| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2007 08:37:14 AM |
| Object: |
Creationists Lying Again |
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski fan
club."
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Ronald More-More Moshki" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
01 Jan 2007 11:24:00 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
23 Feb 2007 05:49:27 PM |
|
|
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
23 Feb 2007 06:08:02 PM |
|
|
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:8duut2h9ege1kr1oa1o5b7gj3qk95srqlm@4ax.com...
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Its already been done by James Ussher & I quote
"In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the
genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the earth
was created in 4004 B.C"
from http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html
So, your challenge was well beaten some 357 years ago, as I presume he
must've used the all of the old testament including genesis 1:1 to get to
this date. Pity he was completely unaware of its real age then, but then
again, religion was instrumental in holding back human discovery.
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Ah, I have a JW question - Could you tell me why your lot wont stop knocking
on my door with your brain washing attempts at conversion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rjbjr" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
24 Feb 2007 08:34:39 AM |
|
|
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:2oGdnY0UC9RxHELYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski
fan
club."
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Its already been done by James Ussher & I quote
"In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the
genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the earth
was created in 4004 B.C"
Mr. kingd.....
You fail to mention that back in the 1650s, no one knew the age of the
earth.
Actually, when I was growing up, "science" was teaching that the earth and
the universe had existed forever - it was infinitely old. The Bible was
teaching that wasn't true. The Bible said "In the beginning....".
Scientists scoffed at that idea until the 1960s. Then, science "discovered"
there was a beginning, a time when the universe started and the "earth was
created but without form". Science confirmed what the Bible said. Science
called it the "big bang". The Bible called it "the beginning". They are
one and the same.
Yes, the bishop was incorrect. But so were the scientists. The only one
that had it correct was the author of the Bible. The Bible goes hand in
hand with science. To understand the deeper meanings in the Bible we often
have to go beyond our everyday human understanding. Sometimes we need to
reinterpret our traditional understandings of what he Bible says in light of
insights science gives us.
The Bible tells us to "prove all things". Keep questioning the Bible
interpretations by men. Such seeking leads to deeper understanding and
firmer belief in the Wisdom God has given us in His Book.
If you question, for example, the six days of creation in Genesis 1, it will
lead you to understand that your everyday concept of what a "day" is cannot
be 24 of our hours. Our hours are based on the rotation of the earth. But,
there was no earth on Day 1. So how could you have a 24 hour day then?
You could simply reject the Bible with such an arguement. That's the kind
of conclusion many of you posters are doing on this newsgroup. But if,
instead of just rejecting the Bible story as a fairy tale, you try to figure
out what the writer could be saying about Day 1, you'll come to the
realization that the time discussed must be something beyond everyday
understanding. If you search hard enough, you'll realize that time is a
relative thing, that time depends on whose clock is being used. You'll
discover the basics of the Theory of Relativity!
Pretty amazing, don't you think!
RJBJR
.
|
|
|
| User: " vernon stilthere@athere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
24 Feb 2007 11:08:58 AM |
|
|
"rjbjr" <rjburnsjr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7K-dndYt-tZi0X3YnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@comcast.com...
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:2oGdnY0UC9RxHELYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally
deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski
fan
club."
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Its already been done by James Ussher & I quote
"In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the
genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the
earth
was created in 4004 B.C"
Mr. kingd.....
You fail to mention that back in the 1650s, no one knew the age of the
earth.
Actually, when I was growing up, "science" was teaching that the earth and
the universe had existed forever - it was infinitely old. The Bible was
teaching that wasn't true. The Bible said "In the beginning....".
Scientists scoffed at that idea until the 1960s. Then, science
"discovered"
there was a beginning, a time when the universe started and the "earth was
created but without form". Science confirmed what the Bible said.
Science
called it the "big bang". The Bible called it "the beginning". They are
one and the same.
You need to brush up on your science education. "Big bang" has been gone
for at least 30 years.
Even "Big Bang" had to assume an origination, but that is over the head of
the school teachers (The only ones who fell for that)
You might look into quantum mechanics / physics or the string theory which
are very much in tune with the bible.
BTW (In the beginning there was a void.) A void assumes an area that is not
a void.
An all encompassing void states that God did not exist.
Yes, the bishop was incorrect. But so were the scientists. The only one
that had it correct was the author of the Bible. The Bible goes hand in
hand with science. To understand the deeper meanings in the Bible we
often
have to go beyond our everyday human understanding. Sometimes we need to
reinterpret our traditional understandings of what he Bible says in light
of
insights science gives us.
The Bible tells us to "prove all things". Keep questioning the Bible
interpretations by men. Such seeking leads to deeper understanding and
firmer belief in the Wisdom God has given us in His Book.
If you question, for example, the six days of creation in Genesis 1, it
will
lead you to understand that your everyday concept of what a "day" is
cannot
be 24 of our hours. Our hours are based on the rotation of the earth.
But,
there was no earth on Day 1. So how could you have a 24 hour day then?
You could simply reject the Bible with such an arguement. That's the kind
of conclusion many of you posters are doing on this newsgroup. But if,
instead of just rejecting the Bible story as a fairy tale, you try to
figure
out what the writer could be saying about Day 1, you'll come to the
realization that the time discussed must be something beyond everyday
understanding. If you search hard enough, you'll realize that time is a
relative thing, that time depends on whose clock is being used. You'll
discover the basics of the Theory of Relativity!
Pretty amazing, don't you think!
RJBJR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
24 Feb 2007 09:58:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:08:58 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
wrote:
"rjbjr" <rjburnsjr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7K-dndYt-tZi0X3YnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@comcast.com...
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:2oGdnY0UC9RxHELYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally
deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski
fan
club."
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Its already been done by James Ussher & I quote
"In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the
genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the
earth
was created in 4004 B.C"
Mr. kingd.....
You fail to mention that back in the 1650s, no one knew the age of the
earth.
Actually, when I was growing up, "science" was teaching that the earth and
the universe had existed forever - it was infinitely old. The Bible was
teaching that wasn't true. The Bible said "In the beginning....".
Scientists scoffed at that idea until the 1960s. Then, science
"discovered"
there was a beginning, a time when the universe started and the "earth was
created but without form". Science confirmed what the Bible said.
Science
called it the "big bang". The Bible called it "the beginning". They are
one and the same.
You need to brush up on your science education. "Big bang" has been gone
for at least 30 years.
LOL. I remember you, vernon. You're the sparsely educated moron who
claimed to be a nuclear tech or something but couldn't answer some
basic questions. Don't talk science to us again, bozo, unless you can
pass the exams. We all passed them, and we certainly ain't gonna take
a fundy seriously, especially if he can't back up his claims.
As I recall, I asked you what was beta radiation, and your answer
showed you had NO CLUE as to the correct answer. You therefore CANNOT
possibly be any sort of credible technician in any sort of nuclear
field. Go away, boy. You've already proven what an idiot you are.
___________________
Gospel Bretts
a.a. Atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
.
|
|
|
| User: " vernon stilthere@athere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
25 Feb 2007 10:07:01 AM |
|
|
"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1962@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4122u29k18tiaobddunh9e2sdbpvgcbgp3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:08:58 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
wrote:
"rjbjr" <rjburnsjr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7K-dndYt-tZi0X3YnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@comcast.com...
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:2oGdnY0UC9RxHELYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally
deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence
against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill
Dembski
fan
club."
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the
earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the
Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Its already been done by James Ussher & I quote
"In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the
genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the
earth
was created in 4004 B.C"
Mr. kingd.....
You fail to mention that back in the 1650s, no one knew the age of the
earth.
Actually, when I was growing up, "science" was teaching that the earth
and
the universe had existed forever - it was infinitely old. The Bible was
teaching that wasn't true. The Bible said "In the beginning....".
Scientists scoffed at that idea until the 1960s. Then, science
"discovered"
there was a beginning, a time when the universe started and the "earth
was
created but without form". Science confirmed what the Bible said.
Science
called it the "big bang". The Bible called it "the beginning". They
are
one and the same.
You need to brush up on your science education. "Big bang" has been gone
for at least 30 years.
LOL. I remember you, vernon. You're the sparsely educated moron who
claimed to be a nuclear tech or something but couldn't answer some
basic questions. Don't talk science to us again, bozo, unless you can
pass the exams. We all passed them, and we certainly ain't gonna take
a fundy seriously, especially if he can't back up his claims.
As I recall, I asked you what was beta radiation, and your answer
showed you had NO CLUE as to the correct answer. You therefore CANNOT
possibly be any sort of credible technician in any sort of nuclear
field. Go away, boy. You've already proven what an idiot you are.
___________________
Gospel Bretts
a.a. Atheist #2262
Over your head again I see.
You don't know what beta radiation is.
he he he he he still in the alpha, beta, gamma radiation scenario of 50
years ago??? he he he he he he he
You have no idea of reality vs. terminology crutches.
You also can't create a cogent question.
"What WAS beta radiation"????
Oh, well One cannot be educated AND be atheist.
You also can't read. I never claimed to be a nuclear tech. You don't know
anything about the industry and therefore can't follow what I say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
25 Feb 2007 06:19:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:07:01 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
wrote:
"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1962@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4122u29k18tiaobddunh9e2sdbpvgcbgp3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:08:58 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
wrote:
"rjbjr" <rjburnsjr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7K-dndYt-tZi0X3YnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@comcast.com...
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:2oGdnY0UC9RxHELYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally
deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence
against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill
Dembski
fan
club."
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the
earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the
Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Its already been done by James Ussher & I quote
"In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the
genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the
earth
was created in 4004 B.C"
Mr. kingd.....
You fail to mention that back in the 1650s, no one knew the age of the
earth.
Actually, when I was growing up, "science" was teaching that the earth
and
the universe had existed forever - it was infinitely old. The Bible was
teaching that wasn't true. The Bible said "In the beginning....".
Scientists scoffed at that idea until the 1960s. Then, science
"discovered"
there was a beginning, a time when the universe started and the "earth
was
created but without form". Science confirmed what the Bible said.
Science
called it the "big bang". The Bible called it "the beginning". They
are
one and the same.
You need to brush up on your science education. "Big bang" has been gone
for at least 30 years.
LOL. I remember you, vernon. You're the sparsely educated moron who
claimed to be a nuclear tech or something but couldn't answer some
basic questions. Don't talk science to us again, bozo, unless you can
pass the exams. We all passed them, and we certainly ain't gonna take
a fundy seriously, especially if he can't back up his claims.
As I recall, I asked you what was beta radiation, and your answer
showed you had NO CLUE as to the correct answer. You therefore CANNOT
possibly be any sort of credible technician in any sort of nuclear
field. Go away, boy. You've already proven what an idiot you are.
___________________
Gospel Bretts
a.a. Atheist #2262
Over your head again I see.
You don't know what beta radiation is.
he he he he he still in the alpha, beta, gamma radiation scenario of 50
years ago??? he he he he he he he
You have no idea of reality vs. terminology crutches.
You also can't create a cogent question.
"What WAS beta radiation"????
Oh, well One cannot be educated AND be atheist.
You also can't read. I never claimed to be a nuclear tech. You don't know
anything about the industry and therefore can't follow what I say.
My point, vernon, is that you shouldn't be laying false claims to any
sort of scientific knowledge. It doesn't work here. But xians are
intrinically dishonest, so that sort of behavior is expected from you.
And yes, you did once claim to know a bit about radiation, in regard
to geology if I recall correctly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
24 Feb 2007 01:04:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:08:58 -0700, in alt.atheism
" vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote in
<45e07129$0$13393$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>:
"rjbjr" <rjburnsjr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7K-dndYt-tZi0X3YnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@comcast.com...
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:2oGdnY0UC9RxHELYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally
deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski
fan
club."
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Its already been done by James Ussher & I quote
"In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the
genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the
earth
was created in 4004 B.C"
Mr. kingd.....
You fail to mention that back in the 1650s, no one knew the age of the
earth.
Actually, when I was growing up, "science" was teaching that the earth and
the universe had existed forever - it was infinitely old. The Bible was
teaching that wasn't true. The Bible said "In the beginning....".
Scientists scoffed at that idea until the 1960s. Then, science
"discovered"
there was a beginning, a time when the universe started and the "earth was
created but without form". Science confirmed what the Bible said.
Science
called it the "big bang". The Bible called it "the beginning". They are
one and the same.
You need to brush up on your science education. "Big bang" has been gone
for at least 30 years.
Even "Big Bang" had to assume an origination, but that is over the head of
the school teachers (The only ones who fell for that)
You might look into quantum mechanics / physics or the string theory which
are very much in tune with the bible.
BTW (In the beginning there was a void.) A void assumes an area that is not
a void.
An all encompassing void states that God did not exist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. As the saying goes, you are
not even wrong.
Yes, the bishop was incorrect. But so were the scientists. The only one
that had it correct was the author of the Bible. The Bible goes hand in
hand with science. To understand the deeper meanings in the Bible we
often
have to go beyond our everyday human understanding. Sometimes we need to
reinterpret our traditional understandings of what he Bible says in light
of
insights science gives us.
The Bible tells us to "prove all things". Keep questioning the Bible
interpretations by men. Such seeking leads to deeper understanding and
firmer belief in the Wisdom God has given us in His Book.
If you question, for example, the six days of creation in Genesis 1, it
will
lead you to understand that your everyday concept of what a "day" is
cannot
be 24 of our hours. Our hours are based on the rotation of the earth.
But,
there was no earth on Day 1. So how could you have a 24 hour day then?
You could simply reject the Bible with such an arguement. That's the kind
of conclusion many of you posters are doing on this newsgroup. But if,
instead of just rejecting the Bible story as a fairy tale, you try to
figure
out what the writer could be saying about Day 1, you'll come to the
realization that the time discussed must be something beyond everyday
understanding. If you search hard enough, you'll realize that time is a
relative thing, that time depends on whose clock is being used. You'll
discover the basics of the Theory of Relativity!
Pretty amazing, don't you think!
RJBJR
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
24 Feb 2007 07:50:07 PM |
|
|
Mr. kingd.....
You fail to mention that back in the 1650s, no one knew the age of the
earth.
Actually, when I was growing up, "science" was teaching that the earth and
the universe had existed forever - it was infinitely old. The Bible was
teaching that wasn't true. The Bible said "In the beginning....".
Scientists scoffed at that idea until the 1960s. Then, science
"discovered"
there was a beginning, a time when the universe started and the "earth was
created but without form". Science confirmed what the Bible said.
Science
called it the "big bang". The Bible called it "the beginning". They are
one and the same.
Now this I seriously doubt, Einstein realised that if the Universe was in a
steady state, gravity would cause a collapse to a single point. To
circumvent this, he introduced the idea of cosmological constant which kept
the Universe in its apparent state. However, Hubbles discovery that the
Universe is continually appears to be expanding means that at some time in
the past, stars & galaxies must have been closer together. Go far enough
back in time & we reach a point where all matter is in the same place. So we
have the big bang theory. Since these theories have been around since at
least the twenties, you must be of biblical age when you were at school.
However, I presume you are referring to Hoyles steady state theory, which
was largely borne from the earlier theories, but unlike religion, as science
makes new discoveries, they build on the best theories of the day & thus
expand our knowledge of the Universe.
Yes, the bishop was incorrect. But so were the scientists. The only one
that had it correct was the author of the Bible. The Bible goes hand in
hand with science. To understand the deeper meanings in the Bible we
often
have to go beyond our everyday human understanding. Sometimes we need to
reinterpret our traditional understandings of what he Bible says in light
of
insights science gives us.
The bible does not go hand in hand with science. If so, where are the proof
of the miracles, etc. If fact there are none & any scientist who proved that
the established church of the day was wrong in their assumptions, was either
ex-communicated, arrested, make to rescind their statements in favour of the
church, tortured or executed (or any combination thereof).
The Bible tells us to "prove all things". Keep questioning the Bible
interpretations by men. Such seeking leads to deeper understanding and
firmer belief in the Wisdom God has given us in His Book.
If you question, for example, the six days of creation in Genesis 1, it
will
lead you to understand that your everyday concept of what a "day" is
cannot
be 24 of our hours. Our hours are based on the rotation of the earth.
But,
there was no earth on Day 1. So how could you have a 24 hour day then?
You could simply reject the Bible with such an arguement. That's the kind
of conclusion many of you posters are doing on this newsgroup. But if,
instead of just rejecting the Bible story as a fairy tale, you try to
figure
out what the writer could be saying about Day 1, you'll come to the
realization that the time discussed must be something beyond everyday
understanding. If you search hard enough, you'll realize that time is a
relative thing, that time depends on whose clock is being used. You'll
discover the basics of the Theory of Relativity!
Pretty amazing, don't you think!
Ah yes, the old "how long was a day" gag. Using Einstein's theories to try
& prove your point is really, really weak. The theory of relativity was
unknown to mankind during the writing of the bibles various stories. So when
your god spoke to whoever wrote genesis & said "I did it in 6 days", he
must've been speaking to the author in terms he surely would understand.
Therefore, a day is 24 hours or in the time of the genesis author, the time
span between when the sun comes up one day to the next. If nothing existed
before god created everything, then time dilation due to some external
observer doesn't come into it because who could have recorded such an event
before they were created? If god said it took 6 days, then he would have had
to have created time first, but there is no mention of that in the bible. If
the bible is to be believed, then the Earth / Universe was created in 6 days
& 6 days only. There is nothing to interpret. If a day was not 24 hours
long, but a year, then why not say so as 6 years? or 6 millennia? or 6
minutes? If your god is never wrong & your bible is the word of god, 6 days
is 6 days, end of argument. Or as is more likely the case, genesis is wrong,
hence there is no god. Theists continually come up with this argument
because deep down, they know that the bible just doesn't stand up to any
real scrutiny. Hence, the fairy tale hypothesis is a fairly accurate
description of a set of non events. The conclusion: trying to use the very
thing theists hate most, i.e. science, to prove a point of religious
insignificance just doesn't cut the mustard.
.
|
|
|
| User: " vernon stilthere@athere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
25 Feb 2007 03:27:49 PM |
|
|
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:Sfqdnfu6gaLNdn3YnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com...
The bible does not go hand in hand with science. If so, where are the
proof
of the miracles, etc.
1. Most so called miracles can be explained today as scientific events. We
can still call them miracles and we can still say that God is the master of
timing. A huge percentage of bible scholars are very aware of God having
set all things in motion (including individual salvation) in time beginning.
Of course they also know that time is not relevant to God and a man made
concept.
2. We understand more and more the power of the mind on human physiology.
3. Science is us finding out what always was.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " vernon stilthere@athere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
25 Feb 2007 03:37:07 PM |
|
|
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:Sfqdnfu6gaLNdn3YnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com...
Ah yes, the old "how long was a day" gag. Using Einstein's theories to
try
& prove your point is really, really weak. The theory of relativity was
unknown to mankind during the writing of the bibles various stories. So
when
your god spoke to whoever wrote genesis & said "I did it in 6 days", he
must've been speaking to the author in terms he surely would understand.
Therefore, a day is 24 hours or in the time of the genesis author, the
time
span between when the sun comes up one day to the next. If nothing
existed
before god created everything, then time dilation due to some external
observer doesn't come into it because who could have recorded such an
event
before they were created? If god said it took 6 days, then he would have
had
to have created time first, but there is no mention of that in the bible.
If
the bible is to be believed, then the Earth / Universe was created in 6
days
& 6 days only. There is nothing to interpret. If a day was not 24 hours
long, but a year, then why not say so as 6 years? or 6 millennia? or 6
minutes? If your god is never wrong & your bible is the word of god, 6
days
is 6 days, end of argument. Or as is more likely the case, genesis is
wrong,
hence there is no god. Theists continually come up with this argument
because deep down, they know that the bible just doesn't stand up to any
real scrutiny. Hence, the fairy tale hypothesis is a fairly accurate
description of a set of non events. The conclusion: trying to use the very
thing theists hate most, i.e. science, to prove a point of religious
insignificance just doesn't cut the mustard.
Find the word "era" in the bible.
So the "day" of the Lord is 24 Hours,, hmmm.
So "In that day" means in that 24 hour period. hmmm
How long was a day before the sun and moon existed in the earths
environment? (Read Genesis)
"Using Einstein's theories"
God knew them and knows them. He inspired the writings.
Also, according to Einstein one cannot study our universe without coming to
the conclusion that a higher intelligence created it.
Seems like you fell behind in theology and science. Oh, well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
25 Feb 2007 06:14:49 PM |
|
|
Find the word "era" in the bible.
So the "day" of the Lord is 24 Hours,, hmmm.
So "In that day" means in that 24 hour period. hmmm
How long was a day before the sun and moon existed in the earths
environment? (Read Genesis)
Why bother to read genesis? If you can't accept 1 Earth day is 24 hours
without bending the rules to fit your story, then you can't accept the bible
as a whole truth then. Genesis is a ***** poor read at best & a truely inept
description of the start of the Universe / Earth, i.e. we're here because
your god willed it? How do you explain then those religions which predate
yours which have other equally ridiculous stories as to the beginnings of
the Earth? If your god was truely the first & created the Earth as you
believe, then there'd be no other older religions would there since all
human existance began with adam & eve? Surely they would pass on "the one
true god" story et al? What happened in the interim to create all these
other gods & religions then? Why didn't they believe your god story? Did
your god suddenly lose all his powers & control over his creation? Do you
really believe in a talking snake telling adam & eve to eat an apple from
the tree of knowledge (& let's not forget, real snakes have no ability to
talk, not even dubya)? If you cannot see the woeful ineptitude of these
simple childrens bedtime stories, no wonder you believe that your god
created everything.
"Using Einstein's theories"
God knew them and knows them. He inspired the writings.
Also, according to Einstein one cannot study our universe without coming
to
the conclusion that a higher intelligence created it.
Seems like you fell behind in theology and science. Oh, well.
Your god did nothing of the sort. What real evidence is there that your god
inspired Einstein to think up his theories? Where is the evidence for divine
intervention for Newton's theories then? & then you truly reveal yourself as
an ID-ist. Dear oh dear, do you not yet understand that science builds on
previous scientific theory which are testable by observation? Those which do
not seem to be credible are simply superceded by better explanations /
observations / etc. It does not rely on faith that a book written some 2000
years ago is really true, especially when it's been mistranslated thousands
of times since then. Let's also not forget that the RCC would never put
their own spin on the bible, I mean they wouldn't have anything to gain by
it would they?
Seems like I left the irrelevance of theology behind & since I have a degree
in physics, it seems I left you behind in science. Seems like you fell
behind in common sense & reality. Oh, well.
.
|
|
|
| User: " Vernon stillhere@there" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
26 Feb 2007 07:58:13 AM |
|
|
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:_YudnTK6Vsbgu3_YRVnyuAA@bt.com...
Find the word "era" in the bible.
So the "day" of the Lord is 24 Hours,, hmmm.
So "In that day" means in that 24 hour period. hmmm
How long was a day before the sun and moon existed in the earths
environment? (Read Genesis)
Why bother to read genesis? If you can't accept 1 Earth day is 24 hours
without bending the rules to fit your story, then you can't accept the
bible
as a whole truth then.
Yes, way over your head.
You obviously have a huge trouble with all literature, including scientific.
BTW, God, Earth day, ????
Get an education.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
26 Feb 2007 11:11:50 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:58:13 -0700, " Vernon" <stillhere@there> wrote:
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:_YudnTK6Vsbgu3_YRVnyuAA@bt.com...
Find the word "era" in the bible.
So the "day" of the Lord is 24 Hours,, hmmm.
So "In that day" means in that 24 hour period. hmmm
How long was a day before the sun and moon existed in the earths
environment? (Read Genesis)
Why bother to read genesis? If you can't accept 1 Earth day is 24 hours
without bending the rules to fit your story, then you can't accept the
bible
as a whole truth then.
Yes, way over your head.
You obviously have a huge trouble with all literature, including scientific.
BTW, God, Earth day, ????
Get an education.
Anybody else's irony meter get a bit warm on this one?
Vern, you're just about the most ignorant sonofabitch I've ever
encountered. Take your own advice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
25 Feb 2007 10:35:32 AM |
|
|
On 25 Feb., 03:48, "Sugien" <dinos...@adelphia.net> wrote:
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:Sfqdnfu6gaLNdn3YnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com...
snip
God created the universe already *old* when it was created. When God
created man he didn't create him as a child; but rather a full grown man.
Likewise with trees being created fully grown and not as saplings. When =
God
created the earth it was a fully mature planet. As for time, time was not
created until the 4th day
Genesis 1:14 =B6And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and f=
or
seasons, and for days, and years
That is the point all scoffers fail to consider is that God is capable of
doing absolutely *anything*. Creating a planet which is billions of years
old as perceived by man is no trick at all; because God wanted to put man=
on
a planet that was not young for a reason.
Oh, btw, I took "alt.atheism" out of the crossposted groups
I can certainly understand why you would. In any event thank you for
a funny post.
--
"One cannot study the universe without coming to the conclusion that it w=
as
created by a universal mind or some outside intelligence"
Albert Einstein-
Was that before or after he said that he believed in no god?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
25 Feb 2007 10:20:38 AM |
|
|
On 24 Feb., 15:34, "rjbjr" <rjburn...@comcast.net> wrote:
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:2oGdnY0UC9RxHELYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski
fan
club."
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Its already been done by James Ussher & I quote
"In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the
genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the earth
was created in 4004 B.C"
Mr. kingd.....
You fail to mention that back in the 1650s, no one knew the age of the
earth.
Irrelevant actually.
Actually, when I was growing up, "science" was teaching that the earth and
the universe had existed forever - it was infinitely old. The Bible was
teaching that wasn't true. The Bible said "In the beginning....".
Scientists scoffed at that idea until the 1960s. Then, science "discovered"
there was a beginning, a time when the universe started and the "earth was
created but without form". Science confirmed what the Bible said. Science
called it the "big bang". The Bible called it "the beginning". They are
one and the same.
And said that it all took place in 6 days.
Yes, the bishop was incorrect. But so were the scientists. The only one
that had it correct was the author of the Bible. The Bible goes hand in
hand with science. To understand the deeper meanings in the Bible we often
have to go beyond our everyday human understanding. Sometimes we need to
reinterpret our traditional understandings of what he Bible says in light of
insights science gives us.
In other words ignore what doesn't seem to work anymore and use what
seems to fit. The Bible saying there was a beginning is hardly
evidence of divine inspiration. It would be a normal, intuitive idea.
The Bible tells us to "prove all things". Keep questioning the Bible
interpretations by men. Such seeking leads to deeper understanding and
firmer belief in the Wisdom God has given us in His Book.
Only if you insist from the start that the Bible is the word of some
god. Start out with a truly neutral viewpoint, and the natural
conclusion is that it is just one more version of the thousands of
other primitive explanations of "how it all began", and that it was
copied from earlier existing stories from other civilizations.
If you question, for example, the six days of creation in Genesis 1, it will
lead you to understand that your everyday concept of what a "day" is cannot
be 24 of our hours.
There is no reason to think that it meant anything else.
Our hours are based on the rotation of the earth. But,
there was no earth on Day 1.
According to the story there was, and that claim is another error.
So how could you have a 24 hour day then?
How could there be an Earth in the beginning? We know it was billions
of years after "Big Bang" that the Earth came into existence, yet the
story has the stars coming into existence to provide light for the
Earth.
You could simply reject the Bible with such an arguement. That's the kind
of conclusion many of you posters are doing on this newsgroup. But if,
instead of just rejecting the Bible story as a fairy tale, you try to figure
out what the writer could be saying about Day 1, you'll come to the
realization that the time discussed must be something beyond everyday
understanding.
There is nothing in the story that implies that at all, nor does it
explain away all the other errors in the story.
If you search hard enough, you'll realize that time is a
relative thing, that time depends on whose clock is being used. You'll
discover the basics of the Theory of Relativity!
Pretty amazing, don't you think!
Yes it is. It is hard to understand how people can twist and distort
in order to convince themselves that obvious errors are not really
errors.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
23 Feb 2007 11:43:03 PM |
|
|
kingdoodlesquat wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:8duut2h9ege1kr1oa1o5b7gj3qk95srqlm@4ax.com...
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Its already been done by James Ussher & I quote
"In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the
genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the earth
was created in 4004 B.C"
from http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html
So, your challenge was well beaten some 357 years ago, as I presume he
must've used the all of the old testament including genesis 1:1 to get to
this date. Pity he was completely unaware of its real age then, but then
again, religion was instrumental in holding back human discovery.
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Ah, I have a JW question - Could you tell me why your lot wont stop knocking
on my door with your brain washing attempts at conversion?
Thank you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " vernon stilthere@athere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
24 Feb 2007 10:59:58 AM |
|
|
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:8duut2h9ege1kr1oa1o5b7gj3qk95srqlm@4ax.com...
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
They may be wrong, but then again the word "lying" is improper.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Sincerely, James
Same goes with having 24 hour "days" for three days before the sun and moon
were associated with what we call earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
25 Feb 2007 10:20:02 AM |
|
|
On 24 Feb., 17:59, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
"James" <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:8duut2h9ege1kr1oa1o5b7gj3qk95srqlm@4ax.com...
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski f=
an
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
They may be wrong, but then again the word "lying" is improper.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Sincerely, James
Same goes with having 24 hour "days" for three days before the sun and mo=
on
were associated with what we call earth.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
Or the impossibility of the Earth existing before the Sun and the
other stars.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Lying Again |
25 Feb 2007 06:20:24 AM |
|
|
On Feb 24, 10:59 am, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
"James" <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:8duut2h9ege1kr1oa1o5b7gj3qk95srqlm@4ax.com...
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
They may be wrong, but then again the word "lying" is improper.
Not when this lie was intentional. Those who wrote the flood story
knew it was a lie because they were copying it from earlier myths, yet
they fabricated the name "Noah" and all the other details. They lied
and they knew it.
And even where the Bible writers were not lying but simply writing out
of ignorance (which is bad enough of itself), there came a subsequent
time when other Bible writers or readers knew what had been written
earlier was a lie, yet no one - no human being nor any god - has
*ever* steppped in and corrected it. This is why the Bible is a lie.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things. The first account of the creation of the earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is. Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
Sincerely, James
Same goes with having 24 hour "days" for three days before the sun and moon
were associated with what we call earth.
The creation story explicitly enumerates the days with *ordinal*
numbers, and describes each day has having an evening and a morning -
not a morning and an evening as we would do it, but a morning and an
evening which is the ways the Jews still calculate their days even to
this day. Yes, they were days as we know them. Unspecified time
periods do not have an evening and a morning.
The word "yome" which describes the day comes from an old root meaning
"the heat of the day". This was not intended to be an unspecified
time period, which has no warm sunny part and cool dark part, but an
actual day of 24 hours as we know it today. Yes, they were days as we
know them.
This is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible and it is why the Judaic week
is seven days - six of work and one of rest to emulate those first six
24 hour days. There is no escaping it, and you can be as apologetic
as you like for the lies the Bible writers told, but it does not
change the fact that they lied and millions of people even now still
swallow these appalling lies.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: The Bible Teaches That The Earth is ~6K Years Old |
24 Feb 2007 09:04:17 AM |
|
|
On Feb 23, 5:49 pm, James <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote:
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Duhh! It's not me you have to convince. It's the millions of
Americans and people of other nations world-wide who believe this to
whom you need to proselytize.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things.
It explicitly does. Go read Luke chapter 3. It lists the entire
genealogy (so it claims) from Adam to Jesus. The Jesus myth started
some 2,000 years ago. Add to that the ages between generations of
those listed in Luke (ages and generations listed elsewhere in the
Bible) and you get to right around 6,000 years. Millions of people
believe this.
Either the genealogy is wrong, which means the Bible is lying about
the genealogy, or the the genealogy is right, which means the Bible is
lying about the age of Earth. Which is it?
Now we sit and twiddle our thumbs while you dredge up that old fusty
chestnut about a day "not really" being a day in the Genesis creation
story. Ho-Hum. Here we go again. It doesn't matter in the end if
you could *prove* (which you cannot) that the Bible meant each
creation day to be many millions of years or whatever, because you
*still* have to address the genealogy in Luke which indicates humans
were specially created some 6K years ago. This is a lie.
Now if there is a god, he has had some 3 or 4,000 years to correct and
clarify the Bible since it first got written down yet has not done
so. So this means that this god doesn't care that millions of people
believe lies, or there's no god to correct it. Which is it?
The first account of the creation of the Earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is.
That's not where the genealogy is. Read Luke. Quite clearly you
don't know your Bible and therefore would seem quite unqualified to
pontificate upon it.
Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
You're obviously blind.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible Teaches That The Earth is ~6K Years Old |
24 Feb 2007 12:54:48 PM |
|
|
On 24 Feb 2007 07:04:17 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
It explicitly does. Go read Luke chapter 3. It lists the entire
genealogy (so it claims) from Adam to Jesus.
And Matthew 1 has the entire genealogy from Abraham to Jesus, and that's 6000
years.
And you now know that the biblical flood was sometime in the 4.5 billion years
between Abraham and the creation.
Either the genealogy is wrong, which means the Bible is lying about
the genealogy, or the the genealogy is right, which means the Bible is
lying about the age of Earth. Which is it?
There are two genealogies presented in the bible. Boy are you dumb to not know
that.
You're obviously blind.
Budikka
And you're no scientist, bubba dud.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible Teaches That The Earth is ~6K Years Old |
24 Feb 2007 06:16:04 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On 24 Feb 2007 07:04:17 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
can be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Feb 23, 5:49 pm, James <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote:
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally deleted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Re:
" The Bible Teaches That The Earth is ~6K Years Old"
I believe it would be more accurate to state that some SAY the Bible
teaches that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old!
Indeed I have heard that one many times, including in church,
including from scientists who are Christians.
I have never seen any of them successfully back up that notion with
SCRIPTURE.
Yes, some so-called 'Creationists' are 'lying' when they say the earth
is only around 6000 years old, etc. Scientific data collected from
multiple sciences show such a statement to be at the worst, absurd.
Duhh! It's not me you have to convince. It's the millions of
Americans and people of other nations world-wide who believe this to
whom you need to proselytize.
Also such statements draw well-intentioned people away from the Bible,
instead of to it. So to set the record straight, the Bible DOES NOT
teach of such things.
It explicitly does. Go read Luke chapter 3. It lists the entire
genealogy (so it claims) from Adam to Jesus. The Jesus myth started
some 2,000 years ago. Add to that the ages between generations of
those listed in Luke (ages and generations listed elsewhere in the
Bible) and you get to right around 6,000 years. Millions of people
believe this.
Either the genealogy is wrong, which means the Bible is lying about
the genealogy, or the the genealogy is right, which means the Bible is
lying about the age of Earth. Which is it?
Now we sit and twiddle our thumbs while you dredge up that old fusty
chestnut about a day "not really" being a day in the Genesis creation
story. Ho-Hum. Here we go again. It doesn't matter in the end if
you could *prove* (which you cannot) that the Bible meant each
creation day to be many millions of years or whatever, because you
*still* have to address the genealogy in Luke which indicates humans
were specially created some 6K years ago. This is a lie.
Now if there is a god, he has had some 3 or 4,000 years to correct and
clarify the Bible since it first got written down yet has not done
so. So this means that this god doesn't care that millions of people
believe lies, or there's no god to correct it. Which is it?
The first account of the creation of the Earth
is recorded at Genesis 1:1. I challenge anyone to find in that verse
how old the earth is.
That's not where the genealogy is. Read Luke. Quite clearly you
don't know your Bible and therefore would seem quite unqualified to
pontificate upon it.
Thus the Bible has no problem with an earth
billions of years old. I have never seen the Bible teach a fact of
science that was not in harmony with true science.
You're obviously blind.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible Teaches That The Earth is ~6K Years Old |
25 Feb 2007 10:28:19 AM |
|
|
On 25 Feb., 01:16, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On 24 Feb 2007 07:04:17 -0800, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
=A9 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
can be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Feb 23, 5:49 pm, James <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote:
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally delet=
ed
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence against
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembski=
fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Re:
" The Bible Teaches That The Earth is ~6K Years Old"
I believe it would be more accurate to state that some SAY the Bible
teaches that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old!
Indeed I have heard that one many times, including in church,
including from scientists who are Christians.
I have never seen any of them successfully back up that notion with
SCRIPTURE.
The only way to refute it is to pretend that what the Bible says
really means something else - for example that a day doesn't really
mean a day, even though each day is described as having an "evening
and a morning".
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Matthew vs. Luke - Who is Telling the Truth? |
25 Feb 2007 11:52:25 AM |
|
|
On Feb 25, 10:28 am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On 25 Feb., 01:16, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On 24 Feb 2007 07:04:17 -0800, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
=A9 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
can be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Feb 23, 5:49 pm, James <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote:
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>
Re: Creationists Lying Again
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/innocence_lost.php
"DaveScot completely failed to comprehend the article. He
misrepresented its meaning in his description. He's ruthless about
expunging any criticism, so he almost certainly intentionally del=
eted
any comments that might mention his incompetence. The string of
commenters at UD who all thought this was wonderful evidence agai=
nst
evolution further exemplify the willful inanity of the Bill Dembs=
ki fan
club."
Budikka
Creationists can't "lie again" because they've never
stopped lying.
Hello,
Re:
" The Bible Teaches That The Earth is ~6K Years Old"
I believe it would be more accurate to state that some SAY the Bible
teaches that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old!
Indeed I have heard that one many times, including in church,
including from scientists who are Christians.
I have never seen any of them successfully back up that notion with
SCRIPTURE.
The only way to refute it is to pretend that what the Bible says
really means something else - for example that a day doesn't really
mean a day, even though each day is described as having an "evening
and a morning".
snip
This is a common escape route. When people didn't know the truth,
they swore the Bible told the truth: they swore there had been a
literal six-day creation and only 6,000 (or so) years from that
creation until now.
But when science actually revealed the truth, then the firm believers
shifted the goalposts and insisted that the Bible is *still* correct,
but they had misinterpreted the days. Now they were *not* literal 24
hour days (as people had sworn they were from the time the Bible was
originally written). Now they insisted that they were instead "God
days" of indeterminate length! Yeah, right!
But the fact remains that the "Word of God" specifies six 24-hour days
of creation as defined by the specific word used (yome) *and* by the
description of the day (evening and morning) *and* by referring back
to this "six days of work one day of rest" week at other points in the
Bible, for example, Ex 20:11, where it explicitly states this, Ex 16,
Ex 31, Ex 35, and Lev 23 just within the Pentateuch.
The age of the Earth (as believed by Bible writers) is confirmed in
Luke chapter three, which lists the entire genealogy from God to God
(Adam to Jesus).
Luke was a gentile and was not interested in tracing the genealogy
only back to the founder of the Judaic people (Abram) as Matthew was.
He wished to trace it all the way back to God himself.
This is one way in which Luke's genealogy differs from that in
Matthew. The other is in the actual genealogy itself. Luke lists 75
generations from Adam to Jesus - a direct lineage. It's the longest
lineage anywhere in the Bible.
There are other genealogies, such as in Matthew 1, and also in the
fifth and 11th chapters of Genesis. The details of these disagree
(Matthew, for example, has only 42 generations between Jesus and
Abram, whereas Luke lists 55. The 5th and 11th chapters of Genesis
list only 19 generations from Adam to Abram, whereas Luke shows 20),
but they all claim to be true genealogies from God's creation through
Abram or through Jesus. Obviously someone is lying.
It looks like Cainan is erroneously counted twice in Luke's genealogy,
but apart from instances like this, Matthew and Luke agree in their
lists from Abram to David. After that, they part their ways
significantly, Matthew tracing descent through Sulaiman, whereas Luke
goes through Nathan, an older brother of Sulaiman.
Luke's genealogy is quite obscure, whereas Matthew insists that
virtually every one of Jesus's forebears was a king of Israel, which
is stretching credibility a bit too far. This is one reason why
Matthew's genealogy could be considered an invention.
Others would argue that Matthew's is more reliable *because* it uses
familiar names. However, Matthew's is highly suspect in that it is
presented as being completely symmetrical: he lists 14 generations
from Abram to David, 14 from David until the deportation to Babylon,
and 14 generations from Babylon to Jesus. In order to set this up for
whatever result he thought he was achieving, Matthew was forced to
distort his genealogy. This doesn't lend his story credibility.
Some people have tried to explain the discrepancy between Matthew and
Luke by claiming that Luke traces Mary's lineage rather than Joseph's,
but since Mary was a cousin of Elizabeth who was a Levite, it's hard
to credit that she was directly descended from the House of David.
But it doesn't matter which genealogy is chosen. The facts of the
first few generations are these:
Adam at age 130
begat
Seth at age 105
begat
Enos at age 90
begat
Cainan at age 70
begat
Mahalaleel at age 65
begat
Jared at age 162
begat
Enoch at age 65
begat
Me | | | | | | |
