| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Protagoras" |
| Date: |
08 Jul 2005 09:14:15 AM |
| Object: |
Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
Ok so I asked someone how they explain where all the water went after the
Flood (figuring 5 miles deep of rainwater, being that Mt Everest is over 5
miles high; of course a xtian can argue that such mtns did not exist then
and most of the world was flat).
Their explanation is a verse in Psalms of the Bible stating that God made
the mountains rise up and canyons deeper, causing the flood waters to
recede. I thought about this, and help me understand if I am thinking of
this correctly; by my reasoning, that could NOT have caused the flood
waters to recede (assuming the Flood happened at all, which I do not
believe, but for the sake of argument). Water is not compressible. The
bible states the whole earth was covered by water. Causing mountains to
rise up would simply cause water displaced from the mountains to go
elsewhere, in fact causing water elsewhere to become DEEPER. To make
canyons deeper, you need to scoop out rock and earth-- but where to you put
that-- that material would be put somewhere and would displace water, so
that scooping out canyons would not lessen the water over the earth at all.
So all that would happen, according to the Psalms passage of the Bible, is
that mountains would have risen up and the water over the rest of the earth
would have become DEEPER. So I guess Noah and his family and for that
matter the rest of the offspring lived on the sides of mountains? And we
are still left with the problem of where did the water go, since we DO have
dry land. The bible contradicts itself, and the Psalms passage betrays its
ignorance, of course written by an amateur (not a god) with no science
background, no knowledge of water displacement and physics.
.
|
|
| User: "Little Bo Clayton Has Lost His 3-Toed Sloths" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
08 Jul 2005 05:48:36 PM |
|
|
"Protagoras" <protagoras@miworld.net> wrote in message
news:XSvze.16592$Si3.6905@fe06.lga...
Ok so I asked someone how they explain where all the water went after the
Flood (figuring 5 miles deep of rainwater, being that Mt Everest is over 5
miles high; of course a xtian can argue that such mtns did not exist then
and most of the world was flat).
He made it magically appear and then magically disappear! Simple when you
have a magical super duper being's powers to point at and say
"Goddidit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
09 Jul 2005 03:46:23 AM |
|
|
In article <XSvze.16592$Si3.6905@fe06.lga>,
Protagoras <protagoras@miworld.net> wrote:
Ok so I asked someone how they explain where all the water went after the
Flood (figuring 5 miles deep of rainwater, being that Mt Everest is over 5
miles high; of course a xtian can argue that such mtns did not exist then
and most of the world was flat).
Their explanation is a verse in Psalms of the Bible stating that God made
the mountains rise up and canyons deeper, causing the flood waters to
recede. I thought about this, and help me understand if I am thinking of
this correctly; by my reasoning, that could NOT have caused the flood
waters to recede (assuming the Flood happened at all, which I do not
believe, but for the sake of argument). Water is not compressible. The
bible states the whole earth was covered by water. Causing mountains to
rise up would simply cause water displaced from the mountains to go
elsewhere, in fact causing water elsewhere to become DEEPER. To make
canyons deeper, you need to scoop out rock and earth-- but where to you put
that-- that material would be put somewhere and would displace water, so
that scooping out canyons would not lessen the water over the earth at all.
So all that would happen, according to the Psalms passage of the Bible, is
that mountains would have risen up and the water over the rest of the earth
would have become DEEPER. So I guess Noah and his family and for that
matter the rest of the offspring lived on the sides of mountains? And we
are still left with the problem of where did the water go, since we DO have
dry land. The bible contradicts itself, and the Psalms passage betrays its
ignorance, of course written by an amateur (not a god) with no science
background, no knowledge of water displacement and physics.
I thought it was something like GAWD gave all of the angels straws and
said: "Now suck!"
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
08 Jul 2005 10:56:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:14:15 -0500, Protagoras
<protagoras@miworld.net> wrote:
Ok so I asked someone how they explain where all the water went after the
Flood (figuring 5 miles deep of rainwater, being that Mt Everest is over 5
miles high; of course a xtian can argue that such mtns did not exist then
and most of the world was flat).
Their explanation is a verse in Psalms of the Bible stating that God made
the mountains rise up and canyons deeper, causing the flood waters to
recede. I thought about this, and help me understand if I am thinking of
this correctly; by my reasoning, that could NOT have caused the flood
waters to recede (assuming the Flood happened at all, which I do not
believe, but for the sake of argument). Water is not compressible. The
bible states the whole earth was covered by water. Causing mountains to
rise up would simply cause water displaced from the mountains to go
elsewhere, in fact causing water elsewhere to become DEEPER. To make
canyons deeper, you need to scoop out rock and earth-- but where to you put
that-- that material would be put somewhere and would displace water, so
that scooping out canyons would not lessen the water over the earth at all.
So all that would happen, according to the Psalms passage of the Bible, is
that mountains would have risen up and the water over the rest of the earth
would have become DEEPER. So I guess Noah and his family and for that
matter the rest of the offspring lived on the sides of mountains? And we
are still left with the problem of where did the water go, since we DO have
dry land. The bible contradicts itself, and the Psalms passage betrays its
ignorance, of course written by an amateur (not a god) with no science
background, no knowledge of water displacement and physics.
Either this fictional god thing is bound by Earthly laws or it is not.
If it is not, then the waters could simply have been magicked away. If
it is bound by the laws of science, then the story is irrelevant
because a good 90% of the actions attributed to this god can be easily
disproved.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
08 Jul 2005 05:20:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:56:05 +0100, Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
Either this fictional god thing is bound by Earthly laws or it is not.
That's quite right. The waters went back from whence they came.
If it is not, then the waters could simply have been magicked away. If
it is bound by the laws of science, then the story is irrelevant
because a good 90% of the actions attributed to this god can be easily
disproved.
Mephisto
This should be interesting. Throw one out for discussion. It's easily been 3
minutes since I last embarrassed you.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "BDK" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
08 Jul 2005 10:09:49 PM |
|
|
In article <huutc15lhgmcp80u1q7otu3215f5oomrcj@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:56:05 +0100, Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
Either this fictional god thing is bound by Earthly laws or it is not.
That's quite right. The waters went back from whence they came.
If it is not, then the waters could simply have been magicked away. If
it is bound by the laws of science, then the story is irrelevant
because a good 90% of the actions attributed to this god can be easily
disproved.
Mephisto
This should be interesting. Throw one out for discussion. It's easily been 3
minutes since I last embarrassed you.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
LOL, the only person you've ever embarrassed is yourself, and you keep
doing it, over and over again. Apparently, you don't seem to be able to
remember doing it.
BDK
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
09 Jul 2005 09:03:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:20:20 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:56:05 +0100, Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
Either this fictional god thing is bound by Earthly laws or it is not.
That's quite right. The waters went back from whence they came.
No, they didn't. We've mapped the interior of the Earth quite
thoroughly, little one, and no masses resersves of water are hiding at
the crust/mantle interface.
If it is not, then the waters could simply have been magicked away. If
it is bound by the laws of science, then the story is irrelevant
because a good 90% of the actions attributed to this god can be easily
disproved.
Mephisto
This should be interesting. Throw one out for discussion. It's easily been 3
minutes since I last embarrassed you.
Sure.
Gen.11:1
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
When this was written (about 2400 BCE) there were already dozens of
distrinct languages in use, including many that left examples of their
writing. For example, in the Mediterranian basin alone you had
Egyptian, Phonecian, Greek, early Aramaic, the tribal languages of the
Berbers and Bedu, Etruscian, and the tribal languages of southern
France and Iberia.
That's just in one small area. In Africa, there were three main
families of languages, encompassing *hundreds* on tongues. Same thing
in India, Asia, and in the Americas.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
09 Jul 2005 10:50:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:03:57 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
That's quite right. The waters went back from whence they came.
No, they didn't. We've mapped the interior of the Earth quite
thoroughly, little one, and no masses resersves of water are hiding at
the crust/mantle interface.
You must be joking. If that were true, we'd know where everything was.
If it is not, then the waters could simply have been magicked away. If
it is bound by the laws of science, then the story is irrelevant
because a good 90% of the actions attributed to this god can be easily
disproved.
Mephisto
This should be interesting. Throw one out for discussion. It's easily been 3
minutes since I last embarrassed you.
Sure.
Gen.11:1
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
But of course. Then they got selfish. It's all right there.
When this was written (about 2400 BCE) there were already dozens of
distrinct languages in use
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
That's just in one small area. In Africa, there were three main
families of languages, encompassing *hundreds* on tongues. Same thing
in India, Asia, and in the Americas.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 06:28:27 AM |
|
|
Chicken Gymby Lied Again:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:03:57 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
That's quite right. The waters went back from whence they came.
No, they didn't. We've mapped the interior of the Earth quite
thoroughly, little one, and no masses resersves of water are hiding at
the crust/mantle interface.
You must be joking. If that were true, we'd know where everything was.
You're the only one who can't seem to tell his ***** from his elbow,
Chick.
Sure.
Gen.11:1
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
But of course. Then they got selfish. It's all right there.
Without a shred of supportive evidence.
When this was written (about 2400 BCE) there were already dozens of
distrinct languages in use
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
You've had this explained to you, in detail, repeatedly and each time
you've run away. Each time you've failed to rebut it and you've
**NEVER YET SUPPORTED YOUR WILD-***** ASSERTIONS ON THIS TOPIC**. Until
and unless you do, your statement above is a cheap-***** lie and nothing
else.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 10:42:54 AM |
|
|
Duke wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:03:57 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
No, they didn't. We've mapped the interior of the Earth quite
thoroughly, little one, and no masses resersves of water are hiding at
the crust/mantle interface.
You must be joking. If that were true, we'd know where everything was.
Not really. But we have a very good density map of the crust. A few
billion kiloliters of water would stick out like a sore thumb.
When this was written (about 2400 BCE) there were already dozens of
distrinct languages in use
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
Sorry to you, bub, but that's about the time that Genesis was compiled
according to your own church.
There is ample evidence that humans had thousands of languages from
the earliest days of our sapiance. There is an entire science,
lingustics, that studies who languages evolve and change. If we all
had a single mother tongue, it would show up in all the languages of
the world. Instead what we get are different language families
appearing in different places, and evolving over time.
(Fun example of this sort of change. In English, the animal is called
a cow (or cattle for the plural) but the meat is called beef. Goes
back to the Norman invasion of England. The peasant Saxons raised
their cows (which was a Saxon word) but the French speaking nobles ate
the meat of le beouf. So eventually, English adopted the French word
"beouf" for the meat of a cow.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
11 Jul 2005 05:24:12 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:42:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
No, they didn't. We've mapped the interior of the Earth quite
thoroughly, little one, and no masses resersves of water are hiding at
the crust/mantle interface.
You must be joking. If that were true, we'd know where everything was.
Not really. But we have a very good density map of the crust. A few
billion kiloliters of water would stick out like a sore thumb.
Ok, so now it's a reference to just the crust
As far as "sticking out like a sore thumb", that's EXACTLY what oil exploration
shows - water, water, water - from the surface to 20,000 ft, the deepest I
personally went, but clearly not the bottom. It's not in "pools", but in the
sand pores. It's not fresh except for the first few hundred feet, and brine on
down. How it pooled over the last 4.5 billion years is speculation, but it's
there now.
I know - I worked as a field exploration engineer when aerospace petered out.
When this was written (about 2400 BCE) there were already dozens of
distrinct languages in use
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
Sorry to you, bub, but that's about the time that Genesis was compiled
according to your own church.
You just said the magic word - "compiled", but not revealed.
There is ample evidence that humans had thousands of languages from
the earliest days of our sapiance. There is an entire science,
lingustics, that studies who languages evolve and change. If we all
had a single mother tongue, it would show up in all the languages of
the world. Instead what we get are different language families
appearing in different places, and evolving over time.
Come on, berry, I expect more than that from you. If you were mikey or bud the
dud, I'd understand, but not you.
The reference to language is not one of Hebrew, or Egyptian, or other modern day
languages. It's a reference to personal desires, of position, of equality, to
be as a god, etc.
At one time people were as one, and then as they allowed their own desires and
beliefs to take over, they became as a language of babble compliments of God,
where everyone demonstrated his selfishness and "me first". That lasted until
the ascension of Christ, at Pentecost, where the babble became one again in a
language of love for one another as God loves us. John 13:34.
(Fun example of this sort of change. In English, the animal is called
a cow (or cattle for the plural) but the meat is called beef. Goes
back to the Norman invasion of England. The peasant Saxons raised
their cows (which was a Saxon word) but the French speaking nobles ate
the meat of le beouf. So eventually, English adopted the French word
"beouf" for the meat of a cow.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
11 Jul 2005 10:36:53 PM |
|
|
Chicken Gumby Lied:
As far as "sticking out like a sore thumb", that's
EXACTLY what oil exploration shows - water, water,
water - from the surface to 20,000 ft, the deepest I
personally went
Oh come now, you've sunk lower than that. What about all your lies,
cowardice, hypocrisy?
but clearly not the bottom. It's not in "pools", but in the
sand pores.
So all you have to do now is demonstrate that there is three-quarters
of a billion cubic miles of it down there.
Then you have to demonstrate how and why it came to the surface.
Then you have to demonstrate how and why it returned underground.
That ought to be easy for a fantasy-debauched, lying, hypocritical
piece of dogshit like you, Puke.
It's not fresh
It's fresher than your endless string of pathetic lies, I'll warrant.
How it pooled over the last 4.5 billion years is speculation, but it's
there now.
Sure it is, Duck *****, three-quarters of a billion cubic miles of it.
And the moon's made of green cheese.
I know - I worked as a field exploration engineer
when aerospace petered out.
Who would want your peter out?
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Not according to Jesus it isn't, you hypocritical blasphemous *****.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
11 Jul 2005 08:20:57 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:24:12 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:42:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Not really. But we have a very good density map of the crust. A few
billion kiloliters of water would stick out like a sore thumb.
Ok, so now it's a reference to just the crust
Water couledn't survive in the mantle.
As far as "sticking out like a sore thumb", that's EXACTLY what oil exploration
shows - water, water, water - from the surface to 20,000 ft, the deepest I
personally went, but clearly not the bottom. It's not in "pools", but in the
sand pores. It's not fresh except for the first few hundred feet, and brine on
down. How it pooled over the last 4.5 billion years is speculation, but it's
there now.
And there isn't enough to cover the entire surface to a depth of five
miles.
I know - I worked as a field exploration engineer when aerospace petered out.
So what exactly was your engineering degree in? Seems to be an
interesting one, if you went from aerospace to oil exploration!
Sorry to you, bub, but that's about the time that Genesis was compiled
according to your own church.
You just said the magic word - "compiled", but not revealed.
Show me evidence of an earlier manuscript, and we'll talk.
There is ample evidence that humans had thousands of languages from
the earliest days of our sapiance. There is an entire science,
lingustics, that studies who languages evolve and change. If we all
had a single mother tongue, it would show up in all the languages of
the world. Instead what we get are different language families
appearing in different places, and evolving over time.
Come on, berry, I expect more than that from you. If you were mikey or bud the
dud, I'd understand, but not you.
Can't reply, eh?
The reference to language is not one of Hebrew, or Egyptian, or other modern day
languages. It's a reference to personal desires, of position, of equality, to
be as a god, etc.
Moving the goalposts!
At one time people were as one, and then as they allowed their own desires and
beliefs to take over, they became as a language of babble compliments of God,
where everyone demonstrated his selfishness and "me first". That lasted until
the ascension of Christ, at Pentecost, where the babble became one again in a
language of love for one another as God loves us. John 13:34.
LOL!
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 09:12:23 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2005 04:28:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
You've had this explained to you, in detail, repeatedly
And I keep showing you the error of your reasoning. Oops, I don't know if it's
fair to credit you with reasoning. It's not one of your strong points.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 02:42:25 PM |
|
|
Chicekn Gumby Lied Again:
On 10 Jul 2005 04:28:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
It certainly does and you admitted to it in thread "Running Scriptural
Circles Around Duke" on Oct 4 2004, message timed at 6:52 am. You
remember that thread, Duck *****, where I ran scriptural circles aorund
you and **YOU RAN AWAY**?
Here's an excerpt:
Earl Weber: "Adding up the biblical days mentioned in the bible, and
the sum is approximately 6000 years."
Me: "I've been trying to get this admission out of you since September
16th [2004]."
Earl Weber: "I've been saying it for years."
Read it yourself at URL: http://tinyurl.com/ak464
In short, Hurl, the Bible clearly does say so **BY YOUR OWN
ADMISSION**.
So what's your position now, Puke?
26. Is the Bible lying when it indicates the passage of time since the
creation as 6,000 years?
27. Are the genealogies listed in Matthew and Luke accurate? (We
already know that at least one of them is not - the other proves it!).
And here are the other 19 questions in my last message that **RAN AWAY
FROM** you worthless piece of cowardly stinking chickenshit:
1. Does the Bible set the flood 4.5 billion years ago when there were
no humans on the planet?
2. Does the Bible set the flood when there were humans on the planet?
3. How long have humans - modern-looking and behaving humans - been on
the planet?
4. When did advanced boat-building skills first show up from
archaeological evidence?
5. When did viniculture first show up from archaeological evidence?
6. Given this information, what's the earliest date, to within a
thousand years or so, when the flood could have taken place,
**according to the Bible story**?
7. What's the definition of "kind" as used in the Noahic flood story?
8. Given this definition, how many kinds and individual organisms in
total were on the ark?
9. Does Genesis 6:21 specify that God instructed Noah to provide?
10. What did the carnivores eat after the came off the ark?
11. Does the Bible specifically state that a god regrew or recreated
plants, or does it simply take it for granted that there would be a
lush and viable growth already in existence when the animals came off
the ark?
12. How long can plants stay submerged under dirty, brackish water
before they die?
13. If your god provides, why did Noah have to go through the ritual
with the birds? Why couldn't this god simply tell Noah when the flood
had receded?
14. Why wasn't Noah able to see for himself what was happening with
the flood water when he opened the window to let the bird out?
15. If this god provides, why not provide Noah with the ark instead of
making him build it?
16. Why is it that whenever this god "provides", humans end up
actually doing the providing, and this god of yours gets all the credit
for doing the cube root of diddly squat?
17. Why could this god not simply dematerialize the bad people and not
flood the planet at all?
18. Why couldn't your god pick up Noah and the animals in his hand
until the flood was over?
19. Why not simply start the creation with Noah instead of Adam and
avoid the flood farce altogether? Are you claiming this god of yours
couldn't see this coming?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 06:49:18 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2005 12:42:25 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Chicekn Gumby Lied Again:
On 10 Jul 2005 04:28:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
It certainly does and you admitted to it in thread "Running Scriptural
Circles Around Duke" on Oct 4 2004, message timed at 6:52 am.
Yep, it's the one where I advised you for the first time to the umpteenth time
that the flood, if it occurred, happened sometime is the last 4.5 billion years.
That's as close as the bible gets.
Here's an excerpt:
Earl Weber: "Adding up the biblical days mentioned in the bible, and
the sum is approximately 6000 years."
Yep, that adding up **ONLY** the numbers of day mentioned. There is no limit on
the number of days not mentioned, but that one is over your collective heads.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 07:22:36 PM |
|
|
*snip*
Yep, it's the one where I advised you for the first time to the umpteenth
time
that the flood, if it occurred, happened sometime is the last 4.5 billion
years.
That's as close as the bible gets.
You keep qualifying your beliefs. Do you have doubt that the flood happened?
Won't god be choked with you for doubting his accomplishments?
*snip*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
11 Jul 2005 09:01:16 PM |
|
|
Here's an excerpt: Earl Weber: "Adding up the biblical days mentioned in the
bible, and the sum is approximately 6000 years."
duke wrote:
Yep, that adding up **ONLY** the numbers of day mentioned. There is no limit
on the number of days not mentioned, but that one is over your collective
heads.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
It isn't necessary to suggest that there are days not mentioned. Careful
reading shows that the Bible speaks clearly about One Day, a second day, a
third day, etc. There is nothing to suggest these well cited Days are only
to be viewed as sequential segments of time or that each Day represents the
same amount of time as any other Day in those first verses.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
12 Jul 2005 09:33:04 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> said:
Here's an excerpt: Earl Weber: "Adding up the biblical days mentioned in the
bible, and the sum is approximately 6000 years."
duke wrote:
Yep, that adding up **ONLY** the numbers of day mentioned. There is no limit
on the number of days not mentioned, but that one is over your collective
heads.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
It isn't necessary to suggest that there are days not mentioned. Careful
reading shows that the Bible speaks clearly about One Day, a second day, a
third day, etc. There is nothing to suggest these well cited Days are only
to be viewed as sequential segments of time or that each Day represents the
same amount of time as any other Day in those first verses.
Some of us think that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that
the cited God is only to be viewed as something that actually exists.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 09:48:15 PM |
|
|
Chicken Gumby Lied Again:
On 10 Jul 2005 12:42:25 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Chicekn Gumby Lied Again:
On 10 Jul 2005 04:28:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
It certainly does and you admitted to it in thread "Running Scriptural
Circles Around Duke" on Oct 4 2004, message timed at 6:52 am.
Yep, it's the one where I advised you for the first time
to the umpteenth time that the flood, if it occurred,
happened sometime is the last 4.5 billion years.
That's as close as the bible gets.
Well that brings us right back, you stupid moron, to the first five of
the latest series of some 30 unanswered questions from which you've
consistently fled like a startled cat. If you would quit running like
the snivelling little coward you are and face up to these questions
like a man, we could have this resolved in no time, but while ever you
lack the guts to pursue this to a conclusion, you'll always be a
worthless peice of trash. Is any of this registering in that morass of
cowardice, lies and hypocrisy that you use for a brain?
Here they are again:
1. Does the Bible set the flood 4.5 billion years ago **WHEN THERE
WERE NO HUMANS ON THE PLANET**? Yes or no?
2. Or does the Bible set the flood **WHEN THERE WERE HUMANS ON THE
PLANET**? Yes or no?
3. How long have humans - modern-looking and behaving humans - been on
the planet?
4. When did advanced boat-building skills first show up from
archaeological evidence?
5. When did viniculture first show up from archaeological evidence?
6. Given this information, what's the earliest date, to within a
thousand years or so, when the flood could have taken place,
**ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE STORY**?
Here's an excerpt:
Earl Weber: "Adding up the biblical days mentioned in the bible, and
the sum is approximately 6000 years."
Yep, that adding up **ONLY** the numbers of day mentioned.
You admitted it, live with it.
There is no limit on
the number of days not mentioned,
Well that brings us right back, you stupid moron, to two more of the
latest series of some 30 unanswered questions from which you've
consistently fled like a startled cat. If you would quit running like
the snivelling little coward you are and face up to these questions
like a man, we could have this resolved in no time, but while ever you
lack the guts to pursue this to a conclusion, you'll always be a
worthless peice of trash. Is any of this registering in that morass of
cowardice, lies and hypocrisy that you use for a brain?
Here are the relevant two:
26. Is the Bible lying when it indicates the passage of time since the
creation as 6,000 years?
27. Are the genealogies listed in Matthew and Luke accurate? (We
already know that at least one of them is not - the other proves it!).
Budikka
Here they are again:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
12 Jul 2005 08:24:12 PM |
|
|
Chicken Gumby Lied Again:
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
It certainly does and you admitted to it in thread "Running Scriptural
Circles Around Duke" on Oct 4 2004, message timed at 6:52 am.
Yep, it's the one where I advised you for the first time
to the umpteenth time that the flood, if it occurred,
Now you're getting there, Chick.
Here's an excerpt:
Earl Weber: "Adding up the biblical days mentioned in the bible, and
the sum is approximately 6000 years."
Yep, that adding up **ONLY** the numbers of day mentioned.
47. What evidence do you have that there are gaps in the generations
listed in Matthew's genealogy between Noah and Jesus?
48. How many years are represented by the missed generations in
Matthew's genealogy between Noah and Jesus?
49. What evidence do you have that there are gaps in the generations
listed in Luke's genealogy between Noah and Jesus?
50. How many years are represented by the missed generations in Luke's
genealogy between Noah and Jesus?
There you go! I **KNEW** you could do it. **FIFTY UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS - A BRAND NEW SET FOR YOU TO RUN FROM**! I'm proud of you,
Hurl.
There is no limit on the number of days not mentioned
What's there's no limit on is the capacity for you to convincingly and
exhaustively demosntrate your immense stupidty, cowardice, lies and
hypocrisy. You're the reason Jesus wept, Puke.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 08:10:09 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 12:42:25 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Chicekn Gumby Lied Again:
On 10 Jul 2005 04:28:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
It certainly does and you admitted to it in thread "Running Scriptural
Circles Around Duke" on Oct 4 2004, message timed at 6:52 am.
Yep, it's the one where I advised you for the first time to the umpteenth time
that the flood, if it occurred, happened sometime is the last 4.5 billion years.
That's as close as the bible gets.
So, humans have been around for somewhere around 4.5 billion years?
Here's an excerpt:
Earl Weber: "Adding up the biblical days mentioned in the bible, and
the sum is approximately 6000 years."
Yep, that adding up **ONLY** the numbers of day mentioned. There is no limit on
the number of days not mentioned, but that one is over your collective heads.
Therefore, there is a tremendous amount of wiggle-room for Christians to
add their own rhetoric to the Bible, yet, Revelation 22:18-19 says:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If
anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described
in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of
prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and
in the holy city, which are described in this book.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 12:13:32 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 04:28:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Sorry, bubba, but Genesis is pre-history, not 2400 BCE.
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the
Bible's own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K
yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
You've had this explained to you, in detail, repeatedly
And I keep showing you the error of your reasoning. Oops, I don't
know if it's fair to credit you with reasoning. It's not one of your
strong points.
Earl thinks that a bible story containing people and his flood that happens
4.5 billion years ago is reasonable.
He also seems to think that the flood stories told about Noah don't exist
in his bible.
But he no more believes in the flood than he believes in Adam and Eve.
He's lying - still.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
10 Jul 2005 04:27:18 PM |
|
|
on 10 Jul 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net) made
the light shine upon us with this:
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
That's true. But if you add up the geneologies you get about 6,000 years.
And it does clearly state "and the evening and the morning were the first
day". Therefore, by the bible's own definition, a day is a day, not a
billion years.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________
'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
11 Jul 2005 05:02:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:27:18 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
That's true. But if you add up the geneologies you get about 6,000 years.
And it does clearly state "and the evening and the morning were the first
day". Therefore, by the bible's own definition, a day is a day, not a
billion years.
Nope.
1. The bible actually states that a day is **like** a thousand years to God and
vice versa. God clearly revealed that he likes metaphors and spoke in parables.
2. No man was around to record the days and much of the subsequent passage of
4.5 billion years of time. The reference to the six days of creation,
therefore, is a revelation of God and not a time recording by man.
3. The first few books of the OT are referenced as "pre-history".
4. Science clearly shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old and not 6000
years.
And now you know the real truth.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
11 Jul 2005 10:30:01 PM |
|
|
Chicken Gumby Lied Again:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:27:18 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
That's true. But if you add up the geneologies you get about 6,000 years.
And it does clearly state "and the evening and the morning were the first
day". Therefore, by the bible's own definition, a day is a day, not a
billion years.
Nope.
1. The bible actually states that a day is **like** a
thousand years to God and vice versa. God clearly
revealed that he likes metaphors and spoke in parables.
But he apparently couldn't get it through your thick-as-pigshit skull
that the days in the Genesis creation story are actual 24 hour days.
Here are some more very simply Yes/No questions that a pathetic and
cowardly ***** like you can run away from:
31. Is the word used in the creation story in Genesis "yome" - from an
ancient root meaning "heat" as in heat of the **DAY**?
32. Does the creation story **SPECIFICALLY** delineate each of the days
with the words "And the evening and the morning were the [ordinal
number] day"?
33. Do the Jews even now start their official day in the evening and
end it at the start of the evening the next day?
34. Does Genesis 1:4,5 specifically kick off the counting of the days
by describing the very *first* 24 hour day thus: "And God saw the
light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the
evening and the morning were the first day.
35. Does the Genesis creation story cdescribe six days and one day of
rest?
36. Do other verses elsewhere in the Bible refer back to these six days
as the example we all should follow by working six 24 hour days and
taking off one 24 hour day for rest?
37. Does the fourth commandment (in Exo 20:8-11) specifically state:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor,
and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy
stranger thatis within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven
and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh
day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
38. Is the Hebrew word used for "day" in the fourth commendment
*exactly* the same word as is used for "day" in the Genesis creations
tory?
39. Did the writers of Genesis also write the book of Exodus, as far
as we can tell?
40. Does Exodus 31:17 tell us: "It is a sign between me and the
children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."?
41. Is the word used for "day" in Exodus 31:17 the same word used in
the Genesis creation story that was written by the same people?
42. Does the phrase "Yom Kippur" mean "Day of Atonement" or "Billion
years of Atonement"? Looking for a scape goat yet, Puke?
2. No man was around to record the days and much of
the subsequent passage of
4.5 billion years of time.
Finally the ignorant ***** admits the obvious, the very thing that
we've been beating the ***** over the head with throughout this
entire thread. Humans were **NOT** on the planet 4.5 billion years ago
or anything like it and therefore the flood could not have been 4.5
billion years ago, or anything like it. Way to go, *****-up! You lose,
as usual. That's because you're nothing but a loser, in case you ever
wondered.
The reference to the six days of creation,
therefore, is a revelation of God and not a time recording by man.
So humans erred in recording the divine word of god and instead of
putting down 4.5 billion years, give or take a few thousand, they put
down six days?
43. How could a god let idiot humans get away with an appalling error
like that?
44. And how many other appalling errors are there in the Bible of that
same magnitude, given the one you just admitted to?
3. The first few books of the OT are referenced as "pre-history".
By clueless assholes like you, maybe. But nothing in the Bible says
that. If you add the ages and references in the Bible together, **AS
YOU'VE SPECIFICALLY ADMITTED YOURSELF**, what you get is 6,000 years.
It's a lie, but that' shwat the bible is based on. A big, fat stinking
lie.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
11 Jul 2005 05:13:41 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:27:18 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
That's true. But if you add up the geneologies you get about 6,000 years.
And it does clearly state "and the evening and the morning were the first
day". Therefore, by the bible's own definition, a day is a day, not a
billion years.
Nope.
1. The bible actually states that a day is **like** a thousand years to God and
vice versa. God clearly revealed that he likes metaphors and spoke in parables.
2. No man was around to record the days and much of the subsequent passage of
4.5 billion years of time. The reference to the six days of creation,
therefore, is a revelation of God and not a time recording by man.
3. The first few books of the OT are referenced as "pre-history".
4. Science clearly shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old and not 6000
years.
And now you know the real truth.
Yep. That we do. The Bible is a parable and not the literal truth.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
13 Jul 2005 04:39:14 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:27:18 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the Bible's
own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
That's true. But if you add up the geneologies you get about 6,000 years.
And it does clearly state "and the evening and the morning were the first
day". Therefore, by the bible's own definition, a day is a day, not a
billion years.
Nope.
1. The bible actually states that a day is **like** a thousand years to God and
vice versa. God clearly revealed that he likes metaphors and spoke in parables.
What would that be in dog years?
2. No man was around to record the days and much of the subsequent passage of
4.5 billion years of time. The reference to the six days of creation,
therefore, is a revelation of God and not a time recording by man.
That would be obvious but still sounds like fiction to me.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
11 Jul 2005 10:25:57 AM |
|
|
on 11 Jul 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:27:18 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
Not according to the Bible's own chronology. According to the
Bible's own chronology, the creation took place in six days just 6K
yrs ago.
Not a chance, and the bible clearly does not say so.
That's true. But if you add up the geneologies you get about 6,000
years. And it does clearly state "and the evening and the morning
were the first day". Therefore, by the bible's own definition, a day
is a day, not a billion years.
Nope.
1. The bible actually states that a day is **like** a thousand years
to God and vice versa. God clearly revealed that he likes metaphors
and spoke in parables.
OK, if I give you that one, it extends the creation back another 6,000
years. 7,000 if you count the day of rest the omnipotent god needed for
some reason. Now *you* account for the other 4,499,987,000 years worth of
your ***** lie.
2. No man was around to record the days and much of the subsequent
passage of 4.5 billion years of time. The reference to the six days
of creation, therefore, is a revelation of God and not a time
recording by man.
Wrong, it's a rationalization of ancient scripture, in a vain attempt to
make it match the knowledge man has in the present. And it fails
miserably.
3. The first few books of the OT are referenced as "pre-history".
Try pre-historic.
4. Science clearly shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old and
not 6000 years.
But the bible contradicts that.
And now you know the real truth.
I'm truly sorry you think ***** is truth.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________
'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
15 Jul 2005 04:55:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:14:15 -0500, Protagoras
<protagoras@miworld.net> wrote:
Ok so I asked someone how they explain where all the water went after the
Flood (figuring 5 miles deep of rainwater, being that Mt Everest is over 5
miles high; of course a xtian can argue that such mtns did not exist then
and most of the world was flat).
/cue 'miracles,' ad nauseum from stolen story front to finish.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Playle" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
08 Jul 2005 10:08:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:14:15 -0500, Protagoras
<protagoras@miworld.net> wrote:
Ok so I asked someone how they explain where all the water went after the
Flood (figuring 5 miles deep of rainwater, being that Mt Everest is over 5
miles high; of course a xtian can argue that such mtns did not exist then
and most of the world was flat).
God turned it into wine and Noah had a *****-up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Noah's Ark/Flood question (where did the water go?) |
08 Jul 2005 05:18:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:14:15 -0500, Protagoras <protagoras@miworld.net> wrote:
Ok so I asked someone how they explain where all the water went after the
Flood (figuring 5 miles deep of rainwater, being that Mt Everest is over 5
miles high; of course a xtian can argue that such mtns did not exist then
and most of the world was flat).
Actually it went back to the underground caverns from which it came. Doesn't
that sound obvious to you?
Btw, that's xian, not xtian. Or didn't you know that?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
