, Karl.
>
> --
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely
called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
I see you're still lying for Jesus. Last I heard, He considered that kind
of thing very bad form.
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> =
> In article <5r3prn$i...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas=
> Scharle) wrote:
> =
> > In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.ne=
t
> (karl) writes:
> > ...
> > |> For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
> > |> check out,
> > ...
> >
> > And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at the
> > time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
> > world came to Egypt for grain:
> >
> > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to bu=
y
> > corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
> >
> > Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries came t=
o
> > Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
> >
> > I don't know why the so-called "literalists" don't seem to take
> > up the cause of supporting this text.
> =
> Tom, when the bible says the water was higher than the mountains, I thi=
nk
> it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
> In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
> =
> Of course once again, your religion, secular humanism which holds an
> biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of =
the
> bible.
Clear evidence that Karl has a reading comp problem ;-) =
Not to mention the fact that Karl has Mt. Everest and, in fact, all
mountains bouncing up and down like rubber balls, "God lowered the
valleys and raised the mountains up out of the water as a means of
draining the earth. At this time Mt. Everest was raised to an elevation
of 5 miles." ksjj. =
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is =
> falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
> =
> 1st Timothy 6:20
EX 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The last time I looked, this was still one of the Ten Commandments. =
Since there is *NO* paranthetical in 1 Tim 6:20, nor any *mention* of
evolution in the bible, why do you feel that *this* commandment doesn't
apply to you? =
Proverbs 12:
17 He *that* speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false
witness deceit.
20 Deceit *is* in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the
counsellors of peace *is* joy. =
=
19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue
*is* but for a moment.
=
22 Lying lips *are* abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly
*are* his delight. =
Has being saved absolved you from obedience of the Ten Commandments?
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> =
> In article <vlad-23079...@ntsa11.infochan.com>, vl...@tepes.com
> (Splifford) wrote:
> =
> > In article <ksjj-23079...@max2-24.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.ne=
t
> > (karl) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <5r3prn$i...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Th=
omas
> > > Scharle) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>, ksjj@fas=
t.net
> > > (karl) writes:
> > > > ...
> > > > |> For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
> > > > |> check out,
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at t=
he
> > > > time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
> > > > world came to Egypt for grain:
> > > >
> > > > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for t=
o buy
> > > > corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
> > > >
> > > > Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries ca=
me to
> > > > Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why the so-called "literalists" don't seem to ta=
ke
> > > > up the cause of supporting this text.
> > >
> > > Tom, when the bible says the water was higher than the mountains, I=
think
> > > it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
> > > In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject=
=2E
> >
> > And how does this answer his question? Karl, Karl, Karl, the question=
was:
> >
> > Did the peoples of the Americas and Australia come to Egypt during th=
e
> > 'Great Famine'? Please answer the question. If you can. Try not to in=
dulge
> > in non-sequitars... What am I saying? This is Karl. He can't do anyth=
ing
> > else.
> =
> Tom your comparing apples to oranges.
> The bible has more information on what is mentioned by "world wide" whe=
n
> we are talking about the flood (apples) compared to what is know by the=
> meaning of "world wide" when talked about a famine. (oranges)
Do you make this stuff up as you go along??
> As mentioned before, the bible is quite clear that the flood covered th=
e
> mountains, thus it had to cover the entire globe. This point is not op=
en
> for debate. It's been settled.
> The term "world" when referring to the famine could have been used in a=
> fashion similiar to the way the colonist called america the new "world"=
or
> the way people use the term, "worlds" apart. Ever been to Wally "world=
"
That's it. That's the ticket. Define the term to mean what you want it
to mean and nothing else.
> Then again, the famine could have very well been a global famine. Unlik=
e
> the flood story which has enough information to know for sure the flood=
> did encompass the entire earth, there is not enough information in the
> famine story to be as certain.
I sooner believe the famine story than the flood myth. No evidence for
the latter anywhere.
Matt Giwer
On 21 Jul 1997 22:09:22 -0400, ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
>I can't argue with the logic dman.
That would require a knowledge of logic.
===
If China behaved like Israel, Congress would demand a declaration of war.
Matt Giwer
On 22 Jul 1997 10:46:41 -0400, Kathy Slater <k...@mtco.com> wrote:
>I was just wondering how Noah managed to get all the animals unique to
>China, Australia, and the America's on his ship. Also, how did he get
>all the millions of different species of insects, the polar bears and
>penguins in addition to all the necessary food to keep these creatures
>alive? What if a spider accidentally ate a fly? Would there have then
>been no more since two are required to produce offspring?
>What about the fact that after six generations of inbreeding, no more
>offspring can be produced because of the recessive genes? I would
>appreciate it if someone had any anwers to these questions.
It's all very technical. It has to do with second order miracle
function. I am sure you will understand that you will have to take it
on faith until you complete your studies and get your degree in
goddessing.
Matt Giwer
On 21 Jul 1997 19:43:49 -0400, the dman <dm...@dtx.net> wrote:
>Since everyone seems to be unsure of what the Bible actually says about
>the flood,
Who is unsure?
>let me show you. If you do not believe the Bible is true,
>then that is fine, but please stop saying that the Bible says everything
>on the planet that wasnt on the ark died, because this is not true.
It does not really matter what the Bible mentions. If it says a
man threw himself off a wall and does not mention hitting the ground
would you suggest he flew away?
It is no different, simply less in your knowledge, that when it
says the highest mountain was covered that everything in the oceans
dies.
>First off lets see how God terms things:
><<Ge 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering
>together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.>>
>The dry ground was Earth and the waters were seas, this is important so
>remember it.
Please. First you want to introduce the real words and then you
want us to accept your interpretation of waters as seas. Why not lakes
or rivers?
><<Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
>the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
>the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. >>
>He says he is going to destroy all from the face of the Earth, no
>mention of seas (remember the Earth is referring to dry ground)
However destroying the seas is a consequence of the method used
to destroy the land -- unless there were six mile high force fields
along the coast.
><<Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
>earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under
>heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.>>
>Again the Earth, no mention of the seas.
The man coming off the wall did hit the ground.
><<Ge 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl,
>and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth
>upon the earth, and every man: >>
>Flesh upon the Earth died.
Are you now claiming plants were unharmed?
><<Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that
>[was] in the dry [land], died.>>
>All in whose nostrils…in the dry land. No mention of seas.
Whales, dolphins, half the seals because they use both ...
><<Ge 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the
>face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and
>the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah
>only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. >>
>Upon the face of the ground, not the seas.
>So lets quit arguing about how the Bible says everything died. It
>doesnt. Whales did not need to go onto the ark. The Bible says man,
>beast, fowl and creeping thing. The creatures of the sea were created
>several verses before the word beast is even used for the first time.
Moses died but his body did not decompose because that is not
mentioned. Jesus did not have a navel as it is not mentioned.
I should stop here. I might create a cult if I keep going.
Michael D. Painter
karl wrote in article ...
>> > > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to
buy
>> > > corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
What part of the word "all" don't you understand?
>The term "world" when referring to the famine could have been used in a
>fashion similiar to the way the colonist called america the new "world" or
>the way people use the term, "worlds" apart. Ever been to Wally "world"
Where is the word "world" explained in the bible and under what
circumstances does it mean different things at different times?
As usual you use words like Alice's snail does.
(To the others: I know the real answer is "whenever I feel like it.)
karl
In article <5r5ruc$f...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
Scharle) wrote:
>
> But, then, I suppose that Karl thinks that Origen was a secular
> humanist, too.
Well Tom. I know you are.
>
> --
> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
--
+++++++++++++
see ya,
karl
+++++++++++++
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
1st Timothy 6:20
Geoff Sheffield
karl wrote:
>
> In article <5r5ruc$f...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
> Scharle) wrote:
>
> >
> > But, then, I suppose that Karl thinks that Origen was a secular
> > humanist, too.
>
> Well Tom. I know you are.
When some people call other people secular humanists, they say it
with such venom that it sounds like an insult. I'm sure, however,
that you mean it as a compliment.
Geoff Sheffield
karl wrote:
>
> In article <33D6CC...@i-2000.com>, mam...@i-2000.com wrote:
>
> > karl wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Tom your comparing apples to oranges.
> > > we are talking about the flood (apples) compared to what is know by the
> >
> > term means another thing at another point? Your literal interpretation
> > of the bible demands that it means the same - when the bible says "world
> > wide" it means world wide, everytime it is used. I guess it means world
> > wide only when it suits your religions beliefs but it means something
> > else when it doesn't. But I guess you'll come back with that tiresome
> > retort that although the bible is the direct word of god it was written
> > down by men who were fallible and thus made mistakes.
> >
> > "Oh? What? What the bible says doesn't make sense? Ummm ... Yah. You
> > see... ummm...the scibes ... yah the scibes ... you see, they were mere
> > mortal men, and men are fallible and make mistakes. So anything in the
> > bible that doesn't make sense is because of that and not because god was
> > wrong or anything like that or that that the bible isn't suppose to
> > represent reality - for heaven's sake - ... you know it's kinda like "it
> > was lost in the translation" type of thing.
> >
> >
> > If they screwed that up, who knows what else they messed up.
>
> THE BIBLE BUILDS UPON THE CONCEPT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BEING COVERED BY
> TALKING ABOUT THE WATERS COVERING THE MOUNTAINS. THE BIBLE TAKES THIS ONE
> STEP FURTHER IN THE FLOOD STORY THAN THE FAMINE STORY.
>
> AND AS SAID BEFORE, THE FAMINE COULD HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Do you confuse yourself when you yell so loud?
Huw
karl wrote:
> As mentioned before, the bible is quite clear that the flood covered the
> mountains, thus it had to cover the entire globe. This point is not open
> for debate. It's been settled.
I remember a while back us evilutionists asked you plainly where all the
water could have come from for this scenario, and you said "the sea,
duh".
Now since you have said that this point is not open to debate (i.e. the
entire globe was covered, at least up to the top of the tallest
mountains on
the earth), I think its time to ask you this:
Today, the earth has oceans, which at their greatest high reach the
almost
unattainable altitude of zero meters. Given that the volume of water on
the
earth that reaches this enourmous height (0 meters) is V, how much water
do
you need to cover the earth up to a height of h meters, where h is the
height of the highest mountain (K2 or Everest or whatever). Well, here's
an estimate:
volume of the earth at sea level ~ 4/3*pi*R^3 (R = radius of the earth)
Volume of water contained between two spheres of radius R and R+dr is
approximately:
4/3*pi*(R+dr)^3 - 4/3*pi*R^3
= 4/3*pi*(3R^2*dr) (To first approximation)
=4*pi*R^2*dr
When dr = h (height of highest mountain), the water required is approx.:
4*pi*R^2*h
Given that the oceans cover 2/3rds of the surface of the earth, the
MAXIMUM volume of water in the oceans is: Vmax = 2/3*4*pi*R^2*od (od =
ocean
depth). As a point of fact, the maximum ocean depth (od) is
approximately
equal to h (the height of the highest mountain).
The water required to flood the earth to the height of the highest
mountain
is approximately that which is in the oceans(Vmax) plus that
required to fill from sea level to the height of the highest mountain
(4*pi*R^2*h).
Total required = Vmax + 4*pi*R^2*h
Total available = Vmax.
Therefore, total "missing" water = 4*pi*R^2*h. Given that R = 3 X
10^6meters,
and h = 7 X 10^3 meters, the missing water amounts to:
4*3.141*9X10^12*49X10^6 cubic meters of water.
= 5541 X 10^18 cubic meters of water
= 5,541,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water
We've calculated above that the total water available in the oceans is
maximally 2/3rds of this value.
So, Where does all the water for this supposed flood come from? Were
the seas parted in two and forced out of the sea bed (thereby revealing
dry land, so it is no longer technically a world flood)? Did it pop
into existance as a set of virtual particles existing magically for
a while? Before you chant on about 'evidence' for a world flood, ask
yourself
first: Is it reasonable to suppose that a world flood could have
occured, given
than there simply is not enough water? Or, do you have some reasonable
explanation for this lack of water?
I would be interested in a direct answer to explaining the lack of
water. Or
will you simply illogically deny that this water is needed?
- Huw
Splifford
In article <ksjj-24079...@max12-12.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(karl) wrote:
[snip]
>
> For the last time....
> THE BIBLE BUILDS UPON THE CONCEPT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BEING COVERED BY
> TALKING ABOUT THE WATERS COVERING THE MOUNTAINS.
I thought these were merely 'high hills' and there weren't any
mountains... Hmm. Karl, how tall were these mountains, anyway?
THE BIBLE TAKES THIS ONE
> STEP FURTHER IN THE FLOOD STORY THAN THE FAMINE STORY.
You mean the guys who were making it up as they went along really made up
a dozey with Ye Floode, don't you?
>
> AND AS SAID BEFORE, THE FAMINE COULD HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Then answer the question. Did people come from China, Australia, and the
Americas to Egypt? How did they do it? Why did the Egyptians not record
being snowed under by hordes of Chinese and Amerinds? Why did the Chinese
not record that they had to haul ass half way around the world? You'd
think that _someone_ would have noticed this mass migration, surely one of
the largest in history, and definately the largest in history up to that
time. (Whoops... that should be _I'd_ think so... But then, I can think,
unlike Karl...)
>
> --
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely
called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
Still lying for Jesus, I see.
Matt Giwer
On 21 Jul 1997 22:09:22 -0400, ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
>I can't argue with the logic dman. Although the evolutionist will feel
>compelled to refute you do to the fact they are forced to support their
>secular humanistic religion of evolution.
I'll take penicillin over prayer any day.
Rick Gillespie
In article <ksjj-23079...@max12-10.phl.fast.net>,
Uh, Karl, _Vacation_ was *just a movie*. You know, a fictional account.
Just like the Biblical flood.
Rick Gillespie
karl
> karl wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Tom your comparing apples to oranges.
> > The bible has more information on what is mentioned by "world wide" when
> > we are talking about the flood (apples) compared to what is know by the
> > meaning of "world wide" when talked about a famine. (oranges)
>
> So the term "world wide" means one thing at this point, but the same
> term means another thing at another point? Your literal interpretation
> of the bible demands that it means the same - when the bible says "world
> wide" it means world wide, everytime it is used. I guess it means world
> wide only when it suits your religions beliefs but it means something
> else when it doesn't. But I guess you'll come back with that tiresome
> retort that although the bible is the direct word of god it was written
> down by men who were fallible and thus made mistakes.
>
> "Oh? What? What the bible says doesn't make sense? Ummm ... Yah. You
> see... ummm...the scibes ... yah the scibes ... you see, they were mere
> mortal men, and men are fallible and make mistakes. So anything in the
> bible that doesn't make sense is because of that and not because god was
> wrong or anything like that or that that the bible isn't suppose to
> represent reality - for heaven's sake - ... you know it's kinda like "it
> was lost in the translation" type of thing.
>
>
> If they screwed that up, who knows what else they messed up.
For the last time....
THE BIBLE BUILDS UPON THE CONCEPT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BEING COVERED BY
TALKING ABOUT THE WATERS COVERING THE MOUNTAINS. THE BIBLE TAKES THIS ONE
STEP FURTHER IN THE FLOOD STORY THAN THE FAMINE STORY.
AND AS SAID BEFORE, THE FAMINE COULD HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
--
+++++++++++++
see ya,
karl
+++++++++++++
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
1st Timothy 6:20
karl
In article <33D73D...@cpd.ntc.nokia.com>, Huw
<co...@cpd.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
> karl wrote:
> > As mentioned before, the bible is quite clear that the flood covered the
> > mountains, thus it had to cover the entire globe. This point is not open
> > for debate. It's been settled.
>
> I remember a while back us evilutionists asked you plainly where all the
> water could have come from for this scenario, and you said "the sea,
> duh".
> Now since you have said that this point is not open to debate (i.e. the
> entire globe was covered, at least up to the top of the tallest
> mountains on
> the earth), I think its time to ask you this:
>
> Today, the earth has oceans, which at their greatest high reach the
> almost
> unattainable altitude of zero meters. Given that the volume of water on
> the
> earth that reaches this enourmous height (0 meters) is V, how much water
> do
> you need to cover the earth up to a height of h meters, where h is the
> height of the highest mountain (K2 or Everest or whatever). Well, here's
> an estimate:
At the time of the flood the mountains were lower than they currently
are. The rising of the mountains and the dropping of the valleys helped
in the recession of the water from the land.
So in other words....it doesn't matter how tall the mountains are.
FYI: Below is a graph of the Hysopgraphic Curve for the surface of the
earth. Using the data which is easily attainable, one can surely see that
only a small portion of the earths surface is above sea level. The rest of
the earth surface is covered by deep basins and low lying land. The graph
shows that by raising the seafloor a few km, the earth would be severly
flooded.
Passages in the bible clearly tell us that God lowered the sea's and
valleys and raised the mountains which is clearly evident when one studies
the geological makeup of the earth. This tectonic activity was part of
the process used to receed the waters after the flood of Noah. Prior to
the flood the water was stored under the earth surface and released when
the fountains of the deep erupted.
*******************************************************
The Hysopgraphic Curve for the surface of the earth.
km |______|______|______|______|______|_
8_| |_
|+ |
6_|+ |_
|+ |
4_|+ |_
| + |
2_| + |_
| + |
0_|_____++++++++_______________________|_
| + |
-2_| + |_
| + |
-4_| + |_
| + |
-6_| + |_
| + |
-8_| |_
| +|
-10_| +|_
|______|______|______|______|______|_|
100 200 300 400 500
10E6 km^2
**************************************************
--
sregoR .M divaD
Thanks for annihilating the last shred of evidence that you might have
been willing to USE your brain. I can now killfile you without worrying
that I will miss any legitimate objections to evolutionary theory.
--
The Young American
===========================
"My fellow Americans, I've signed legislation that will outlaw
Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
--former president Ronald Reagan, about to go on the air for a radio
broadcast, unaware that the microphone was already on
sregoR .M divaD
karl wrote:
>
> In article <5r5ruc$f...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
> Scharle) wrote:
>
> >
> > But, then, I suppose that Karl thinks that Origen was a secular
> > humanist, too.
>
> Well Tom. I know you are.
Marc A. Moniz
karl wrote:
[snip]
> For the last time....
> THE BIBLE BUILDS UPON THE CONCEPT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BEING COVERED BY
> TALKING ABOUT THE WATERS COVERING THE MOUNTAINS. THE BIBLE TAKES THIS ONE
> STEP FURTHER IN THE FLOOD STORY THAN THE FAMINE STORY.
>
> AND AS SAID BEFORE, THE FAMINE COULD HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Your literalist stance DEMANDS it!
Genesis 41:56 - "Accordingly, when the famine became severe in the land
of Egypt, Joseph laid open all that was within, and rationed out grain
to the Egyptians. *The famine, however, spread over the whole world.*"
(emphasis added).
You can't get more explicit than that. Do you not interpret "the whole
world" to mean "the whole world"? If not, why do you interpret
"everywhere" (Genesis 7:19) [referring to the mountains that were
covered] to mean world-wide? If not, why do you take a literal
interpretation of the flood story and not of the famine story? Or do you
just pick and chose which ones have a literal meaning and which ones do
not? If so, on what do you base that choice? What criteria do you use
to make your choice?
Dick Craven
>
>Tom, when the bible says the water was higher than the mountains, I think
>it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
>In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
>
Karl, please quote the verse that says that the waters were higher than
the mountains. And which translation it is in. Because I was reading
over several different versions and realized that what you are claiming
is not what the Bible says.
>Of course once again, your religion, secular humanism which holds an
>biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of the
>bible.
>>
And Once again we see Karl misquoting, misinterpreting and ignoring
the very book he claims to base his beliefs upon.
Dick (Chris) Craven
Professor of Modern Humor from the ICR
University of Ediacara
email: di...@oz.net
Homepage http:/www.oz.net/~dickc
Mark W Duhon
Richard G. Henne, Jr. <Rich....@asu.edu> wrote in article
<33D66BB3...@asu.edu>...
> So, Karl, where can one find supporting evidence for the text Tom
> Scharle quotes? If all countries came to Egypt for grain, why is there
> no record of contact between the Egyptians and the Chinese? Is your
> bible inaccurate on this matter?
>
> Here's a case where you can examine some of the direct evidence that
> contradicts the bible. Science looks at the real world evidence and
> draws its conclusions from the evidence. If direct evidence of contact
> between China and Egypt were found, Egyptian writings of contact between
> the Chinese, Chinese writings of a famine from which relief came from
> Egypt, this story would not be in dispute.
>
> You have repeatedly claimed the bible is infallible in all of its
> stories. If this one is false, others may be as well.
Until mid-century, Sargon of Isaiah 20:1 was refered to only in the Bible.
Then archeaolgy discovers his palace in Khorsabad. By your logic, the
Bible was wrong about Sargon UNTIL supporting evidence was found, then it
BECAME correct?!
You admit in quoted p1 that there is no "supporting evidence" from
archeaology. In quoted p2s1 you then declare that the no "supporting
evidence" is direct evidence against Biblical accuracy on this point. You
are either a very poor 'scientist' or an uninformed layman desparately
looking for anything that allows you to 'intellectually' discount the most
questioned and verified document of ancient history. In any case, your
logic is faulty. At this time one who believes Biblical documentation will
accept, in faith (based upon scores of verifiable references), this
reference as truth not presently supported by archeaology, just as Sargon
was accepted for centuries prior to archeaological supporting evidence.
Put in quotable form you appear to propose that:
-Where there is no supporting outside evidence of a Biblical reference, the
Bible is wrong.-
Am I misunderstanding?
_________________________________
Mark W Duhon, Preacher
Friendswood Christian Church - Bourbonnais IL
Genesis BBS - 815.933.8486 - 8n1
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8051
WB Meijer
>For the last time....
fortunately
>THE BIBLE BUILDS UPON THE CONCEPT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BEING COVERED BY
>TALKING ABOUT THE WATERS COVERING THE MOUNTAINS. THE BIBLE TAKES THIS ONE
>STEP FURTHER IN THE FLOOD STORY THAN THE FAMINE STORY.
>
>AND AS SAID BEFORE, THE FAMINE COULD HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
The bible is *all wrong*. In fact the world was created when the Great
Grrboozle sneezed. It says so in the Holy Book of Aaah Tchou. You will
be wiped away by the Handkerchief of Doom when the day of Wiping comes.
Now *you* proove i'm wrong.
See ya
Renate.
Bruce L. Grubb
In article <5r8d75$l...@snews2.zippo.com>, "Michael D. Painter"
<mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
> karl wrote in article ...
>
> >> > > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to
> >> > > buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
>
> What part of the word "all" don't you understand?
There is an implied "known" between 'all' and 'lands'. There is *no*
reputial evidence that there were famines at this time in the Americas or
China.
> >The term "world" when referring to the famine could have been used in a
> >fashion similiar to the way the colonist called america the new "world" or
> >the way people use the term, "worlds" apart. Ever been to Wally "world"
>
> Where is the word "world" explained in the bible and under what
> circumstances does it mean different things at different times?
> As usual you use words like Alice's snail does.
>
> (To the others: I know the real answer is "whenever I feel like it.)
The english translation is full of problems. The "Red Sea" instead of
'Reed Sea' and "hell" instead of 'grave' of two of the more well known
mistranslations.
Rick Gillespie
In article <ksjj-24079...@max12-12.phl.fast.net>,
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>At the time of the flood the mountains were lower than they currently
>are. The rising of the mountains and the dropping of the valleys helped
>in the recession of the water from the land.
You have been asked this before, so I don't *really* expect you to address
it now. But, you never know :-)
How much energy would be released by that level of tectonic activity, and
what effect would it have on the ark?
Rick Gillespie
Charles Dyer
In article <33D7D2A8.237C228A@m_l.abfcnz.com>, Geoff Sheffield
<geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > For the last time....
I hope so, your lies are getting tedious.
> > THE BIBLE BUILDS UPON THE CONCEPT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BEING COVERED BY
> > TALKING ABOUT THE WATERS COVERING THE MOUNTAINS. THE BIBLE TAKES THIS ONE
> > STEP FURTHER IN THE FLOOD STORY THAN THE FAMINE STORY.
And taking both stories literally makes you look very, very, very silly.
> >
> > AND AS SAID BEFORE, THE FAMINE COULD HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
And as others have said, perhaps you could show us where, in the Bible, it
says that people came from Australia and China and the Americas. You might
also show us where, in something other than the Bible, there is even one
mention of large numbers of Chinese, Australian Aborigines, and Amerinds
treking to Egypt.
>
> Do you confuse yourself when you yell so loud?
He can't confuse himself any more than he already is.
>
> >
> > --
> > +++++++++++++
> > see ya,
> > karl
> > +++++++++++++
> > Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> > Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is
falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
You do like to lie, don't you? Are you aware that God punishes liars?
> >
> > 1st Timothy 6:20
karl
Dick Craven wrote:
>
> In article <ksjj-23079...@max2-24.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(karl) wrote:
>
> >
> >Tom, when the bible says the water was higher than the mountains, I think
> >it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
> >In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
> >
> Karl, please quote the verse that says that the waters were higher than
> the mountains. And which translation it is in. Because I was reading
> over several different versions and realized that what you are claiming
> is not what the Bible says.
> >Of course once again, your religion, secular humanism which holds an
> >biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of the
> >bible.
> >>
> And Once again we see Karl misquoting, misinterpreting and ignoring
> the very book he claims to base his beliefs upon.
Dick, you really amaze me.
GEN 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains
under the entire heavens were covered.
GEN 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more
than twenty feet.
What part of "COVERED THE MOUNTAINS" don't you understand? hummm
>
> Dick (Chris) Craven
> Professor of Modern Humor from the ICR
> University of Ediacara
> email: di...@oz.net
> Homepage http:/www.oz.net/~dickc
>
>
--
Michael D. Painter
karl wrote in article ...
>Dick Craven wrote:
>>
>> In article <ksjj-23079...@max2-24.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
>(karl) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Tom, when the bible says the water was higher than the mountains, I
think
>> >it would clearly indicate a world wide flood.
>> >In the flood instance, the bible is completely clear on the subject.
>> >
>> Karl, please quote the verse that says that the waters were higher than
>> the mountains. And which translation it is in. Because I was reading
>> over several different versions and realized that what you are claiming
>> is not what the Bible says.
>> >Of course once again, your religion, secular humanism which holds an
>> >biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of
the
>> >bible.
>> >>
>> And Once again we see Karl misquoting, misinterpreting and ignoring
>> the very book he claims to base his beliefs upon.
>
>Dick, you really amaze me.
>
>
>GEN 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains
>under the entire heavens were covered.
>
>GEN 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more
>than twenty feet.
>
>What part of "COVERED THE MOUNTAINS" don't you understand? hummm
>
For my part the LITERAL phrases where god said he moved the continents,
raised the mountains, lowered the sea beds and got rid of the windows of
heaven.
You might also toss in the parts where he literally stated that he was
suspending most of the laws of physics while doing this.
I would also like to find out why few fundamentalist christians can agree on
this literal meaning. A base ball rule book seldom generates arguments of
this sort.
No one argues what a strike is, just if it occurred.
>> Dick (Chris) Craven
>> Professor of Modern Humor from the ICR
>> University of Ediacara
>> email: di...@oz.net
>> Homepage http:/www.oz.net/~dickc
>>
>>
>
karl
In article <7xvi1z2...@vcpc.univie.ac.at>, Tony #352
<Tony....@vcpc.univie.ac.at.REMOVE-FOR-MAIL> wrote:
> Re: Flood info, Geoff <geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com> said:
>
> >> > > But, then, I suppose that Karl thinks that Origen was
>
> Perhaps this group ought to be renamed talk.origens...?
>
> I was thinking what a snappy name for flood-proponents might
> be...how about "delugionists"? But that sounds a lot like
> "delusionists", or do I have a point there? :-)
Don't forget evodelusion
Shooty
karl wrote:
SNIP
If I print this diagram out every time you print it I am going to be
able to use it to paper my room.
Shooty
Nick Merritt
> Of course once again, your religion, secular humanism which holds an
> biased evolutionary scientific view must try to defeat every aspect of the
> bible.
By the way, where in the Bible does it say that every word in the Bible is
literally true? And if it doesn't, why do you believe that this is the
case? (Why can't some of it be like poetry?)
And why did Jehovah send bears to murder children?
(I don't expect an answer.)
Nick
Shooty
Splifford wrote:
> In article <5r3prn$i...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu
> (Thomas
> Scharle) wrote:
>
> > In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>,
> ks...@fast.net
> (karl) writes:
> > ...
> > |> For starters the bible claims it was a world wide flood.
> > |> check out,
> > ...
> >
> > And, by the same reasoning, Genesis says that the famine at the
> > time of Joseph was world-wide, and that all the countries of the
> > world came to Egypt for grain:
> >
> > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to
> buy
> > corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
> >
> > Was the famine so sore in *all* lands that *all* countries came
> to
> > Egypt? Did they come from the Americas and Australia, too?
>
> Of course they did. And from the small islands in the Pacific they
> came,
> by canoe; and yea, 'tis written that they came from the great Southern
>
> Ocean, and from far Iceland's icy shores, and even from great China,
> they
> came. And for some reason they _all_ forgot to note that they'd done
> so.
> And they all forgot _how_ they'd done so, and had to work out, say,
> the
> long-distance trans-oceanic transport systems they'd once had all over
>
> again, so that the Polynesians could colonize places like New Zealand
> and
> Hawaii. And the Eqyptians failed to note that they'd been submerged by
> the
> population of the entire world, including assorted Asians, Pacific
> peoples, Amerinds... Makes perfect sense to me...
> >
Funny how the Egyptians forgot that they had been killed in the flood as
well.
Shooty
Nick Merritt
1) Evidence for a world wide flood can be seen when one looks at the
> rather large area of the St. Peters Sandstone in the United States and the
> 750,000 Square mile thousands of feet thick and 3 mile high Tibetan
> plateau.
> It's obvious that these formations were not laid down in a little flood.
> These rather large formations required a rather large amount of flood
> water depositing the sediment. Something like...Noahs flood.
Only evidence for a worldwide flood Karl if the same type of sediment can
be found in the same rock layers in different parts of the world.
Otherwise, it's evidence for a local flood - nothing more. I'm surprised
your renownedly sharp scientific mind missed this point.
> Point 2) The sudden appearance of fossils found fully complete in the
> basement Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to them
> indicates a sudden burial. This fits the flood model perfectly. As a
> matter of fact the geologist have dubbed this period the Cambrian
> explosion...due to the sudden appearance of fossils.
Sudden experience of hard-bodied fossils, Karl. Older fossils have been
found. And the Cambrian Explosion has been dated at several hundreds of
millions of years earlier than 4004BC. You can't just ignore inconvenient
facts. I'm surprised your renownedly sharp scientific mind missed this
point too.
> point 3) Look at all of the fossils the geologist have found. Animals and
> plants need a quick burial in order to become fossils. If they are left
> outside exposed to the elements they will be eaten by scavangers or rot
> in place during the millions of years that is required for the sediment to
> build up around them so the can form into a fossil. On the other
> hand...the flood model presents a way to bury the animals quickly.
What predictions does this alleged model make if we are to take it
seriously? Where is the worldwide sedimentary layer to match the worldwide
Iridium layer which helped support the dinosaur extinction/asteroid
hypothesis? Indeed, why did the dinosaurs die out at all if Noah had them
on the ark? There were an awful lot of them - would loved to have seen the
Old Man prodding a couple of Tyrannosaurs into the Ark's holding pen.
> Honestly, I don't think the creationist beliefs are "campfire ideas" as
> you have indicated. The above has provided refutes to your claims.
You sure have a particularly weak-minded idea of what refutation means.
> Perhaps
> you can present them to your science teacher.
Define 'science' Karl. Just do that for us please. Please. In your own words.
Nick
Shooty
karl wrote:
> SNIP
>
> PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
> There are many ways inwhich plants could have survived the flood of
> Noah.
> The first and most obvious is that some of the seeds were aboard the
> ark.
> The ark stored grains and other foods used to feed the animals. These
> stored foods would have had seeds associated with them that later
> could
> have germinated and grown outside of the ark. It1s possible/probable
> that
> Noah could have brough an assortment of seeds on board of the ark so
> he
> could re-populate the earth with these plants after the waters
> receded.
> Other methods of preserving the seed is for them to float on the water
>
> during the flood where after the water receded they could then
> germinate
> in the soil. Of course not all seed would be able to survive in that
> fashion, yet some would. Floating vegetation rafts would have also
> provided a means for other plants to have survived the flood waters.
> As
> the flood waters uprooted trees and other vegetation they would have
> clumped together in extremely large rafts later settling on to the
> moist
> ground after the waters receded and then begin to grow. Still others
> seeds would have been buried during the flood only to sprout after the
>
> waters had left the surface of the continents. Some of the seeds
> buried
> deep in the flood sediment during the initial phase of the flood could
>
> have been brought to the surface as flood waters eroded away the upper
>
> layers as the water receded. Once that happened they to would have a
> chance to germinate.
> Trees like the olive or the locust can root just by sticking a branch
>
> into the ground and certainly would have survived the flood if they
> were
> buried or settled on the surface.
> Ref, Noah1s Ark a feasibility study, John Woodmorappe
>
This must be the 8th or 9yh time you have posted this. Learn a new
script.
Shooty
wf...@enter.netxx
On 21 Jul 1997 22:09:22 -0400, ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
>
>I can't argue with the logic dman. Although the evolutionist will feel
>compelled to refute you do to the fact they are forced to support their
>secular humanistic religion of evolution.
>
]
funny...what karl calls religion. he believes the bible is literally
true. if THATS not a religious belief what is?
he then goes on to distort science to support his religion. he offers
no reason why science doesnt accept creationism or why only
fundamentalists do...guess its an article of faith...
Alex McKenzie
bgr...@acca.nmsu.edu (Bruce L. Grubb) wrote:
>In article <5r8d75$l...@snews2.zippo.com>, "Michael D. Painter"
><mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> > > buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
>>
>
>There is an implied "known" between 'all' and 'lands'. There is *no*
>reputial evidence that there were famines at this time in the Americas or
>China.
>
But only for the famine, not the flood?
>> >The term "world" when referring to the famine could have been used in a
>> >fashion similiar to the way the colonist called america the new "world" or
>> >the way people use the term, "worlds" apart. Ever been to Wally "world"
>>
>> Where is the word "world" explained in the bible and under what
>> circumstances does it mean different things at different times?
>> As usual you use words like Alice's snail does.
>>
>> (To the others: I know the real answer is "whenever I feel like it.)
>
>The english translation is full of problems. The "Red Sea" instead of
>'Reed Sea' and "hell" instead of 'grave' of two of the more well known
>mistranslations.
>
Which english translation? KJV, RSV, TNEV, NIV, NASV?
sregoR .M divaD
Alex McKenzie wrote:
>
> bgr...@acca.nmsu.edu (Bruce L. Grubb) wrote:
> >In article <5r8d75$l...@snews2.zippo.com>, "Michael D. Painter"
> ><mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> karl wrote in article ...
> >>
> >> >> > > Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to
> >> >> > > buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
> >>
> >> What part of the word "all" don't you understand?
> >
> >There is an implied "known" between 'all' and 'lands'. There is *no*
> >reputial evidence that there were famines at this time in the Americas or
> >China.
> >
>
> But only for the famine, not the flood?
The biblical flood is not consitent with archeology. Period. The time
frame is all wrong.
> >> >The term "world" when referring to the famine could have been used in a
> >> >fashion similiar to the way the colonist called america the new "world" or
> >> >the way people use the term, "worlds" apart. Ever been to Wally "world"
> >>
> >> Where is the word "world" explained in the bible and under what
> >> circumstances does it mean different things at different times?
> >> As usual you use words like Alice's snail does.
> >>
> >> (To the others: I know the real answer is "whenever I feel like it.)
> >
> >The english translation is full of problems. The "Red Sea" instead of
> >'Reed Sea' and "hell" instead of 'grave' of two of the more well known
> >mistranslations.
> >
> Which english translation? KJV, RSV, TNEV, NIV, NASV?
The KJV was the original bad translation, but others have followed suit
in many errors. You can't go back and change the Red Sea detail now
that "The Ten Commandments" has been filmed, now can you?
Marc A. Moniz
Rick Gillespie wrote:
>
> In article <ksjj-24079...@max12-12.phl.fast.net>,
> karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >are. The rising of the mountains and the dropping of the valleys helped
> >in the recession of the water from the land.
>
> it now. But, you never know :-)
>
> How much energy would be released by that level of tectonic activity, and
> what effect would it have on the ark?
>
> Rick Gillespie
Also, where does it say that tectonic activity was a mechanism used by
god to recede the waters? All is says is that god used a "wind".
karl
Why? It's been the 8th or 9th time somebody new to T.O. has asked the
question. The "script" is correct. Why change what works.
>
> Shooty
karl
In article <nmerrit-2307...@172.18.72.175>,
nme...@futurenet.co.uk (Nick Merritt) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-22079...@max4-26.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
> (karl) wrote:
>
> 1) Evidence for a world wide flood can be seen when one looks at the
> > rather large area of the St. Peters Sandstone in the United States and the
> > 750,000 Square mile thousands of feet thick and 3 mile high Tibetan
> > plateau.
> > It's obvious that these formations were not laid down in a little flood.
> > These rather large formations required a rather large amount of flood
> > water depositing the sediment. Something like...Noahs flood.
>
> Only evidence for a worldwide flood Karl if the same type of sediment can
> be found in the same rock layers in different parts of the world.
> Otherwise, it's evidence for a local flood - nothing more. I'm surprised
> your renownedly sharp scientific mind missed this point.
Wrong. No one would expect the same type of sediment to be found all over
the globe.
You really surprise me Nick. You've been around ong enough that you should
know how the model works by now.
>
> > Point 2) The sudden appearance of fossils found fully complete in the
> > basement Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to them
> > indicates a sudden burial. This fits the flood model perfectly. As a
> > matter of fact the geologist have dubbed this period the Cambrian
> > explosion...due to the sudden appearance of fossils.
>
> Sudden experience of hard-bodied fossils, Karl. Older fossils have been
> found. And the Cambrian Explosion has been dated at several hundreds of
> millions of years earlier than 4004BC. You can't just ignore inconvenient
> facts. I'm surprised your renownedly sharp scientific mind missed this
> point too.
As mentioned before...flawed dating techniques plus we do find "soft"
animal fossils. ever see a jellyfish fossil?.... I have.
>
> > point 3) Look at all of the fossils the geologist have found. Animals and
> > plants need a quick burial in order to become fossils. If they are left
> > outside exposed to the elements they will be eaten by scavangers or rot
> > in place during the millions of years that is required for the sediment to
> > build up around them so the can form into a fossil. On the other
> > hand...the flood model presents a way to bury the animals quickly.
>
> What predictions does this alleged model make if we are to take it
> seriously? Where is the worldwide sedimentary layer to match the worldwide
> Iridium layer which helped support the dinosaur extinction/asteroid
> hypothesis? Indeed, why did the dinosaurs die out at all if Noah had them
> on the ark? There were an awful lot of them - would loved to have seen the
> Old Man prodding a couple of Tyrannosaurs into the Ark's holding pen.
The irridium layers are not world wide. You've been lied to by the
discovery channels graphics.
>
> > Honestly, I don't think the creationist beliefs are "campfire ideas" as
> > you have indicated. The above has provided refutes to your claims.
>
> You sure have a particularly weak-minded idea of what refutation means.
Yeah, and you just blew me right out of the water. sheeze.
>
> > Perhaps
> > you can present them to your science teacher.
>
> Define 'science' Karl. Just do that for us please. Please. In your own words.
>
> Nick
--
karl
> karl wrote:
>
>
> SNIP
>
> If I print this diagram out every time you print it I am going to be
> able to use it to paper my room.
Good, then maybe the reason for it will click into your brain and you'll
understand the reality of the flood.
>
> Shooty
Nikkal
sjj-230797...@max12-10.phl.fast.net> <33D73D...@cpd.ntc.nokia.com> <ksjj-24079...@max12-12.phl.fast.net> <33D89A6E...@mrent.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path: light105.lightspeed.bc.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: light105.lightspeed.bc.ca
Lines: 16
okay...maybe I missed it in the FAQ or a previous discussion...
if this great Noachian flood killed all the people, animals, insects,
etc., who weren't on the ark, swimming or flying...thus creating ALL
those fossils we find, tell me....
where are the fossils of all the sinful people that Noah's god was
punishing for their oh-so-sinful ways???
were they sent immediately full-bodied to hell or something???
neat
big hugs n stuff
Nikkal
karl
Genesis 8:1-3 tell of what you are talking about.
GEN 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the
livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the
earth, and the waters receded.
GEN 8:2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the
heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
GEN 8:3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the
hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,
Psalms tell of God intervention in the recession of the flood waters.
PSA 104:6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters
stood above the mountains.
PSA 104:7 But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your
thunder they took to flight;
PSA 104:8 they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the
valleys, to the place you assigned for them.
PSA 104:9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they
cover the earth.
Douglas Cox
On 27 Jul 1997, Nikkal wrote:
>okay...maybe I missed it in the FAQ or a previous discussion...
>if this great Noachian flood killed all the people, animals, insects,
>etc., who weren't on the ark, swimming or flying...thus creating ALL
>those fossils we find, tell me....
>where are the fossils of all the sinful people that Noah's god was
>punishing for their oh-so-sinful ways???
>were they sent immediately full-bodied to hell or something???
>neat
Only if you think "hell" is the same as being buried in the earth.
There are many human fossils, most of them in caves. The caves were probably
formed during uplift of the land at the end of the flood. In some regions, newly
formed sedimentary rocks disintegrated, forming drift sand and gravel; this
seems to have happened where there were animals buried in the sediments. Perhaps
the bacterial decay processes influenced the disintegration mechanism.
So these animals (bears, hyenas, hippos, mammoths, etc.), and humans that had
been drowned in the flood ended up in the fill that is found in caverns, and in
the drift that forms a mantle at the surface in temperate regions of Europe and
North America.
There is more about this on my Web page, in the article "Human Fossils and the
Flood".
>big hugs n stuff
>
>Nikkal
>
--
Douglas Cox
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc
debra mckay
Marc A. Moniz wrote:
>
> Also, where does it say that tectonic activity was a mechanism used by
> god to recede the waters? All is says is that god used a "wind".
Hey--are you the Marc A. Moniz of Strait, Grine & Moniz (JHE 32, 1997)?
Great paper, if you are (and even if you're not)!
Deb
wf...@enter.netxx
On 27 Jul 1997 08:59:21 -0400, t...@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) wrote:
>
>There are many human fossils, most of them in caves.
gee and creationists are always whimpering about the lack of fossils
in science (evolution)...no proof to this stuff above, of course...no
billions of fossils of animals drowned in any flood...
but there is a subtler factor at work here. im sure creationist can
produce data to support their position..they have to...its a religious
position that MUST Be true, thus evidence can be manufactured to
support it.
this is why its a waste of time to argue science with
creationists...they dont understand it, they skew the evidence (or
manufacture it) to support their position.
after all, its religion...
. Perhaps
>the bacterial decay processes influenced the disintegration mechanism.
and perhaps pigs can fly.
>
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> =
> In article <33D648B7...@mrent.demon.co.uk>, an...@mrent.demon.co.u=
k wrote:
> >
> > This must be the 8th or 9yh time you have posted this. Learn a new
> > script.
> =
> Why? It's been the 8th or 9th time somebody new to T.O. has asked the
> question. The "script" is correct. Why change what works.
Even though it contradicts your own bible?
But then what am I saying:]
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is =
> falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
> =
> 1st Timothy 6:20
EX 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The last time I looked, this was still one of the Ten Commandments. =
Since there is *NO* paranthetical in 1 Tim 6:20, nor any *mention* of
evolution in the bible, why do you feel that *this* commandment doesn't
apply to you? =
Proverbs 12:
17 He *that* speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false
witness deceit.
20 Deceit *is* in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the
counsellors of peace *is* joy. =
=
19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue
*is* but for a moment.
=
22 Lying lips *are* abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly
*are* his delight. =
Has being saved absolved you from obedience of the Ten Commandments?
=
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis =93Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!=94
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884 =
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> Wrong. No one would expect the same type of sediment to be found all ov=
er
> the globe.
Really? Why?
This flood of yours supposedly shoved the continents around and shot
mountains miles high. Now how does it do this and not homogenize
suspended sediments?
> You really surprise me Nick. You've been around ong enough that you sho=
uld
> know how the model works by now.
But it *DOESN'T* work, Karl, as you have shown repeatedly.
> The irridium layers are not world wide. You've been lied to by the
> discovery channels graphics.
"Anyway, to get back to your question, the irridium was deposited late
in the flood during a time when the earth was partially flooded. In some
locations the irridium would have been washed/eroded away as the waters
drained from the land." ksjj.
Where did the iridium go Karl?
> Yeah, and you just blew me right out of the water. sheeze.
Can you tell me which bible has the following:
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> =
> In article <33D89A6E...@mrent.demon.co.uk>, an...@mrent.demon.co.u=
k wrote:
> =
> > karl wrote:
> >
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > If I print this diagram out every time you print it I am going to be
> > able to use it to paper my room.
> =
> Good, then maybe the reason for it will click into your brain and you'l=
l
> understand the reality of the flood.
Will your continuing misquotation of the bible ever sink into yours? =
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is =
> falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
> =
> 1st Timothy 6:20
EX 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The last time I looked, this was still one of the Ten Commandments. =
Since there is *NO* paranthetical in 1 Tim 6:20, nor any *mention* of
evolution in the bible, why do you feel that *this* commandment doesn't
apply to you? =
Proverbs 12:
17 He *that* speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false
witness deceit.
20 Deceit *is* in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the
counsellors of peace *is* joy. =
=
19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue
*is* but for a moment.
=
22 Lying lips *are* abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly
*are* his delight. =
Has being saved absolved you from obedience of the Ten Commandments?
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> Genesis 8:1-3 tell of what you are talking about.
> GEN 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the
> livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the
> earth, and the waters receded.
> =
> GEN 8:2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the
> heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.=
> =
> GEN 8:3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of =
the
> hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,
> =
> Psalms tell of God intervention in the recession of the flood waters.
> =
> PSA 104:6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the water=
s
> stood above the mountains.
> =
> PSA 104:7 But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your
> thunder they took to flight;
> =
> PSA 104:8 they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the
> valleys, to the place you assigned for them.
> =
> PSA 104:9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will th=
ey
> cover the earth.
But why should we simply accept your take on the bible? I mean, after
all, if you can do the following to god's word, what else are you
capable of?
Nikkal
Douglas Cox wrote:
>(snipped)
> There are many human fossils, most of them in caves. The caves were probably
> formed during uplift of the land at the end of the flood. In some regions, newly
> formed sedimentary rocks disintegrated, forming drift sand and gravel; this
> seems to have happened where there were animals buried in the sediments. Perhaps
> the bacterial decay processes influenced the disintegration mechanism.
>
> So these animals (bears, hyenas, hippos, mammoths, etc.), and humans that had
> been drowned in the flood ended up in the fill that is found in caverns, and in
> the drift that forms a mantle at the surface in temperate regions of Europe and
> North America.
>
neat. so...these human fossils you've found - they're in the same
geological strata (or whatever...) as all them teeny tiny Pre-Cambrian
and Cambrian fossils an' stuff??? right near all the dinosaurs, too???
BTW...where ARE these caves???
more big hugs n stuff
Nikkal
Dick
Karl, I posted and emailed 2 questions to you. The post apparently never made it
on talk.origins. However you did reply to one of them. And you called me
"stinking ignorant."
I asked what verse of the Bible you based your belief a world wide flood on and
what version or translation of the Bible. You gave me Genesis 7:19-20. And
apparently NIV. Here is Genesis 7:19 from 5 translations.
NIV They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire
heavens were covered.
RSV And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high
mountains under the whole heaven were covered;
KJV And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high
hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
DBY And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth; and all the high
mountains that are under all the heavens were covered.
YLT And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered
are all the high mountains which [are] under the whole heavens;
Notice that the KJV(King Jame's Version) says "and all the high hills".
And they all say "under the whole heaven" or "all the heavens".
My point is that the heavens include the clouds. And in order for the rain
of the flood to fall the sky had to be cloudy, very cloudy.
So, the hills or mountains that were covered were the ones under the clouds.
Not the high mountains, just the ones that did not extend to the cloud tops.
Therefore a local flood of the Tigris-Euphrates river.
Oh, don't call people ignorant when you are totally ignorant of science, the
Bible, history, life and anything and everything.
Marc A. Moniz
karl wrote:
[snip]
> Genesis 8:1-3 tell of what you are talking about.
> GEN 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the
> livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the
> earth, and the waters receded.
>
> heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
>
> hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,
>
>
> stood above the mountains.
>
> thunder they took to flight;
>
> valleys, to the place you assigned for them.
>
> cover the earth.
>
Again, where's the reference to tectonic activity - rising of mountains
and lowering of valleys - as a mechanism to recede the waters? It seems
that all we have is that at God's command the rains stopped and the
waters under the earth stopped overflowing. A wind was used to recede
that water, which returned to its 'under the earth' origins. No earth
movements, no rising of mounatains, no lowering of valleys, no tectonic
activity whatsoever.
Michael D. Painter
Marc A. Moniz wrote in article <33DCCE...@i-2000.com>...
>karl wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> Genesis 8:1-3 tell of what you are talking about.
>> GEN 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the
>> livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the
>> earth, and the waters receded.
>>
>> GEN 8:2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the
>> heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
>>
>> GEN 8:3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of
the
>> hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,
>>
>> Psalms tell of God intervention in the recession of the flood waters.
>>
>> PSA 104:6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters
>> stood above the mountains.
>>
>> PSA 104:7 But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your
>> thunder they took to flight;
>>
>> PSA 104:8 they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the
>> valleys, to the place you assigned for them.
>>
>> PSA 104:9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they
>> cover the earth.
And in 104:18 we find a reference to hills. Seems there was a difference
between hills and mountains then.
The language and the bible tells us there were mountains at the time and
karl tells us there were not.
Maybe we should worship karl.
>
>Again, where's the reference to tectonic activity - rising of mountains
>and lowering of valleys - as a mechanism to recede the waters? It seems
>that all we have is that at God's command the rains stopped and the
>waters under the earth stopped overflowing. A wind was used to recede
>that water, which returned to its 'under the earth' origins. No earth
>movements, no rising of mountains, no lowering of valleys, no tectonic
>activity whatsoever.
>
sregoR .M divaD
I hope he's not referring to the caves which show animal bones in
apparent refuse piles, while human beings are buried neatly and
ritualistically under the "floors."
Most of which date back beyond the creation of the earth (in Genesis).
Erik Marksberry
On 27 Jul 1997, karl wrote:
>
> As mentioned before...flawed dating techniques plus we do find "soft"
> animal fossils. ever see a jellyfish fossil?.... I have.
And what about the evidence for soft-bodied trilobites in the
pre-Cambrian? Whoops! I guess they didn't pop up fully formed with no
ancestors.
> > What predictions does this alleged model make if we are to take it
> > seriously? Where is the worldwide sedimentary layer to match the worldwide
> > Iridium layer which helped support the dinosaur extinction/asteroid
> > hypothesis? Indeed, why did the dinosaurs die out at all if Noah had them
> > on the ark? There were an awful lot of them - would loved to have seen the
> > Old Man prodding a couple of Tyrannosaurs into the Ark's holding pen.
>
> The irridium layers are not world wide. You've been lied to by the
> discovery channels graphics.
Well, maybe you can define "world-wide" for us. Originally,
Walter Alvarez found the iridium anomaly in New Zeland, Denmark, and
Italy. Later research has found the iridium on or off the coast of all
seven continents. Here's some specific places where the KT boundary
iridium anomaly has been found:
3 sites in the Pacific south of Hawaii
10 sites in North America, mainly throughout the Rockies
and Southwest USA (I can't tell by the map whether this is
in the Grand Canyon or not)
One site in the Yucatan Peninsula
4 sites in the Atlantic Ocean between Africa and S. America
2 sites off the coast of Antarctica
2 sites in the Indian Ocean
One site off the coast of Ireland
2 sites in Western Europe
3 sites in Eastern Europe
One site in North Africa
Two sites in southern Russia near Iran
Walter Alvarez has even said "More than 100 scientists in 21
laboratories in 13 countries have found anomalously high levels of iridium
at the KT boundary at about 95 sites throughout the world."
Reference: Scientific American Oct 1990, p. 78-84
But I suspect that your rebuttal, if any is forthcoming, will
consist of LOTS of hand-waving and saying that something found on all 7
continents is not in fact "world-wide".
--
Erik Marksberry
Daniel Howell
In article <5rab1f$d...@halley.pi.net>, WB Meijer <histor...@pi.net> wrote:
>
>>For the last time....
>
>fortunately
>
>>THE BIBLE BUILDS UPON THE CONCEPT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BEING COVERED BY
>>TALKING ABOUT THE WATERS COVERING THE MOUNTAINS. THE BIBLE TAKES THIS ONE
>>STEP FURTHER IN THE FLOOD STORY THAN THE FAMINE STORY.
>>
>>AND AS SAID BEFORE, THE FAMINE COULD HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
>
>The bible is *all wrong*. In fact the world was created when the Great
>Grrboozle sneezed. It says so in the Holy Book of Aaah Tchou. You will
>be wiped away by the Handkerchief of Doom when the day of Wiping comes.
It was of course the Great Green Arkleseizure, but bless you my son
anyway....
:-)
Daniel
dd...@aber.ac.uk
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~ddh95
Rev. Chuck
The "entire world" of the bybel was about the size of New Jersey.
So shall we estimate that the lugey from heaven was about the size of Newark? Cripes...
how long would it take you to cook up some nice ICR-style hoodoo proving the age of the
lugies was REAL?
John Gahagan
In article <33DF46...@someplace.com>, Me <Ad...@someplace.com> wrote:
>Marc A. Moniz wrote:
>>
>> karl wrote:
>> [snip]
snip
>> Again, where's the reference to tectonic activity - rising of mountains
>> and lowering of valleys - as a mechanism to recede the waters? It seems
>> that all we have is that at God's command the rains stopped and the
>> waters under the earth stopped overflowing. A wind was used to recede
>> that water, which returned to its 'under the earth' origins. No earth
>> movements, no rising of mounatains, no lowering of valleys, no tectonic
>> activity whatsoever.
>
>Read between the friggin' lines.
>
>-----------
Areyou saying that it is acceptable to use intelligent interpolation when
reading the bible? You accept interpretation rather than literal reading?
Then what's the problem with an interpretive reading of the term day to mean a
much longer time?
John Gahagan
gaha...@nbnet.nb.ca
Erik Marksberry
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, karl wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.A41.3.95.970727...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Erik
> Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Jul 1997, karl wrote:
> > >
> > > As mentioned before...flawed dating techniques plus we do find "soft"
> > > animal fossils. ever see a jellyfish fossil?.... I have.
> >
> > And what about the evidence for soft-bodied trilobites in the
> > pre-Cambrian? Whoops! I guess they didn't pop up fully formed with no
> > ancestors.
>
Such as the conversation you, John Stockwell, and myself have had
TWICE. You know the information, you know the web pages we referred you
to. If you don't, then there wouldn't be much point in repeating myself
again. You'd simply deny the evidence out of existance within a month or
two.
> I'm currently looking at two world maps of what has been identified by
> areas that have been labeled Cretaceous and Tertiary by geologist.
Reference please. Just for clarification, are these maps showing
sites where the K-T boundary has been uncovered?
> When one looks at the maps (land area only) it becomes quite apparent that
> about 50% of the land mass does not contain any Cretaceous rock and about
> 60% of the land mass does not contain any Tertiary rock. When the two maps
> are layed over top of each other in a way that would represent the
> uniformatarian geologist column, the land mass that actually has a K/T
> boundry is drastically reduced.
OK. Now what does this have to do with the sites where iridium
has been found at the K-T boundary?
> For example, South America has Cretaceous rock strata basically around
> the edges but not in the middle of the continent. The Tertiary strata is
> missing from the eastern side of the continent while present in the
> western parts. In this example about 30% of the strata lie adjacent to
> each other. In some countries like Australia which have both strata
> present there is only about 5% of the country that has a K/T boundry.
OK. Now what does this have to do with the sites where iridium
has been found at the K-T boundary?
> As stated before, the irridium layers are not world wide.
As stated before, it has been found on or near all 7 continents in
over 90 sites. Sounds pretty damn worldwide to me.
> You've been
> lied to by the discovery channels graphics.
I didn't get this information from the Discovery Channel. I got
it from one of the world's foremost experts on this anomaly, Dr. Alvarez.
> True, you might find the K/T
> boundry present through out the world, but as I have indicated it is
> patchy. By this I mean it is not world wide.
It is patchy worldwide. So are you saying that we must find the
K-T boundary at every single site on the globe for it to be called global?
--
Erik Marksberry
Shooty
Daniel Howell wrote:
> In article <5rab1f$d...@halley.pi.net>, WB Meijer
> <histor...@pi.net> wrote:
> >
> >>For the last time....
> >
> >fortunately
> >
> >>THE BIBLE BUILDS UPON THE CONCEPT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BEING COVERED
> BY
> >>TALKING ABOUT THE WATERS COVERING THE MOUNTAINS. THE BIBLE TAKES
> THIS ONE
> >>STEP FURTHER IN THE FLOOD STORY THAN THE FAMINE STORY.
> >>
> >>AND AS SAID BEFORE, THE FAMINE COULD HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THE ENTIRE
> WORLD.
> >
> >The bible is *all wrong*. In fact the world was created when the
> Great
> >Grrboozle sneezed. It says so in the Holy Book of Aaah Tchou. You
> will
> >be wiped away by the Handkerchief of Doom when the day of Wiping
> comes.
>
> It was of course the Great Green Arkleseizure, but bless you my son
> anyway....
>
The Jatrevartid people of Viltvodle VI are the ones who believe that the
universe was sneezed from the left nostril of the Great Arkleseizure.
They live in fear of the time they call the "Coming of the Great White
Hanky'.
They had a heretical faction known as the 'Right Nostrilers'
HHGTTG.
Shooty
Brian Tozer.
John Gahagan <gaha...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in article
<5rr5r5$b73$1...@garnet.nbnet.nb.ca>...
> Areyou saying that it is acceptable to use intelligent interpolation when
> reading the bible? You accept interpretation rather than literal
reading?
> Then what's the problem with an interpretive reading of the term day to
mean a
> much longer time?
I wonder what intellectual disciplines Karl uses to conclude that the vast
majority of Christian scholarship is mistaken when they read the Bible and
conclude that it does not mean that the creative days are 24 hours long.
I wonder what intellectual discipline Karl uses to explain how the Moa got
to New Zealand from Ararat 4000 years ago.
I know he has suggested that the Moa walked all the way after the flood had
subsided, and then after that, Australia drifted off on its own, and New
Zealand drifted thousands of miles further.
But not even Karl can possibly believe this, even though he has suggested
it.
It must take a certain type of mentality to maintain a blind adherence to a
dogma in the face of obviously impossible implications.
Thank goodness for the discipline of the scientific method, or we would
still be in the dark ages that strangled mankind when the church enforced
adherence to it's dogma with the inquisition.
Karl attempts to continue the same methodology.
Brian Tozer