| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill Gamelson" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2005 04:37:37 PM |
| Object: |
Question for "Evolutionists" |
Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets?
If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the
universe did evolve, and they were here first?
After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to cloning
human beings. This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans. How
do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been
long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in
technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their
search to explain THEIR existence?
That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would it
not?
.
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 10:16:38 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" wrote
: "Bill Gamelson" wrote
: > "Fred Stone" wrote
: >> "Bill Gamelson" wrote
: >>> "Fred Stone" wrote
: >>>
: >>>>> Then since you were "once" a Christian, then you must be familiar
: >>>>> with these this scripture:
: >>>>>
: >>>>> 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
: >>>>> profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
: >>>>> instruction in righteousness:
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Do you think that scripture is an outright lie?
: >>>>>
: >>>>
: >>>> I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text.
: >>>> Whoever wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove
: >>>> that the Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
: >>>
: >>> Do you believe that this scripture is an outright lie?
: >>>
: >>
: >> I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
: >> wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
: >> Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
: >
: > You're not going to answer the question, are you?
: >
: > Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
: >
:
: You can't read very well, can you?
Obviously not!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 10:08:50 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" wrote
: "Fred Stone" wrote
: > "Bill Gamelson" wrote
: >> "Fred Stone" wrote
: >>
: >>>> Then since you were "once" a Christian, then you must be familiar
: >>>> with these this scripture:
: >>>>
: >>>> 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
: >>>> profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
: >>>> instruction in righteousness:
: >>>>
: >>>> Do you think that scripture is an outright lie?
: >>>>
: >>>
: >>> I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
: >>> wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
: >>> Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
: >>
: >> Do you believe that this scripture is an outright lie?
: >>
: >
: > I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
: > wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
: > Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
:
: You're not going to answer the question, are you?
He did answer the question.
: Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
His answer was better than a mere yes or no.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 10:21:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:58:40 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<CvSff.39836$0l5.5611@dukeread06>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713CA0ABFA05fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:_wPff.35485$0l5.34096@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713BAA4B252Dfstone69@213.155.197.138...
Then since you were "once" a Christian, then you must be familiar
with these this scripture:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:
Do you think that scripture is an outright lie?
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
Do you believe that this scripture is an outright lie?
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Which scripture are you talking about? A specific passage or the Bible
in general? I doubt that anyone knowingly wrote lies, but stories are
passed along and eventually written down without concern for their
original accuracy. The Bible is quite a collection of unconfirmed and
unconfirmable stories, some of which have been shown to conflict with
the physical evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 10:26:12 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:eauvn1h6ge0km0gluopg6ak4ga3honjf28@4ax.com...
Then since you were "once" a Christian, then you must be familiar
with these this scripture:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:
Do you think that scripture is an outright lie?
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
Do you believe that this scripture is an outright lie?
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Which scripture are you talking about?
The one that is contained within the quote you responded to.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 02:13:33 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" wrote
: "Fred Stone" wrote
: >
: > We don't have a problem with not knowing the answer to your questions.
: > We *do* have a problem with you *making up* an answer when we say that
: > we do not know.
:
: Who's making up answers? Certainly not me.
Yes you are. When you claim that your deity created matter but can't explain
how.
: > If it cannot be seen, felt, or measured, how do you know that it *is*
: > there?
:
: We don't. We believe and we trust. Christians don't know that there is a
: God just as Scientists don't know that there is no God. They believe and
: trust just the same. There is no scientific proof of God's existance or
: non-existance but people on both sides of the issue believe and trust that
: they are right.
Then quit trying to convince us that your deity exists.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 03:51:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:05:01 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<wzLff.35191$0l5.23972@dukeread06>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713949EC9BA4fstone69@213.155.197.138...
We don't have a problem with not knowing the answer to your questions.
We *do* have a problem with you *making up* an answer when we say that
we do not know.
Who's making up answers? Certainly not me.
If it cannot be seen, felt, or measured, how do you know that it *is*
there?
We don't. We believe and we trust. Christians don't know that there is a
God just as Scientists don't know that there is no God. They believe and
trust just the same. There is no scientific proof of God's existance or
non-existance but people on both sides of the issue believe and trust that
they are right.
I wasn't aware that scientists had ever made any scientific statements
about God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 03:59:12 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:8h7vn1hd2t8e6pv3ahuliafg7r34oe85bv@4ax.com...
We don't. We believe and we trust. Christians don't know that there is a
God just as Scientists don't know that there is no God. They believe and
trust just the same. There is no scientific proof of God's existance or
non-existance but people on both sides of the issue believe and trust that
they are right.
I wasn't aware that scientists had ever made any scientific statements
about God.
Nor was I. That's not what I was referring to. Scientists believe that
their theories are right and Christians believe the Bible is right.
Neither side will budge.
Now go back to your beer and TV.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:07:26 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:zeNff.35224$0l5.17909@dukeread06:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:8h7vn1hd2t8e6pv3ahuliafg7r34oe85bv@4ax.com...
We don't. We believe and we trust. Christians don't know that there
is a God just as Scientists don't know that there is no God. They
believe and trust just the same. There is no scientific proof of
God's existance or non-existance but people on both sides of the
issue believe and trust that they are right.
I wasn't aware that scientists had ever made any scientific
statements about God.
Nor was I. That's not what I was referring to. Scientists believe
that their theories are right and Christians believe the Bible is
right.
Scientists can provide evidence that their theories are right. The Bible
is not evidence that the Bible is right.
Neither side will budge.
Now go back to your beer and TV.
My, my, getting snippy, hmmm?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:21:11 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713AE576C782fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Scientists can provide evidence that their theories are right. The Bible
is not evidence that the Bible is right.
It's scary though for the scientist when he comes up with evidence that
supports the Bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:29:11 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fzNff.35231$0l5.6225@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713AE576C782fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Scientists can provide evidence that their theories are right. The
Bible is not evidence that the Bible is right.
It's scary though for the scientist when he comes up with evidence
that supports the Bible.
Not at all. Science goes where it goes. No scientist should be afraid to
learn what the evidence supports.
I happen to have several books that discuss archaeological evidence for
and against the stories in the Bible. My favorite is "The Bible
Unearthed" by Silberman and Finkelstein.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:33:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:21:11 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<fzNff.35231$0l5.6225@dukeread06>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713AE576C782fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Scientists can provide evidence that their theories are right. The Bible
is not evidence that the Bible is right.
It's scary though for the scientist when he comes up with evidence that
supports the Bible.
Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:36:23 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:j1avn1ti3nh1bu866d3q62l80v3dc1bmuj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:21:11 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<fzNff.35231$0l5.6225@dukeread06>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713AE576C782fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Scientists can provide evidence that their theories are right. The Bible
is not evidence that the Bible is right.
It's scary though for the scientist when he comes up with evidence that
supports the Bible.
Why?
Because it goes against science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:45:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:36:23 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<vNNff.35235$0l5.16920@dukeread06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:j1avn1ti3nh1bu866d3q62l80v3dc1bmuj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:21:11 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<fzNff.35231$0l5.6225@dukeread06>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713AE576C782fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Scientists can provide evidence that their theories are right. The Bible
is not evidence that the Bible is right.
It's scary though for the scientist when he comes up with evidence that
supports the Bible.
Why?
Because it goes against science.
No it doesn't. Some of the stories in the Bible are not scientific, but
not all of it is contrary to science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:20:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:59:12 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<zeNff.35224$0l5.17909@dukeread06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:8h7vn1hd2t8e6pv3ahuliafg7r34oe85bv@4ax.com...
We don't. We believe and we trust. Christians don't know that there is a
God just as Scientists don't know that there is no God. They believe and
trust just the same. There is no scientific proof of God's existance or
non-existance but people on both sides of the issue believe and trust that
they are right.
I wasn't aware that scientists had ever made any scientific statements
about God.
Nor was I. That's not what I was referring to. Scientists believe that
their theories are right and Christians believe the Bible is right.
Scientific theories have evidence to support them. Christian belief is
without any evidence.
Neither side will budge.
Claims by some Christians that are contrary to the physical evidence are
meaningless.
Now go back to your beer and TV.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:27:52 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:489vn195n7ih810ssb2it9h3aiabmp942i@4ax.com...
Scientific theories have evidence to support them. Christian belief is
without any evidence.
That is not true. We have eyewitness testimony. In a court of law, that is
called "direct evidence." This direct evidence is immediately refuted by
the atheist without any supportive evidence to refute it. What you really
mean is that the Bible does not have any physical evidence. This too is
also incorrect. Read on...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/siloam/siloam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 05:27:38 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:wFNff.35233$0l5.24606@dukeread06:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:489vn195n7ih810ssb2it9h3aiabmp942i@4ax.com...
Scientific theories have evidence to support them. Christian belief
is without any evidence.
That is not true. We have eyewitness testimony. In a court of law,
that is called "direct evidence."
Actually, you do not. You have second and third-hand stories with no
corroborating evidence.
This direct evidence is immediately
refuted by the atheist without any supportive evidence to refute it.
What you really mean is that the Bible does not have any physical
evidence. This too is also incorrect. Read on...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/siloam/siloam
That is akin to saying that since Troy exists therefore the Greek
pantheon exists.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 06:41:41 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713BBF04E5DCfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:wFNff.35233$0l5.24606@dukeread06:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:489vn195n7ih810ssb2it9h3aiabmp942i@4ax.com...
Scientific theories have evidence to support them. Christian belief
is without any evidence.
That is not true. We have eyewitness testimony. In a court of law,
that is called "direct evidence."
Actually, you do not. You have second and third-hand stories with no
corroborating evidence.
That's because the people who wrote the stories are dead!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 06:55:45 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:TCPff.35488$0l5.4854@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713BBF04E5DCfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:wFNff.35233$0l5.24606@dukeread06:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:489vn195n7ih810ssb2it9h3aiabmp942i@4ax.com...
Scientific theories have evidence to support them. Christian belief
is without any evidence.
That is not true. We have eyewitness testimony. In a court of law,
that is called "direct evidence."
Actually, you do not. You have second and third-hand stories with no
corroborating evidence.
That's because the people who wrote the stories are dead!
That does make it rather difficult to cross-examine the "witnesses".
Not only are the authors dead, many of the stories contain anachronisms
or other obvious cultural missteps.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 07:58:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:41:41 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<TCPff.35488$0l5.4854@dukeread06>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713BBF04E5DCfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:wFNff.35233$0l5.24606@dukeread06:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:489vn195n7ih810ssb2it9h3aiabmp942i@4ax.com...
Scientific theories have evidence to support them. Christian belief
is without any evidence.
That is not true. We have eyewitness testimony. In a court of law,
that is called "direct evidence."
Actually, you do not. You have second and third-hand stories with no
corroborating evidence.
That's because the people who wrote the stories are dead!
We don't know who wrote the stories. We don't know what their
relationship was with the people said to have witnessed them. We seldom
have any evidence to confirm the stories. I have read, but have not had
any reason to research, that there is no independent confirmation for
Solomon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:48:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:27:52 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<wFNff.35233$0l5.24606@dukeread06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:489vn195n7ih810ssb2it9h3aiabmp942i@4ax.com...
Scientific theories have evidence to support them. Christian belief is
without any evidence.
That is not true. We have eyewitness testimony. In a court of law, that is
called "direct evidence."
Please point to a couple of pieces of direct evidence about the Bible
that would be allowed into court.
This direct evidence is immediately refuted by
the atheist without any supportive evidence to refute it. What you really
mean is that the Bible does not have any physical evidence. This too is
also incorrect. Read on...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/siloam/siloam
Okay, the pool existed at some time. How does that support the Bible. Do
the Greek Gods exist because Schliemann seems to have discovered Troy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 06:33:07 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:foavn1971spju174eoprnfbh0h7frof8ae@4ax.com...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/siloam/siloam
Okay, the pool existed at some time. How does that support the Bible.
Because the pool was there. This proves that the Bible at least was not all
fairy tales and myths as it is claimed by atheists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 06:50:06 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:RuPff.35484$0l5.8137@dukeread06:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:foavn1971spju174eoprnfbh0h7frof8ae@4ax.com...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/siloam/siloam
Okay, the pool existed at some time. How does that support the Bible.
Because the pool was there. This proves that the Bible at least was
not all fairy tales and myths as it is claimed by atheists.
Not that any atheists actually claimed that.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 06:51:13 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713C9ECD78CEfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:RuPff.35484$0l5.8137@dukeread06:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:foavn1971spju174eoprnfbh0h7frof8ae@4ax.com...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/siloam/siloam
Okay, the pool existed at some time. How does that support the Bible.
Because the pool was there. This proves that the Bible at least was
not all fairy tales and myths as it is claimed by atheists.
Not that any atheists actually claimed that.
Oh surely not!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 07:55:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:33:07 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<RuPff.35484$0l5.8137@dukeread06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:foavn1971spju174eoprnfbh0h7frof8ae@4ax.com...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/siloam/siloam
Okay, the pool existed at some time. How does that support the Bible.
Because the pool was there. This proves that the Bible at least was not all
fairy tales and myths as it is claimed by atheists.
That's not particularly useful. Many of the Grimm tales took place in
forests, but the existence of forests hardly confirms that Hansel and
Gretel had their adventure.
No one ever claimed that Egypt did not exist or Judah or Rome. I was not
aware that anyone ever questioned the existence of the pool of Siloam. I
would have thought it to be a fairly well-known local landmark. The fact
that such a pool exists tells us nothing about the events said to have
taken place there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 10:02:51 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:njlvn1pqmscsiin82um5hnma37udo2i6r0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:33:07 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<RuPff.35484$0l5.8137@dukeread06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:foavn1971spju174eoprnfbh0h7frof8ae@4ax.com...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/siloam/siloam
Okay, the pool existed at some time. How does that support the Bible.
Because the pool was there. This proves that the Bible at least was not
all
fairy tales and myths as it is claimed by atheists.
That's not particularly useful. Many of the Grimm tales took place in
forests, but the existence of forests hardly confirms that Hansel and
Gretel had their adventure.
No one ever claimed that Egypt did not exist or Judah or Rome. I was not
aware that anyone ever questioned the existence of the pool of Siloam. I
would have thought it to be a fairly well-known local landmark. The fact
that such a pool exists tells us nothing about the events said to have
taken place there.
That doesn't explain how this pool ended up right where John the Baptist
stated it was in the Bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 10:07:56 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uzSff.39928$0l5.11017@dukeread06:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:njlvn1pqmscsiin82um5hnma37udo2i6r0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:33:07 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<RuPff.35484$0l5.8137@dukeread06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:foavn1971spju174eoprnfbh0h7frof8ae@4ax.com...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/siloam/siloam
Okay, the pool existed at some time. How does that support the
Bible.
Because the pool was there. This proves that the Bible at least was
not all
fairy tales and myths as it is claimed by atheists.
That's not particularly useful. Many of the Grimm tales took place in
forests, but the existence of forests hardly confirms that Hansel and
Gretel had their adventure.
No one ever claimed that Egypt did not exist or Judah or Rome. I was
not aware that anyone ever questioned the existence of the pool of
Siloam. I would have thought it to be a fairly well-known local
landmark. The fact that such a pool exists tells us nothing about the
events said to have taken place there.
That doesn't explain how this pool ended up right where John the
Baptist stated it was in the Bible.
You might as well wonder how anybody would know where Times Square is in
New York.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 10:10:45 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713EB78186Ffstone69@213.155.197.138...
That doesn't explain how this pool ended up right where John the
Baptist stated it was in the Bible.
You might as well wonder how anybody would know where Times Square is in
New York.
You missed the entire point. Or perhaps you're simply being evasive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
20 Nov 2005 07:18:22 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:RGSff.40104$0l5.9515@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713EB78186Ffstone69@213.155.197.138...
That doesn't explain how this pool ended up right where John the
Baptist stated it was in the Bible.
You might as well wonder how anybody would know where Times Square is
in New York.
You missed the entire point. Or perhaps you're simply being evasive.
The point being that the pool of Siloam was a well-known landmark.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
20 Nov 2005 09:28:48 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns971454A1FDDD5fstone69@213.155.197.138...
The point being that the pool of Siloam was a well-known landmark.
Well known, yet they had to dig to find it. Therefore it was something that
they knew was there even though it could not be seen, felt or measured.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
20 Nov 2005 10:22:40 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:wC0gf.41320$0l5.34511@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns971454A1FDDD5fstone69@213.155.197.138...
The point being that the pool of Siloam was a well-known landmark.
Well known, yet they had to dig to find it. Therefore it was
something that they knew was there even though it could not be seen,
felt or measured.
Well known in the first century. On maps and everything. So they knew where
to dig because of something that they could see, and feel, and measure.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
