| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jeremy" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2003 08:27:43 PM |
| Object: |
Evidences of God - Preface |
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
--- Jeremy
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
25 Aug 2003 09:20:18 AM |
|
|
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<384ikvk4rolosl821jmnpc5j1qvbn24orn@4ax.com>...
On 24 Aug 2003 11:00:53 -0700, (Mark Nutter)
wrote:
Evidence currently unfound does not evidence eliminate. You can't
demand the non flood just because the evidence currently remains
unfound.
So then I can prove that your beliefs are wrong by appealing to the
evidence that everything you think God did was really a hoax
perpetrated by that old trickster Loki. This evidence clearly proves
that your beliefs are in error. True, we haven't found any of this
evidence, but like you say, that doesn't mean you can claim it's not
there.
Good. I never had any reason to stray from almighty God.
What? The evidence proves that your "almighty God" is a hoax. There
is no almighty God to stray from. You've just been tricked by Loki.
The evidence proves it.
m
aa#2115
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony Buckland" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
23 Aug 2003 03:37:14 PM |
|
|
duke32 wrote:
...
Why not a worldwide flood?
...
For the same reason that the movie "Waterworld" was wrong.
There has never been anywhere near enough water on the
surface or in the atmosphere of this planet to cover all the
land.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Vogel" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
23 Aug 2003 03:54:16 PM |
|
|
"Anthony Buckland" <buckland@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:3F47D07A.7000803@direct.ca...
duke32 wrote:
...
Why not a worldwide flood?
...
For the same reason that the movie "Waterworld" was wrong.
There has never been anywhere near enough water on the
surface or in the atmosphere of this planet to cover all the
land.
Is that a scientific fact? I would very much like to see the sources and
evidence regarding this statement. Thanks :)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
23 Aug 2003 06:08:24 PM |
|
|
John Vogel wrote:
"Anthony Buckland" <buckland@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:3F47D07A.7000803@direct.ca...
duke32 wrote:
...
Why not a worldwide flood?
...
For the same reason that the movie "Waterworld" was wrong.
There has never been anywhere near enough water on the
surface or in the atmosphere of this planet to cover all the
land.
Is that a scientific fact? I would very much like to see the sources and
evidence regarding this statement. Thanks :)
===>Total freshwater stocks (x1000 cubic km) 35 029
That is just 2.5323 % of the water total (Total water on earth (x1000
km3) 1 385 984)
The rest (Total salt water stocks (x1000 cubic km) 1 350 955)
is contained in the oceans, etc., below sea level.
SEE: "Major stocks of water on earth" at
http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/descrip/nature/prop/a2f2e.htm
Libertarius
============
(THE ANSWER IS OUT THERE -- ON THE INTERNET)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
24 Aug 2003 10:03:53 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:37:14 -0700, Anthony Buckland
<buckland@direct.ca> wrote:
Why not a worldwide flood?
For the same reason that the movie "Waterworld" was wrong.
There has never been anywhere near enough water on the
surface or in the atmosphere of this planet to cover all the
land.
Well now, let's see.
1. No one knows the surface contour of the earth at the time of the
hypothetical "flood". It could have been a "smooth" ball, relatively
speaking.
2. Condensing all water vapor from a reasonable world wide relative
humidity to very low RH would raise the liquid level of the world - at
least some level.
3. It's factual that for a "smooth ball", any liquid level at all can
encircle the ball to at least some minimal depth - maybe micros to
feet to miles. Who knows? Decreasing the RH would condense some /all
of the water vapor and "thicken" that layer thus flooding the world.
4. Maybe the moon mass "being" thrown into orbit eons ago reduced the
surface square footage thus allowing the globe to decrease in diameter
with a resultant rise in water level.
5. Maybe a comet (water) hit the earth depositing huge quatities of
extra water on the globe.
6. We have rocks of Mars that have been found on the earth. Maybe we
got their water.
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
28 Aug 2003 01:40:15 AM |
|
|
At some point in the past, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> slavered, and
posted this:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:37:14 -0700, Anthony Buckland
<buckland@direct.ca> wrote:
Why not a worldwide flood?
For the same reason that the movie "Waterworld" was wrong.
There has never been anywhere near enough water on the
surface or in the atmosphere of this planet to cover all the
land.
Well now, let's see.
1. No one knows the surface contour of the earth at the time of the
hypothetical "flood". It could have been a "smooth" ball, relatively
speaking.
Of course, this is silly because it takes millions of years for the current
"unsmoothness" to form. Basic geology. Whereas Homo Sapiens have only
existed on this planet for what, 10,000 years? And I think that the people
who did NOT write the Bible would notice the sudden formation of mountains,
and the resultant earthquakes.
2. Condensing all water vapor from a reasonable world wide relative
humidity to very low RH would raise the liquid level of the world - at
least some level.
As has been shown to you:
In order for the condensation to occur, the water must first exist in the
form of water vapor. Even if enough water vapor existed in the air to raise
sea level 300 feet, the partial pressure of the oxygen in the air prior to
that condensation would be toxic to humans (the weight of the atmosphere +
the weight of the equivilent of 300 ft of consensed water). And that does
not even speak to the unsurvivable temperatures required to keep that amount
of water as vapor.
3. It's factual that for a "smooth ball", any liquid level at all can
encircle the ball to at least some minimal depth - maybe micros to
feet to miles. Who knows? Decreasing the RH would condense some /all
of the water vapor and "thicken" that layer thus flooding the world.
Same refutation as number 2.
4. Maybe the moon mass "being" thrown into orbit eons ago reduced the
surface square footage thus allowing the globe to decrease in diameter
with a resultant rise in water level.
The moon was formed while there was no real discernable land mass/water. It
seems to be the same general composition as our mantle, and the more likely
explanation was that the moon was formed while the matter of the planet was
still in a hot molten state without a crust.
Humans did not exist at the time the moon was created (age of Solar system
about 4.58 billion years, age of moon determined to be at least 4.5 billion
years from moon rocks, Earth age estimated at 4.54 billion years).
Therefore, the worldwide flood did not exist at this time, because humans
were not around to record the event. Humans did not exist at that time, to
be either killed or saved.
And I think that humans would notice the sudden appearance of a moon in the
sky, if that was the cause of the flood.
5. Maybe a comet (water) hit the earth depositing huge quatities of
extra water on the globe.
That does not explain where the resultant water went. Conservation of
matter. And even assuming that the comet hit when the earth was a "smooth
ball," the geologic processes to get us to the Earth of today take millions
of years. No humans around. And a large object, such as a comet, colliding
with the Earth would cause a global destruction as happened with the
dinosaurs. I think even ancient beings that would possibly survive such an
event would not confuse a nuclear winter type scenerio with a global flood.
6. We have rocks of Mars that have been found on the earth. Maybe we
got their water.
That assumes that the water just magically poofed through a minimum of
55,700,000 km of space between Earth and Mars. And it does not explain
where the resultant water went. Even given a Earth as a smooth ball theory,
the geological formations take millions of years to occur.
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
You forgot that the Bible says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights to
cause the flood, making only cause 2 or 3 to be plausible in Biblical terms.
Of course, since it is allegory, that really didn't happen that way.
Yeah, you forgot to provide the theory that malevolent aliens from Frumpus
tried to flood the Earth but forgot a family.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
25 Aug 2003 11:30:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:09:54 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
Well now, let's see.
1. No one knows the surface contour of the earth at the time of the
hypothetical "flood". It could have been a "smooth" ball, relatively
speaking.
===>So much for your obfuscatory efforts.
Are you not aware the story talks about the MOUNTS OF ARARAT?
One little slightly higher bump takes care of that.
2. Condensing all water vapor from a reasonable world wide relative
humidity to very low RH would raise the liquid level of the world - at
least some level.
===>SOme 98% of the Earth's water is SALT WATER AT SEA LEVEL!
The other two percent could in no way inundate the world.
Sorry, 71% is covered with water, not 98%. And if the Earth at that
time was a relatively smooth ball, condensation at that time, such as
a cooling of the world, could easily flood flat land of 29%.
Now try and keep up.
3. It's factual that for a "smooth ball", any liquid level at all can
encircle the ball to at least some minimal depth - maybe micros to
feet to miles. Who knows? Decreasing the RH would condense some /all
of the water vapor and "thicken" that layer thus flooding the world.
===>Genesis 1 says the land was separated from the waters by the
deity.
?????? But not a berm.
4. Maybe the moon mass "being" thrown into orbit eons ago reduced the
surface square footage thus allowing the globe to decrease in diameter
with a resultant rise in water level.
5. Maybe a comet (water) hit the earth depositing huge quatities of
extra water on the globe.
6. We have rocks of Mars that have been found on the earth. Maybe we
got their water.
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
===>Yes, maybe you are smoking some funny stuff. -- L.
So offer some real reason to say I'm wrong. You blew it so far.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
25 Aug 2003 11:27:33 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:30:02 GMT, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:09:54 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
Well now, let's see.
1. No one knows the surface contour of the earth at the time of the
hypothetical "flood". It could have been a "smooth" ball, relatively
speaking.
I heard it was flat then .... as it still is now ......
===>So much for your obfuscatory efforts.
Are you not aware the story talks about the MOUNTS OF ARARAT?
One little slightly higher bump takes care of that.
2. Condensing all water vapor from a reasonable world wide relative
humidity to very low RH would raise the liquid level of the world - at
least some level.
===>SOme 98% of the Earth's water is SALT WATER AT SEA LEVEL!
The other two percent could in no way inundate the world.
Sorry, 71% is covered with water, not 98%. And if the Earth at that
time was a relatively smooth ball, condensation at that time, such as
a cooling of the world, could easily flood flat land of 29%.
Now try and keep up.
3. It's factual that for a "smooth ball", any liquid level at all can
encircle the ball to at least some minimal depth - maybe micros to
feet to miles. Who knows? Decreasing the RH would condense some /all
of the water vapor and "thicken" that layer thus flooding the world.
===>Genesis 1 says the land was separated from the waters by the
deity.
?????? But not a berm.
4. Maybe the moon mass "being" thrown into orbit eons ago reduced the
surface square footage thus allowing the globe to decrease in diameter
with a resultant rise in water level.
5. Maybe a comet (water) hit the earth depositing huge quatities of
extra water on the globe.
6. We have rocks of Mars that have been found on the earth. Maybe we
got their water.
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
===>Yes, maybe you are smoking some funny stuff. -- L.
So offer some real reason to say I'm wrong. You blew it so far.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
--
Joel M. Eichen, .
Philadelphia PA
STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
<You fill it in>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
25 Aug 2003 01:04:53 PM |
|
|
duke32 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:09:54 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
Well now, let's see.
1. No one knows the surface contour of the earth at the time of the
hypothetical "flood". It could have been a "smooth" ball, relatively
speaking.
===>So much for your obfuscatory efforts.
Are you not aware the story talks about the MOUNTS OF ARARAT?
One little slightly higher bump takes care of that.
2. Condensing all water vapor from a reasonable world wide relative
humidity to very low RH would raise the liquid level of the world - at
least some level.
===>SOme 98% of the Earth's water is SALT WATER AT SEA LEVEL!
The other two percent could in no way inundate the world.
Sorry, 71% is covered with water, not 98%.
===>Do you suffer from a reading comprehension problem?
"98% of the Earth's water is SALT WATER AT SEA LEVEL",
NOT "covered with water".
And if the Earth at that
time was a relatively smooth ball, condensation at that time, such as
a cooling of the world, could easily flood flat land of 29%.
===>The Earth was NEVER a "relatively smooth ball".
As I pointed out, even the Flood story speaks of MOUNTAINS!
Genesis 7:19
"The water prevailed more and more upon the earth,
so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
25 Aug 2003 11:33:13 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:01:16 -0700, David <dave@thellamaranch.com>
wrote:
duke32 wrote:
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
Yes. You are clueless.
Meaning, you are so stunned by these revelations that never crossed
your mind before that there is no way you can refute my words.
Remember, I presented 6 ideas, you presented
0/zero/nada/zipsquat/blank.
Try saying something intelligent next time. It'd do wonders for your
reputation.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
26 Aug 2003 12:56:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:49:29 -0700, David <dave@thellamaranch.com>
wrote:
duke32 wrote:
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
Yes. You are clueless.
Meaning, you are so stunned by these revelations that
never crossed your mind before that there is no way you
can refute my words.
No, you arguments are so off the wall, so inane, so STUPID,
that there can be no logical response. I am stunned that an
adult can come up with the tripe that you spew around here.
Why are they off the wall? Do you have a clue? Can you offer a
suggestion?
Or are you just another junior atheist in a new newsgroup?
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
26 Aug 2003 01:12:05 PM |
|
|
duke32 wrote:
David <dave@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
duke32 wrote:
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
Yes. You are clueless.
Meaning, you are so stunned by these revelations that
never crossed your mind before that there is no way
you can refute my words.
No, you arguments are so off the wall, so inane, so
STUPID, that there can be no logical response. I am
stunned that an adult can come up with the tripe that
you spew around here.
Why are they off the wall?
They're off the wall. Get over it.
My suggestion is that you go to this site:
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/addict.htm
and buy the book. You need help with your addiction.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
dave@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
27 Aug 2003 07:44:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:12:05 -0700, David <dave@thellamaranch.com>
wrote:
No, you arguments are so off the wall, so inane, so
STUPID, that there can be no logical response. I am
stunned that an adult can come up with the tripe that
you spew around here.
Why are they off the wall?
They're off the wall. Get over it.
But why are they off the wall?
Don't you have any knowledge *at all* to offer up as to why my beliefs
are off the wall?
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
27 Aug 2003 09:39:33 AM |
|
|
duke32 wrote:
David <dave@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
No, you arguments are so off the wall, so inane, so
STUPID, that there can be no logical response. I
am stunned that an adult can come up with the tripe
that you spew around here.
Why are they off the wall?
They're off the wall. Get over it.
But why are they off the wall?
Your lack of the ability to reason, your lack of education,
and your religious addiction contribute to your inane
questions and statements. Your arguments were nothing but
conjecture backed only by a need to have the bible be
correct in all that it has to say.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
dave@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
25 Aug 2003 01:06:03 PM |
|
|
duke32 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:01:16 -0700, David <dave@thellamaranch.com>
wrote:
duke32 wrote:
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
Yes. You are clueless.
Meaning, you are so stunned by these revelations that never crossed
your mind before that there is no way you can refute my words.
Remember, I presented 6 ideas, you presented
0/zero/nada/zipsquat/blank.
===>Better that than six insane fantasies!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
26 Aug 2003 12:53:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:06:03 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
duke32 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:01:16 -0700, David <dave@thellamaranch.com>
wrote:
duke32 wrote:
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
Yes. You are clueless.
Meaning, you are so stunned by these revelations that never crossed
your mind before that there is no way you can refute my words.
Remember, I presented 6 ideas, you presented
0/zero/nada/zipsquat/blank.
===>Better that than six insane fantasies!
Okkkkkkkkk, so libertarius is yet another junior atheist. No
discussion, no ideas, just a stupid unfounded statement.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Kendall" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
26 Aug 2003 08:33:03 PM |
|
|
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<06khkvk1j5ne16ldv97dpkufpuhc3e892s@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:37:14 -0700, Anthony Buckland
<buckland@direct.ca> wrote:
Why not a worldwide flood?
For the same reason that the movie "Waterworld" was wrong.
There has never been anywhere near enough water on the
surface or in the atmosphere of this planet to cover all the
land.
Well now, let's see.
1. No one knows the surface contour of the earth at the time of the
hypothetical "flood". It could have been a "smooth" ball, relatively
speaking.
2. Condensing all water vapor from a reasonable world wide relative
humidity to very low RH would raise the liquid level of the world - at
least some level.
3. It's factual that for a "smooth ball", any liquid level at all can
encircle the ball to at least some minimal depth - maybe micros to
feet to miles. Who knows? Decreasing the RH would condense some /all
of the water vapor and "thicken" that layer thus flooding the world.
Then when did it stop being a smooth ball? Did god get bored with a
smooth earth and suddenly decide to start creating mountains? Why
didn't anyone notice mountains suddenly springing up out of the
ground? Or is the flood meant to have created them in some way? It's
hard to see how a flood a few feet deep could create mount Everest.
4. Maybe the moon mass "being" thrown into orbit eons ago reduced the
surface square footage thus allowing the globe to decrease in diameter
with a resultant rise in water level.
5. Maybe a comet (water) hit the earth depositing huge quatities of
extra water on the globe.
6. We have rocks of Mars that have been found on the earth. Maybe we
got their water.
Even if those crazy theories could possibly be true, where did all the
extra water go after the flood?
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
What I don't get is why you'd want to display your ignorance by
posting bizarre pseudo-science like this. Surely 'goddidit' is the
only explanation a Christian fundamentalist needs?
God can simply magic the water out of thin air, magically solve
problems like the water heating up, magically keep noah's boat
floating and his animals alive, magically make all the water disappear
again, then finally he can magically remove any trace of the flood to
test people's faith a few thousand years later.
Why waste your time coming up with laughable explanations for biblical
events, when the events still depend on the intervention of a
supernatural being?
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
27 Aug 2003 07:49:44 AM |
|
|
On 26 Aug 2003 18:33:03 -0700, (Dave Kendall)
wrote:
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<06khkvk1j5ne16ldv97dpkufpuhc3e892s@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:37:14 -0700, Anthony Buckland
<buckland@direct.ca> wrote:
Why not a worldwide flood?
For the same reason that the movie "Waterworld" was wrong.
There has never been anywhere near enough water on the
surface or in the atmosphere of this planet to cover all the
land.
Well now, let's see.
1. No one knows the surface contour of the earth at the time of the
hypothetical "flood". It could have been a "smooth" ball, relatively
speaking.
2. Condensing all water vapor from a reasonable world wide relative
humidity to very low RH would raise the liquid level of the world - at
least some level.
3. It's factual that for a "smooth ball", any liquid level at all can
encircle the ball to at least some minimal depth - maybe micros to
feet to miles. Who knows? Decreasing the RH would condense some /all
of the water vapor and "thicken" that layer thus flooding the world.
Then when did it stop being a smooth ball? Did god get bored with a
smooth earth and suddenly decide to start creating mountains? Why
didn't anyone notice mountains suddenly springing up out of the
ground? Or is the flood meant to have created them in some way? It's
hard to see how a flood a few feet deep could create mount Everest.
You don't really understand that the current surface features were not
always as they currently are, do you?
Did it ever occur to you that the continents were once much fewer, and
drifted apart as part of the subsurface movements?
4. Maybe the moon mass "being" thrown into orbit eons ago reduced the
surface square footage thus allowing the globe to decrease in diameter
with a resultant rise in water level.
5. Maybe a comet (water) hit the earth depositing huge quatities of
extra water on the globe.
6. We have rocks of Mars that have been found on the earth. Maybe we
got their water.
Even if those crazy theories could possibly be true, where did all the
extra water go after the flood?
????????
The mountains rose, and the valleys (oceans) formed.
Good grief!!!!!!
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
What I don't get is why you'd want to display your ignorance by
posting bizarre pseudo-science like this. Surely 'goddidit' is the
only explanation a Christian fundamentalist needs?
Yet you are the one that asked the stupid questions, junior atheist.
Why waste your time coming up with laughable explanations for biblical
events, when the events still depend on the intervention of a
supernatural being?
Dave
No they don't, daveidiot. It normal geological formation.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Kendall" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
27 Aug 2003 02:10:10 PM |
|
|
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<tr9pkvs7aahj50jqtc067093dhvdgueb19@4ax.com>...
On 26 Aug 2003 18:33:03 -0700, (Dave Kendall)
wrote:
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<06khkvk1j5ne16ldv97dpkufpuhc3e892s@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:37:14 -0700, Anthony Buckland
<buckland@direct.ca> wrote:
Why not a worldwide flood?
For the same reason that the movie "Waterworld" was wrong.
There has never been anywhere near enough water on the
surface or in the atmosphere of this planet to cover all the
land.
Well now, let's see.
1. No one knows the surface contour of the earth at the time of the
hypothetical "flood". It could have been a "smooth" ball, relatively
speaking.
2. Condensing all water vapor from a reasonable world wide relative
humidity to very low RH would raise the liquid level of the world - at
least some level.
3. It's factual that for a "smooth ball", any liquid level at all can
encircle the ball to at least some minimal depth - maybe micros to
feet to miles. Who knows? Decreasing the RH would condense some /all
of the water vapor and "thicken" that layer thus flooding the world.
Then when did it stop being a smooth ball? Did god get bored with a
smooth earth and suddenly decide to start creating mountains? Why
didn't anyone notice mountains suddenly springing up out of the
ground? Or is the flood meant to have created them in some way? It's
hard to see how a flood a few feet deep could create mount Everest.
You don't really understand that the current surface features were not
always as they currently are, do you?
Did it ever occur to you that the continents were once much fewer, and
drifted apart as part of the subsurface movements?
Isn't the biblical flood meant to have occured roughly 4000 years ago?
Are you really saying that continental drift could have moved apart
the continents and created every mountain in just a few thousand
years? Don't you think people would have noticed that the continents
were moving at such a rate? Why aren't the continents still moving
like that today?
4. Maybe the moon mass "being" thrown into orbit eons ago reduced the
surface square footage thus allowing the globe to decrease in diameter
with a resultant rise in water level.
5. Maybe a comet (water) hit the earth depositing huge quatities of
extra water on the globe.
6. We have rocks of Mars that have been found on the earth. Maybe we
got their water.
Even if those crazy theories could possibly be true, where did all the
extra water go after the flood?
????????
The mountains rose, and the valleys (oceans) formed.
Good grief!!!!!!
So the mountains rose, and the valleys (oceans) formed in a single
year? That's how long Noah had to wait before the flood water cleared.
7. Are you getting the idea yet.
What I don't get is why you'd want to display your ignorance by
posting bizarre pseudo-science like this. Surely 'goddidit' is the
only explanation a Christian fundamentalist needs?
Yet you are the one that asked the stupid questions, junior atheist.
Why waste your time coming up with laughable explanations for biblical
events, when the events still depend on the intervention of a
supernatural being?
Dave
No they don't, daveidiot. It normal geological formation.
Maybe on your home planet mountains rise and valleys form in a single
year, here on earth it takes many millions of years.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
27 Aug 2003 05:09:12 PM |
|
|
Dave Kendall wrote:
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<tr9pkvs7aahj50jqtc067093dhvdgueb19@4ax.com>...
On 26 Aug 2003 18:33:03 -0700, (Dave Kendall)
wrote:
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<06khkvk1j5ne16ldv97dpkufpuhc3e892s@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:37:14 -0700, Anthony Buckland
<buckland@direct.ca> wrote:
Why not a worldwide flood?
For the same reason that the movie "Waterworld" was wrong.
There has never been anywhere near enough water on the
surface or in the atmosphere of this planet to cover all the
land.
Well now, let's see.
1. No one knows the surface contour of the earth at the time of the
hypothetical "flood". It could have been a "smooth" ball, relatively
speaking.
2. Condensing all water vapor from a reasonable world wide relative
humidity to very low RH would raise the liquid level of the world - at
least some level.
3. It's factual that for a "smooth ball", any liquid level at all can
encircle the ball to at least some minimal depth - maybe micros to
feet to miles. Who knows? Decreasing the RH would condense some /all
of the water vapor and "thicken" that layer thus flooding the world.
Then when did it stop being a smooth ball? Did god get bored with a
smooth earth and suddenly decide to start creating mountains? Why
didn't anyone notice mountains suddenly springing up out of the
ground? Or is the flood meant to have created them in some way? It's
hard to see how a flood a few feet deep could create mount Everest.
You don't really understand that the current surface features were not
always as they currently are, do you?
Did it ever occur to you that the continents were once much fewer, and
drifted apart as part of the subsurface movements?
Isn't the biblical flood meant to have occured roughly 4000 years ago?
Are you really saying that continental drift could have moved apart
the continents and created every mountain in just a few thousand
years? Don't you think people would have noticed that the continents
were moving at such a rate? Why aren't the continents still moving
like that today?
===>They are. Only still nobody is noticing it. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "QBaal" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
13 Sep 2003 10:16:17 AM |
|
|
David <dave@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message news:<3f444938$1@news.sti.net>...
Mani Deli wrote:
So which in your opinion is the stupidest and don’t
forget to sight reasons?
That jesus died for our sins has got to be the stupidest
thing I've ever heard. An omniscient, omnipotent, god has to
create a son and have him tortured to death (but he can't
die because it's a god) to forgive us for a sin that we did
not commit. Would you have a kid then kill it in order to
forgive me for a crime against you that I did not commit?
OK, let's say that all of humanity is responsible for the
sin that Adam and Eve committed. That doesn't help any since
this god still needed to see his son tortured in order to
forgive us. Why not just forgive?
Which is basically what a lot of modern critical Christian
theologians would say. No way does the forgiveness of God depend on
Jesus dying/bleeding on
a cross on Calvary. Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
God's
compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
proceeds.
God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
is to forgive. End of story.
However, ancient and modern Christians seem to crave solid,
material, factual religious "realities." So the religious truths are
wrapped in
"facts" and important religious messages, though myth, are
historicized for
poplar consumption. God is forever reaching out to accomodate our
weaknesses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ineedmoney" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
13 Sep 2003 07:46:12 PM |
|
|
"QBaal" <qbaal_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:97a992d7.0309130716.3a7604c9@posting.google.com...
Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
God's
compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
proceeds.
God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
is to forgive. End of story.
When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in his nature"??? What
a bunch of crap.
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "QBaal" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
14 Sep 2003 08:30:01 AM |
|
|
"Ineedmoney" <mail@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bk0dp2$fc2$2@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"QBaal" <qbaal_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:97a992d7.0309130716.3a7604c9@posting.google.com...
Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
God's
compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
proceeds.
God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
is to forgive. End of story.
When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in his nature"??? What
a bunch of crap.
Ed
I am not denying the Old Testament, as regards God's nature, is a
mixed
bag. But if you read Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc. etc, God's is the
compassionate, merciful and forgiving One. Ask the Christians, Jews
and Muslims. A fair percentage of the world's population. Atheists,
agnostics
and sceptics, by definition, what do they know of God's nature. Nada!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
14 Sep 2003 09:46:20 AM |
|
|
"QBaal" <qbaal_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
"Ineedmoney" <mail@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message >
"QBaal" <qbaal_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
God's compassion, merciful nature is the springboard
from which forgivness proceeds. God's nature, not some
historical event, or mythology for that matter,
is to forgive. End of story.
When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in
his nature"??? What a bunch of crap.
Ed
I am not denying the Old Testament, as regards God's nature,
is a mixed bag. But if you read Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc.
etc, God's is the compassionate, merciful and forgiving One.
Ask the Christians, Jews and Muslims. A fair percentage of
the world's population. Atheists, agnostics and sceptics, by
definition, what do they know of God's nature. Nada!
How often do you hear people quote from Amos, Isaiah, or the
Psalms? Right now people want to put up copies of the Ten
Commandments in courthouses, classrooms and parks. There is
little compassion, mercy or forgiveness in those.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
14 Sep 2003 02:57:17 PM |
|
|
(QBaal) wrote in message news:<97a992d7.0309140530.453e9dd7@posting.google.com>...
"Ineedmoney" <mail@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bk0dp2$fc2$2@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"QBaal" < > wrote in message
news:97a992d7.0309130716.3a7604c9@posting.google.com...
Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
God's
compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
proceeds.
God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
is to forgive. End of story.
When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in his nature"??? What
a bunch of crap.
Ed
I am not denying the Old Testament, as regards God's nature, is a
mixed
bag. But if you read Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc. etc, God's is the
compassionate, merciful and forgiving One.
But if you read Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, God's is the jealous,
vengeful and wrathful One. Like you said, a mixed bag. Why do you
reject so much of God's own Word?
Ask the Christians, Jews
and Muslims. A fair percentage of the world's population. Atheists,
agnostics
and sceptics, by definition, what do they know of God's nature. Nada!
We know what the Bible says about God's nature. Do you have some other
source besides God's Word?
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature". |
14 Sep 2003 10:48:33 AM |
|
|
QBaal wrote:
"Ineedmoney" <mail@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bk0dp2$fc2$2@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"QBaal" <qbaal_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:97a992d7.0309130716.3a7604c9@posting.google.com...
Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
God's
compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
proceeds.
God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
is to forgive. End of story.
When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in his nature"??? What
a bunch of crap.
Ed
I am not denying the Old Testament, as regards God's nature, is a
mixed
bag. But if you read Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc. etc, God's is the
compassionate, merciful and forgiving One.
===>That only shows that the writers compiled in the Bible
did not have the same kind of "GOD" in mind.
Ask the Christians, Jews
and Muslims. A fair percentage of the world's population. Atheists,
agnostics
and sceptics, by definition, what do they know of God's nature. Nada!
===>"God's nature" is whatever you decide. THAT is what you find in the
Bible! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrusaderForChrist" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature". |
14 Sep 2003 11:45:33 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F648DD1.7979BBD9@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
QBaal wrote:
"Ineedmoney" <mail@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bk0dp2$fc2$2@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"QBaal" <qbaal_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:97a992d7.0309130716.3a7604c9@posting.google.com...
Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
God's
compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
proceeds.
God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
is to forgive. End of story.
When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in his nature"??? What
a bunch of crap.
Ed
I am not denying the Old Testament, as regards God's nature, is a
mixed
bag. But if you read Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc. etc, God's is the
compassionate, merciful and forgiving One.
===>That only shows that the writers compiled in the Bible
did not have the same kind of "GOD" in mind.
Ask the Christians, Jews
and Muslims. A fair percentage of the world's population. Atheists,
agnostics
and sceptics, by definition, what do they know of God's nature. Nada!
===>"God's nature" is whatever you decide. THAT is what you find in the
Bible! -- L.
Hey, guys, God's nature shouldn't even be controversial.
It is clear in both the OT and NT that God is holy and
cannot stand the presence of evil and the stench of sin
(after all, He is the perfect standard of goodness, and
good cannot tolerate evil). This means that God does
judge people for what wrong they do and often executes
judgement.
This judgement, however, does not mean that God is not
loving or merciful. The Bible makes it clear that God
loves all of mankind (John 3:16). If He didn't, then
why would He send Jesus, His Messiah, into the world
to die for us (Romans 5:6-8)?
In the OT, God continually demonstrates His merciful
nature towards His people (Exodus 12:12-13,29-30) and
even towards Gentiles (Joshua 2:1-21, 7:21-25). These
are just a couple of examples of His mercy in the OT (The
Passover and Rahab the harlot's deliverance, respectively)
in the midst of judgement and tribulation. His mercy isn't
demonstrated in small portions of the Bible: it's everywhere,
in every book of the Bible! You are therefore greatly
mistaken about the Scriptures and the power of God
(Matthew 22:29): He is both merciful and just!
Where did you dig up this junk about God not being merciful
in the OT? Apparently, none of you have read the Bible
(or haven't read it close enough), otherwise you would
have clearly seen His loving and just nature.
Regarding knowing God's nature, everyone CAN know His
true nature. The Bible makes this clear (Psalm 19:1,
Isaiah 40:8, John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:3-4). After all, if we
couldn't know what God's objective nature is, then why
should anybody believe in the Bible or any other piece of
work dealing with the divine? Believing that God's nature
is unknowable or subjective is a bogus argument: He has
clearly revealed Himself to man, and man has no excuse for
not believing in Him (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:18-20).
If any of you have more questions, disagree with me, or think
that I am on crack or something, then I have two suggestions
for you:
1. Pray to God about it.
2. Read the Bible -- it has answers to these "problems."
I don't know of anybody who has been denied knowledge of God's
nature or existence, so you too can know what He's like and how
much Jesus Christ, God incarnate, loves you!
Indeed, I used to be an atheist like many of you, and I believed
that the Bible was full of contradictions about God's nature and
many other things. But after I received Jesus Christ as my
Lord and Savior and gave Him my life (which was never the same
afterwards), it became clear to me that the Bible was God's
inspired and inerrant Word. I was foolish in my speculations
about God being "unrighteous" and "contradictory": it is possible
for God to execute judgement and be merciful and loving at the
same time (Revelation 3:19).
Also, many of the stories of destruction and God's wrath in the
OT were examples for us today of what our sin does and what happens
when we leave God and pursue other things (1 Corinthians 10:1-12).
This whole issue is a waste of your time, thought, and life.
Clearly God is merciful and loving throughout the Bible. End of
discussion, PERIOD.
-- CrusaderForChrist, a Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature". |
15 Sep 2003 09:50:45 AM |
|
|
CrusaderForChrist wrote:
Hey, guys, God's nature shouldn't even be controversial.
It is clear in both the OT and NT that God is holy and
cannot stand the presence of evil and the stench of
sin...
And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god that
"cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
This judgement[sic], however, does not mean that God is not
loving or merciful.....
Hmmm, a loving god that created evil.....
In the OT, God continually demonstrates His merciful
nature towards His people...
This god had no mercy for anyone other than "his" people.
Where did you dig up this junk about God not being
merciful in the OT?
All you have to do is read the OT>
Regarding knowing God's nature, everyone CAN know His
true nature....
Since this god is a human invention, yes, anyone can know
"his" true nature; just make it up like everyone else has.
Indeed, I used to be an atheist like many of you...
Oh, too bad. You just lost any credibility you may have had
with that lie. That they used to be an Atheist is the most
common lie told by christians. Every last one of them will
make that claim if you get them talking long enough.
Also, many of the stories of destruction and God's
wrath...
I thought it was a merciful, loving, god? How could it have
such wrath?
This whole issue is a waste of your time, thought, and
life. Clearly God is merciful and loving throughout the
Bible. End of discussion, PERIOD.
That's right. Your fantasy god is a waste of time.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
dave@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature". |
21 Sep 2003 08:15:41 AM |
|
|
David <dave@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message news:<3f65d1c5@news.sti.net>...
And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god that
"cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
Evil exists, therefore if God exists, He must allow it to exist for a
reason, even if it pains Him to do so.
This judgement[sic], however, does not mean that God is not
loving or merciful.....
Hmmm, a loving god that created evil.....
A big problem, one that no-one has been able to solve, but it
obviously belongs to the area of intelligence self will. Animals may
be brutal, even cruel at times, but in most cases it is their drive
for food that is behind it.
In the OT, God continually demonstrates His merciful
nature towards His people...
This god had no mercy for anyone other than "his" people.
He gave the Assyrians a second chance at Johah's preaching, and they
were a cruel and brutal people. And as for His own people He was
oftne very hard on them.
Where did you dig up this junk about God not being
merciful in the OT?
All you have to do is read the OT>
We tend to forget that by the time the prophets were doing their bit,
Israel had already had hundreds of years of grace to get its act
together.
Regarding knowing God's nature, everyone CAN know His
true nature....
Since this god is a human invention, yes, anyone can know
"his" true nature; just make it up like everyone else has.
What's your true nature?
Indeed, I used to be an atheist like many of you...
Oh, too bad. You just lost any credibility you may have had
with that lie. That they used to be an Atheist is the most
common lie told by christians. Every last one of them will
make that claim if you get them talking long enough.
Have you done a survey to prove this assertion. Time and again I hear
atheists claim the Christian is telling a lie, without proof and
without justification. As far as I am concerned it is the atheists who
are lying, or at least making an unjustified assumption. If, God
forbid, you ever become a Christian, you could make the claim quite
truthfully. Then if anyone said you were lying, you would know quite
well they were wrong.
Also, many of the stories of destruction and God's
wrath...
I thought it was a merciful, loving, god? How could it have
such wrath?
Paul wrote of God's great patience. In short people provoke HIm
greatly, but He is patient, hoping they'll change. Ever heard the
saying, "Beware the wrath of the patient man"?
This whole issue is a waste of your time, thought, and
life. Clearly God is merciful and loving throughout the
Bible. End of discussion, PERIOD.
That's right. Your fantasy god is a waste of time.
If you feel so strongly about it, why are you wasting time on it
yourself?
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature". |
21 Sep 2003 09:40:22 AM |
|
|
Bob Crowley wrote:
David <dave@thellamaranch.com> wrote
And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god
that "cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
Evil exists, therefore if God exists, He must allow it to
exist for a reason, even if it pains Him to do so.
This god and evil do exist as human ideas. Neither exists in
reality. If your god "must allow it (evil) to exist" then
your god is not all powerful.
This judgement[sic], however, does not mean that God
is not loving or merciful.....
Hmmm, a loving god that created evil.....
A big problem, one that no-one has been able to solve...
It's been solved. An all loving, all powerful, god cannot
co-exist with evil. You have to take away the all loving, or
all powerful. Which one are you going to take away?
In the OT, God continually demonstrates His merciful
nature towards His people...
This god had no mercy for anyone other than "his"
people.
He gave the Assyrians a second chance at Johah's
preaching....
One example doesn't negate the hundreds of examples of
genocide mentioned in the OT that were sanctioned by your god.
Where did you dig up this junk about God not being
merciful in the OT?
All you have to do is read the OT.
We tend to forget that by the time the prophets were
doing their bit, Israel had already had hundreds of
years of grace to get its act together.
That means the whole OT was written AFTER the fact and was
embellished by the writers.
Regarding knowing God's nature, everyone CAN know His
true nature....
Since this god is a human invention, yes, anyone can
know "his" true nature; just make it up like everyone
else has.
What's your true nature?
Irrelevant.
Indeed, I used to be an atheist like many of you...
Oh, too bad. You just lost any credibility you may have
had with that lie. That they used to be an Atheist is
the most common lie told by christians. Every last one
of them will make that claim if you get them talking
long enough.
Have you done a survey to prove this assertion....
Yes. Almost 50 years of debating christians and most
Atheists that I've talked to will say the same thing.
Also, many of the stories of destruction and God's
wrath...
I thought it was a merciful, loving, god? How could it
have such wrath?
Paul wrote of God's great patience....
Paul made it all up, if there was a Paul that is (which is
highly doubtful according to biblical scholars). You can't
make any claims about what a god had to say until you prove
that god exists.
This whole issue is a waste of your time, thought,
and life. Clearly God is merciful and loving
throughout the Bible. End of discussion, PERIOD.
That's right. Your fantasy god is a waste of time.
If you feel so strongly about it...
There are no "feelings" involved. I just go by the facts. So
far you have presented no facts about this god, just claims.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
dave@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
