"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns971473E1F32F8fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"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.

But how did they know that those "maps" were not second and third
generation hand-me-downs that came straight out of the "myth" factory?
After all, when they went to the sight where it was supposedly at,
they could not see, feel or measure it, so it was not there at the
time.

For all they knew those maps were simply some "religious
freak's" idea of a joke that didn't pan out. like the Bible. How did
they know they had to dig to find it, and why did nobody dig for it up
until now?

And what makes these written "maps" different from the
Bible's "written" testimony? Why were these maps credible and the
Bible not?

Hmmmmmmm?

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.

But how did they know that those "maps" were not second and third
generation hand-me-downs that came straight out of the "myth"
factory? After all, when they went to the sight where it was
supposedly at, they could not see, feel or measure it, so it was not
there at the time. For all they knew those maps were simply some
"religious freak's" idea of a joke that didn't pan out. like the
Bible. How did they know they had to dig to find it, and why did
nobody dig for it up until now? And what makes these written "maps"
different from the Bible's "written" testimony? Why were these maps
credible and the Bible not?

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:02:51 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<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.

I'm confused about your comment (though it was John the Evangelist, not
John the Baptist that you are referring to, is it not?) what is unusual
about its location, and where did John say it was?

Bill,
Thanks for explaining their way of debating. I doubt if they realize how
stupid and desperate that it makes them appear to be. I can't help but
feel sorry for some of them. They don't like being exposed to light.
Jason

In article <P_Kff.35189$0l5.34383@dukeread06>, "Bill Gamelson"
<bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051058340001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

In article <rK2dnTnUs7GS7eLenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:

"Jason" wrote
: I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I did see
: some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory still
need
: to explain how the matter came to be?

Don't theist still need to describe the processes that their god
supposedly
used to make matter? Otherwise, what evidence do we have that he made it?

Bear,
You failed to answer my question. You are not suppose to answer a question
with a question.

The reason they do this is because they cannot answer your question. Since
they don't enjoy being on the defensive, they try to turn the tables and put
you on the defensive by answering the question with a question, which is
usually an exact opposition to the question you asked them. Then you're
supposed to answer their question and somehow forget all about the question
they cannot answer.

Regardless--I'll answer your question. Christians don't know what sort of
processes or mechanisms God used to make matter.

The reason he asked you to explain this in the first place is a desperate
attempt to somehow cause you to believe that because you cannot answer his
question, your faith is weak and God does not exist. Otherwise, you could
answer all his stupid questions and explain in it's entirety why God does
what he does and how he does what he does. They depart from logic and
revert to desperation.

We have no eye witness or
written evidence that God did or did not make matter.

And because of this, he didn't. If it cannot be seen, felt or measured, it's
not there.

Bill,
Thanks for explaining their way of debating. I doubt if they realize how
stupid and desperate that it makes them appear to be. I can't help but
feel sorry for some of them. They don't like being exposed to light.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

"Jason" wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
: > "Jason" wrote
: > : I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I did
see
: > : some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory still
need
: > : to explain how the matter came to be?
: >
: > Don't theist still need to describe the processes that their god
supposedly
: > used to make matter? Otherwise, what evidence do we have that he made
it?
:
: Bear,
: You failed to answer my question. You are not suppose to answer a question
: with a question.

You didn't ask the question of me.

: Regardless--I'll answer your question. Christians don't know what sort of
: processes or mechanisms God used to make matter. We have no eye witness or
: written evidence that God did or did not make matter.

So your assertion that your deity created matter has on objective,
verifiable evidence to support it.