| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Don Kresch" |
| Date: |
29 Jul 2003 10:21:49 PM |
| Object: |
Re: NASA & The Bible |
In alt.atheism on Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:06:23 -0500, Jd
<jday123@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
Here's the letter (below) that's been circulating within
Christiandom which has also caught the attention of many secular
humanists, who've been busy circulating counter letters of their
own. I might add that there's an element within Christianity that
thinks NASA is a government agency which is actually hostile
towards Christianity and is trying to discredit it.
Search the web if you want, and decide for yourself what is going
on behind the scenes. Here's the letter.....
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970325g.html
The Question
(Submitted March 25, 1997)
Can the event that took place in Joshua 10:13 be confirmed, for
example by counting the positions of heavenly bodies backward in time?
The Answer
According to the laws of physics, there are only two possible
explanations for having the Sun stand still in the sky for a day: (1)
the Earth would essentially have to stop spinning on its axis...for
which there is no evidence. -or- (2) the Sun would have to start
moving about in the solar system in a very specific way so that it
appeared to us on our spinning Earth to be standing still. There is no
evidence of this occurring either.
We, too, have heard an "urban legend" about scientists at NASA GSFC
finding the "missing day" in computer calculations of the motions of
the planets. The legend has been around for longer than NASA itself,
but turned into a NASA "event" sometime in the 60's. The story goes
that some scientists were doing orbital mechanics calculations to
determine the positions of the planets in the future, for use in
determining the trajectories of future satellite missions. They
realized they were off by a day. A biblical scholar in the lot
remembered the passage from Joshua and all was set right. But these
events, in fact, never occurred. It is easy to understand why:
The "GSFC finds missing day" urban legend doesn't make sense for the
following reason. If we want to know where the planets will be in the
future, we use accurate knowledge of their initial positions and
orbital speeds (which would be where they are located now), and solve
for their positions for some time in the future. We solve a very well
determined set of equations that describe their motions. The major
dynamical component of any planet's orbital motion is determined by
solving an equation (force is equal to the mass times the
acceleration) which is the perhaps the most fundamental in classical
physics. The validity and predictive power of this equation are well
documented and can be seen every day: a recent example is the lunar
eclipse that was visible to much of the world last Sunday. This
calculation would not cover any time before the present, so some
missing day many centuries ago, if it had occurred, could not be
uncovered with this method.
In general, trying to prove events that are said to have occurred in
the Bible, using scientific principles, doesn't work. Most scientists
draw a clear distinction between things that are taken on faith, and
those that are testable and therefore falsifiable. Science deals with
the later, and religion with the former.
Check out:
Brunvand, Jan Harold (1984) The Choking Doberman and Other "New" Urban
Legends. W. W. Norton and Company, pp. 198-199.
Brunvand, Jan Harold (1991) "The Missing Day in Time," paper presented
at the annual conference of the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), Berkeley,
California, May 4.
Loftin, Robert W. (1991) Origin of the Myth About a Missing Day in
Time. Skeptical Inquirer. vol. 15, no. 4, Summer, pp. 350-351.
McIver, Tom (1986) Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist
Evangelism. Skeptical Inquirer. vol. 10, no. 3, Spring, pp. 258-276.
and
http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/missing_day.html
Talk.Origins Archive Feedback for June 1998
Has NASA Discovered a Missing Day? From Reason & Revelation--A Monthly
Journal on Christian Evidences. vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 17-19 (May 1991)
Joshua's Long Day by James Kiefer.
The Day the Sun Stood Still
Joshua's Missing Day Found?
Regards,
Padi Boyd and Laura Whitlock
for Ask a High-Energy Astronomer
Questions on this topic are no longer responded to by the "Ask a
High-Energy Astronomer" service. See
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/ask_an_astronomer.html for
help on other astronomy Q&A services.
Notice how it's from NASA. Notice how they shoot it down
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible |
30 Jul 2003 11:04:08 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:06:23 -0500, Jd
<jday123@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
Here's the letter (below) that's been circulating within
Christiandom which has also caught the attention of many secular
humanists, who've been busy circulating counter letters of their
own. I might add that there's an element within Christianity that
thinks NASA is a government agency which is actually hostile
towards Christianity and is trying to discredit it.
Search the web if you want, and decide for yourself what is going
on behind the scenes. Here's the letter.....
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970325g.html
The Question
(Submitted March 25, 1997)
Can the event that took place in Joshua 10:13 be confirmed, for
example by counting the positions of heavenly bodies backward in time?
The Answer
According to the laws of physics, there are only two possible
explanations for having the Sun stand still in the sky for a day: (1)
the Earth would essentially have to stop spinning on its axis...for
which there is no evidence. -or- (2) the Sun would have to start
moving about in the solar system in a very specific way so that it
appeared to us on our spinning Earth to be standing still. There is no
evidence of this occurring either.
But there is evidence. Not that the earth stopped spinning
necessarily, but that the sun could've "stood still".
Briefly, the evidence is in the magnetic poles which have been
proven to have "reversed". That means the earth could've flipped
instead of starting back on it's seasonal pattern, remained
spinning, and that from a certain perspective on earth the sun
would have not gone down or "set" (similar to what occurs north
of the arctic circle during the summer months).
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible |
31 Jul 2003 01:35:22 PM |
|
|
"Jd" <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a50hivk6q6epmchrlpu3tmlj8f653ej9co@4ax.com...
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:06:23 -0500, Jd
<jday123@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
Here's the letter (below) that's been circulating within
Christiandom which has also caught the attention of many secular
humanists, who've been busy circulating counter letters of their
own. I might add that there's an element within Christianity that
thinks NASA is a government agency which is actually hostile
towards Christianity and is trying to discredit it.
Search the web if you want, and decide for yourself what is going
on behind the scenes. Here's the letter.....
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970325g.html
The Question
(Submitted March 25, 1997)
Can the event that took place in Joshua 10:13 be confirmed, for
example by counting the positions of heavenly bodies backward in time?
The Answer
According to the laws of physics, there are only two possible
explanations for having the Sun stand still in the sky for a day: (1)
the Earth would essentially have to stop spinning on its axis...for
which there is no evidence. -or- (2) the Sun would have to start
moving about in the solar system in a very specific way so that it
appeared to us on our spinning Earth to be standing still. There is no
evidence of this occurring either.
But there is evidence. Not that the earth stopped spinning
necessarily, but that the sun could've "stood still".
Briefly, the evidence is in the magnetic poles which have been
proven to have "reversed". That means the earth could've flipped
instead of starting back on it's seasonal pattern, remained
spinning, and that from a certain perspective on earth the sun
would have not gone down or "set" (similar to what occurs north
of the arctic circle during the summer months).
First - since whaen does a creationst like yourself believe anything science
says about the universe?
Second - science does say this might have happened, but if it did it was
millions of years ago - long before man could have recorded it.
So if you accept this theory then you must reject a literal account of
genesis since you must now also support that if the event happened it means
the earth is millions of years old.
But science says that it might have happened millions of years ago (and
since when do you support science?), meaning it was long before man. And if
you accept it happened you also have to accept that the world
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible |
01 Aug 2003 01:46:27 PM |
|
|
Dear Dave,
I was illustrating that the earth did not necessarily have to
stop rotating in order for the sun to have appeared to stand
still. Try going beyond the artic circle on your next vacation
and you'll see what I mean. Hey, I lived in Alaska and can
verify that in the summer, the sun hardly goes down at all.
Doesn't that qualify as valid scietific evidence in support of
the story in question? I mean I actually saw that evidence with
my own eyes. Yet you guys believe men came from apes based on
exactly zero evidence. Why the double standard?
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Jd" <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a50hivk6q6epmchrlpu3tmlj8f653ej9co@4ax.com...
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:06:23 -0500, Jd
<jday123@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
Here's the letter (below) that's been circulating within
Christiandom which has also caught the attention of many secular
humanists, who've been busy circulating counter letters of their
own. I might add that there's an element within Christianity that
thinks NASA is a government agency which is actually hostile
towards Christianity and is trying to discredit it.
Search the web if you want, and decide for yourself what is going
on behind the scenes. Here's the letter.....
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970325g.html
The Question
(Submitted March 25, 1997)
Can the event that took place in Joshua 10:13 be confirmed, for
example by counting the positions of heavenly bodies backward in time?
The Answer
According to the laws of physics, there are only two possible
explanations for having the Sun stand still in the sky for a day: (1)
the Earth would essentially have to stop spinning on its axis...for
which there is no evidence. -or- (2) the Sun would have to start
moving about in the solar system in a very specific way so that it
appeared to us on our spinning Earth to be standing still. There is no
evidence of this occurring either.
But there is evidence. Not that the earth stopped spinning
necessarily, but that the sun could've "stood still".
Briefly, the evidence is in the magnetic poles which have been
proven to have "reversed". That means the earth could've flipped
instead of starting back on it's seasonal pattern, remained
spinning, and that from a certain perspective on earth the sun
would have not gone down or "set" (similar to what occurs north
of the arctic circle during the summer months).
First - since whaen does a creationst like yourself believe anything science
says about the universe?
Second - science does say this might have happened, but if it did it was
millions of years ago - long before man could have recorded it.
So if you accept this theory then you must reject a literal account of
genesis since you must now also support that if the event happened it means
the earth is millions of years old.
But science says that it might have happened millions of years ago (and
since when do you support science?), meaning it was long before man. And if
you accept it happened you also have to accept that the world
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible |
01 Aug 2003 03:14:28 PM |
|
|
"Jd" <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6t3jivge93cjbdjfordhq5np22ud9bnk7r@4ax.com...
Dear Dave,
I was illustrating that the earth did not necessarily have to
stop rotating in order for the sun to have appeared to stand
still.
Your illustration flawed.
Try going beyond the artic circle on your next vacation
and you'll see what I mean.
Been there.
Hey, I lived in Alaska and can
verify that in the summer, the sun hardly goes down at all.
Spent a lot of time there. But if you lived in Alaska then you know the sun
goes around in a circle in the sky and doesn't stand still.
Doesn't that qualify as valid scietific evidence in support of
the story in question? I mean I actually saw that evidence with
my own eyes.
Obviously not because the sun does not stop or appear to stop moving.
Yet you guys believe men came from apes based on
exactly zero evidence. Why the double standard?
There are mountains of evdeince supporting evolution and none supporting
your assertion that god made the sun stand still. Neither the Joshua story
nor your obviously flawed personal observations supports the evdience the
sun ever stood still. Your inability to comprehend the difference between
mountains of evidence and a bit of christian propoganda is absolutely beyond
belief.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (6/8) |
05 Aug 2003 11:21:53 AM |
|
|
In article <ctcuivkhks38so1etm6junl5m7pove72qf@4ax.com> Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
<
<Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
<
<>
<>Nothing you've said contradicts anything I said. You can calculate
<>anything but all you're doing is calculating the results of a *formula.
<>
<>What do you compare the results to in order to find a "missing day?"
<>--
<
<Observations. Orbits etc. If they're not where your model
<predicts they should be, you've lost or gained time.
What observations?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (7/8) |
05 Aug 2003 11:32:25 AM |
|
|
In article <dtcuivk0kggn2pq8ltc5r9cvcgteqkq4o4@4ax.com> Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
<
<Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
<
{...}
<>
<>No, that doesn't qualify. It's baseless speculation from ignorance. You
<>haven't even explained how a magnetic pole reversal would make the sun
<>appear to do *anything.
<
<Shucks. I'm sure you have all the compassion needed to forgive me
<until I come up with some tangible proof, right?
I imagine we all have the requisite compassion. That's not the problem.
The problem is that none of us will live that long.
My saguaros will not live that long.
<
<Nikolaos D. Bougalis wrote:
<
<
{...}
<
<> Also, please let us know how the following question is affected by "error
<>present in the Atomic clock": how many seconds, milliseconds, and
<>nanoseconds are between January 1, 1970, and January 1, 2004?
<
<6?
<
<ROFLMAO if you think I'm that stupid.
Obviously, you are that stupid: the answer to Nikolaos' question
is not a number, the answer to Nikolaos' question is "specify
your reference".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (7/8) |
09 Aug 2003 06:19:14 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <dtcuivk0kggn2pq8ltc5r9cvcgteqkq4o4@4ax.com> Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
<
<Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
<
{...}
<>
<>No, that doesn't qualify. It's baseless speculation from ignorance. You
<>haven't even explained how a magnetic pole reversal would make the sun
<>appear to do *anything.
<
<Shucks. I'm sure you have all the compassion needed to forgive me
<until I come up with some tangible proof, right?
I imagine we all have the requisite compassion. That's not the problem.
The problem is that none of us will live that long.
My saguaros will not live that long.
<
<Nikolaos D. Bougalis wrote:
<
<
{...}
<
<> Also, please let us know how the following question is affected by "error
<>present in the Atomic clock": how many seconds, milliseconds, and
<>nanoseconds are between January 1, 1970, and January 1, 2004?
<
<6?
<
<ROFLMAO if you think I'm that stupid.
Obviously, you are that stupid: the answer to Nikolaos' question
is not a number, the answer to Nikolaos' question is "specify
your reference".
-- cary
Ummm... 23?
Rofl :)
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer
that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible |
01 Aug 2003 04:07:43 PM |
|
|
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I was illustrating that the earth did not necessarily have to
stop rotating in order for the sun to have appeared to stand
still. Try going beyond the artic circle on your next vacation
and you'll see what I mean. Hey, I lived in Alaska and can
verify that in the summer, the sun hardly goes down at all.
But it does NOT stand still. If you think so, you were drunk and
spinning around once per day.
Doesn't that qualify as valid scietific evidence in support of
the story in question?
No, unless the Bible mentions Alaska as the place where Joshua fought.
I mean I actually saw that evidence with my own eyes.
Uh huh. Right, you did.
Yet you guys believe men came from apes based on exactly zero evidence.
False.
Why the double standard?
Because we aren't idiots like you, nor servants of the Prince of Liars
like you.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (6/8) |
05 Aug 2003 04:15:19 AM |
|
|
"Jd" <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ctcuivkhks38so1etm6junl5m7pove72qf@4ax.com...
Don
Actually Don, the verdict is still out on whether or not I would trust
anything NASA said about anything. I'll have to check someday perhaps.
But for now it's not that bigga deal.
You'll believe an old urban legend but doubt NASA?
Weird.
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
"You are not a fiscal conservative when the deficit runs
to $400 billion on your watch."
- Stan Collender, Fleishman-Hillard Inc.
I'm not impressed yet.
Neither are we.
<PLONK!>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (2/8) |
04 Aug 2003 11:33:44 PM |
|
|
discovered
truth.
And why has it never appeared in any of the forums or anywhere
I've been in cyberspace for the last 15 years? Or in Christian
and/or religious forums for the last 10?
Your ignorance of the situation does not mean you are right and we are
wrong. I've seen this story in many religious, scientific, and political
groups and every time it is posted by some Fundy as if it is a Trump card
to
whatever discussion is going on.
Lastly, having been
raised as a Christian and consequently having been around
Christians all my life and having never heard this story before,
it can't really be classified as an "urban legend".
Fine, then it is piece of Christian propoganda meant to intentionally
mislead.
You guys are doing nothing more than grossly exaggerating and
sensationalizing here,
Really? Explain to me how a computer could discover a missing day if
working
backwards? The only way it could discover a missing day would be if it
had
been around to discover it when it occured. In other words you would have
to
already have data similar to what the computer was using on the position
of
the sun on the day it supposedly stopped moving. Try counting backwards
from
a million and tell us when you discover a missing number. It's exactly
the
same thing.
like those guys do concerning Jews over in
Europe who they say use the blood of Christian babies in their
passover observances and ceremonies.
Your attempt to poison the well is noted.
I remember back when folks like you were saying "the sky is
falling" just prior to Y2K when they thought all the networks
might go down because of the way computers calculate dates.
Your failure to address just how a computer could find a lost day is noted.
Maybe you'd like to try again, since you are such an expert.
Explain to me how a computer could discover a missing day if working
backwards?
Please, all us ***** whipped IT people are waiting.
Actually, the Bible doesn't say anything about a missing day. It
does allude to the fact that part of a day would be missing since
Hezekiahs sun dial went backwards. The story under discussion
talks about a "missing day" being a combination of time lost
during the period the sun didn't go down (Joshua's battle) plus
the time the sun dial went backwards.
Computers can only calculate what they're programmed to
calculate. Frankly, the question you're asking is a bit stupid.
Would you believe that I actually posses a old DOS program that
went berserk onY2K? Still use it on occaision, but not for date
calulations.
It's easy to see most of you guys are computer illiterate idjuts.
Most of you probably call the IT dept.
Sorry, Bozo - I've spent my life in the computer world and made a small
fortune constructing computers for graphics and design purposes. Prior to
that I did computer modelling and simulation for the automobile industry. My
wife (a non-practicing Christian who actually laughed so hard after reading
the Joshua story that she had to set down) designed flight management
systems for Honeywell. Unlike you I understand the simple principle that
even school kids these days know as to why your story is bogus. A computer
has no ability to determine if the data it is producing is corrupt unless
imperical data exists that shows otherwise. In other words if the sun had
stood still last week and no one had measured where it was in the sky that
day or prior to that then a computer spewing out data of where the sun was
could never determine that the sun had ever stood still. Since no computers
or even valid science existed over 2000 years ago and we have no data where
the sun was then your little fantasy of science proving the bible correct is
just another pathetic lie by fundies such as yourself. Let's see if you can
show me that I am wrong.
Sure. You're like any technician who doen't have enough data
points or skills necessary to write a software program that
verifies the Biblical record.
of your local organization
when your computers at work go down. That's because you've
become feminized and have simply become as trained dogs by your
wives who've shown you how to pick up the telephone everytime
something breaks.
Just because you can replace a board in a computer doesn't mean you
understand computers. You obviously don't if you believed the Joshua story.
We really don't have to go beyond that
Suits me.
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Jd" <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pcbjivsi1arlivft5oo3ovms9f7fce26jm@4ax.com...
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:04:11 -0500, Jd wrote
And forward to S.E.T.I., advances in science have left men
lonesome, stranded, and miserably trapped on planet earth,
crying, begging, and blissfully hoping to find life out there
somewhere in that cold expanse of nothingness they call "the
universe".
<< ... Not unlike the very first caveman which appeared on earth, who
peering out from the entrance of his cave on a cold blizzardy winter day,
was hoping to catch a glimpse of smoke from someone else's
campfire......>>
If he was "the very first caveman," what was his father?
Hmmm... well I've heard Homo Erectus, Piltdown man, Nebraska man,
Neandertal, Peking man and more. They've just recently found
another couple of bones but I can't recall what they've named
him.
Did you know that if you piled up each and every bone they use as
"evidence" and for re-creating skeletons to look like the
modified apes which they portray as our "ancestors"... that that
entire pile of bones would fit on top of a billiard table?
Another bogus Christian propaganda story.
Here's your problem. Namely, a source that backs up my words.
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a
billiard table . . The collection is so tantalisingly incomplete,
and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and
inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than
about what is present."—*John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26,
1981, p. 802.
This is a bit bleaker yet the point is the same, and contrary to
your lie below.
"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that
there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable
fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human
evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a
single coffin!"—*Science Digest 90, May 1982, p. 44.
That may have been true 50 years ago, but now there are thousands of hominid
fossils. For example, as of 1999, there were fossils of about 150 Homo
erectus individuals, 90 Australopithecus robustus, 150 Australopithecus
afarensis, 500 Neandertals, and more.
Goodness. Where to start. Hmmm... you did know that H. Erectus
was found to have been living alongside man didn't you? Where
have you been, surfing on those evolution propaganda web pages
again? H. Erectus was said to have been extinct 200,000 years
before man arrived on the scene (so they used his partial
skeleton as proof for evolution) but that's a lie too.
Here's a few of your previous hoax's (including H. Erectus):
"Ramapithecus" was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of
humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type
of orangutan.
"Piltdown man" was hyped as the missing link in publications for
over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an
orangutan's jaw.
"Nebraska man" was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type
of pig.
"Java man" was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap
and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period.
It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains,
and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a
large ape.
"Neandertal man" was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man.
It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease
and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
"Homo Erectus" has been found to have lived side by side with
humans, and did not go extict 200,000 years ago which means he
could not be a "link" either.
"Lucy" - "The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that
Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked
the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly
quadrupedal). The ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from
ape to man is extremely unconvincing."—A.W. Mehlert, news note,
Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145
"Zinjanthropus boisei" - "Nutcracker Man" it had a jaw much
larger than the skull. The skull was very apelike; but some tools
were nearby, so *Leakey decided that it had to be half-human.
Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull
in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike
features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to
children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was
immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family
found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on
record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the
discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.
http://www.human--evolution.com/
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Jd" <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:snhlivkq7i629d7mvv853aj714ikrt5juf@4ax.com...
Nikolaos D. Bougalis wrote:
"Jd" <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ri3jivcmohh9hjisgb2i62ct1v7ap7c4d2@4ax.com...
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:04:08 -0500, Jd
<jday123@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:06:23 -0500, Jd
<jday123@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
Here's the letter (below) that's been circulating within
Christiandom which has also caught the attention of many secular
humanists, who've been busy circulating counter letters of their
own. I might add that there's an element within Christianity that
thinks NASA is a government agency which is actually hostile
towards Christianity and is trying to discredit it.
Search the web if you want, and decide for yourself what is going
on behind the scenes. Here's the letter.....
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970325g.html
The Question
(Submitted March 25, 1997)
Can the event that took place in Joshua 10:13 be confirmed, for
example by counting the positions of heavenly bodies backward in
time?
The Answer
According to the laws of physics, there are only two possible
explanations for having the Sun stand still in the sky for a day:
(1)
the Earth would essentially have to stop spinning on its axis...for
which there is no evidence. -or- (2) the Sun would have to start
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
04 Aug 2003 11:33:47 PM |
|
|
keep believing it because your faith is so weak that it will crumble
without the support of these lies.
Are you really a bi-sexual?
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
You're bluffing in pretense of trying to impress the lurkers.
Computer time calculations are only limited by the error present
in the Atomic clock.
Which is irrelevant to the fact that a computer guessing how things looked
in the past wouldn't notice a "missing day".
Heck, I've seen programs myself which show how the constellations
looked and where/when they appeared thousands of years ago. Not
only that, I can take a computer apart and put it pack together
in under 15 minutes (assuming of course it has one of those nifty
latched side panels). I know how they work.
OBviously you don't, and you're lying about your expertise, because a
computer counting backwards isn't going to find a "missing day". If it
tries to go backwards, it will just predict what the constellations looked
like if there hadn't been a day missing. If you disagree, then explain
exactly how a computer could find a "missing day" from such calculations.
Otherwise, you're just clinging to a lie because you're too weak in your
faith to continue believing without the support of hoaxes.
Let's see. If I don't prove God and the Bible using a computer,
them I'm "clinging to a lie"? Doesn't that also mean you are too
if you can't either?
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Saddam's name coded in a famous and old book: http://tinyurl.com/6mr4
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
A bi-sexual atheist eh? Too bad you didn't get #69.
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <931hivss60r2tm903ttbgiebb7mc5jdorv@4ax.com> Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
<Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
<
<>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:06:23 -0500, Jd wrote:
<>
<>> Search the web if you want, and decide for yourself what is going on
<>> behind the scenes. Here's the letter.....
<>
<>What's going on is an old, worn out, tired urban legend...
<
<Then why is everyone so energetically and frenziously replying?
<And why has it never appeared in any of the forums or anywhere
<I've been in cyberspace for the last 15 years?
Try groups-Googling on "NASA" "Joshua", and "missing day". I get
hits going back to 1985.
-- cary
Been there done that. My take is that when those ungodly pagans
went to see the guys documentation, he said "I lost it".
I've pulled the same neat trick on occasion myself.
In other words, you've made ***** claims, then made up bogus excuses as
to why you couldn't back them up?
Try going way back to the start where I explained some things to
Bob.
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
Dave Thompson wrote:
like those guys do concerning Jews over in
Europe who they say use the blood of Christian babies in their
passover observances and ceremonies.
Your attempt to poison the well is noted.
I remember back when folks like you were saying "the sky is
falling" just prior to Y2K when they thought all the networks
might go down because of the way computers calculate dates.
Actually, people knowledgeable about computers were predicting nothing
more than minor inconveniences, which is exactly what happened. It was
people who were ignorant of the workings of computers -- such as Christian
Reconstructionalist Gary North -- who were issuing apocalyptic warnings.
Shame on him. Perhaps you should write him a nasty e-mail. Yeah,
that'll show him.
Would you believe that I actually posses a old DOS program that
went berserk onY2K? Still use it on occaision, but not for date
calulations.
No one is claiming that the NASA story is false because of Y2K problems.
The story is false because it is impossible for a computer to somehow
"disover" a missing day by counting backwards through the years. It just
wouldn't happen. If there really is a "missing day", then the only thing
that would happen is that once the computer went past that missing day,
its calculations would be off by 23 hours and 10 minutes, however because
there would be no way to know how the orbits really were at that time,
there wouldn't be any way to know that it was in error.
In other words, despite your insistence that the story is possible in
spite of the fact that people who understand how computers work --
including knowledgable Christians who actually believe that the story in
Joshua is factual -- say that Harold Hill's story is obviously bogus and
impossible, you cling to it because your faith is so weak that it will
topple if you discover that the urban legends that you use for support are
hoaxs. You've yet to explain exactly how a computer could find a "missing
day" in space.
This may complicate things a bit but what the heck. My personall
thoughts are that not only did the sun "stand still", so did the
moon.
Joshua 10:12 "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the
Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and
he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon
Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."
This was accomplished by God. The "missing day" story left
that part out and everyone seems to have overlooked that detail.
The fact that both the sun and moon were visable sorta narrows
things down a bit as far as computer calculations go doesn't it?
It's easy to see most of you guys are computer illiterate idjuts.
Most of you probably call the IT dept. of your local organization
when your computers at work go down. That's because you've
become feminized and have simply become as trained dogs by your
wives who've shown you how to pick up the telephone everytime
something breaks.
Ah, since you have no logical arguments you resort to insults. You would
have completely discredited your position, except that you didn't have any
credibility to begin with.
Hmmm... guess that means you won't be writing me any more huh?
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:46:36 -0500, Jd wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:04:10 -0500, Jd wrote:
Not true. The speed and motion of the galaxies is not constant. Don't
you think that if folks lived to be 800 years old as the Bible says
they did back in Genesis, that the earth very well could've been
rotating much faster then?
Bodies don't change speeds at the kind of rate you're talking about. That
flat doesn't happen.
You'd have to come up with something more than a speculative "maybe."
Not really. You've got to come up with something greater than God.
Not until you come up with some hard evidence that such a thing as "god"
exists...
That would be me.
Isaiah 43:12 "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed,
when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my
witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God."
I'm your living evidence.
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:46:28 -0500, Jd wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:46:32 -0700, jwk wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<vhdfiv06mvf1f7k3al1ga0mgr4o175jqn3@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 06:47:27 GMT, *Nemo* <nemo0037@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com>
wrote:
In article <q13eivc0ut6ddcle30ra707dcrttjp8v36@4ax.com>,
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Here's the letter (below) that's been circulating within
Christiandom which has also caught the attention of many secular
humanists, who've been busy circulating counter letters of their
own. I might add that there's an element within Christianity that
thinks NASA is a government agency which is actually hostile
towards Christianity and is trying to discredit it.
Search the web if you want, and decide for yourself what is going
on behind the scenes. Here's the letter.....
NASA & The Bible
For all the scientists out there, and for all the students who
have a hardtime convincing these people regarding the truth of the
Bible, here's something that shows God's awesome creation, and
that He is still in control. Did you know that the space program
is busy proving that what has been called "myth" in the Bible is
true?
<snip silly urban legend>
You know, anyone with even a modicum of knowedge of physics can see
through this rubbish. The only thing that strikes me as interesting
about this is the sad state of education in the world that interest
in this idiot story indicates.
The US is the only place anybody takes this seriously.
The first time I heard this I was amazed anybody could be so stupid.
It was like when I saw Duane Gish on TV using Piltdown as "proof" that
science was fraud - it had been a joke even when I was kid, in the
1950s. That was when I realised just how many people took it
seriously, and how many stupid people there were in the US.
You know, ***** you. I get a little tired of these generalizations
about the US populace. We don't have any more idiots than any of the
rest of you. It is just that everybody pays so much attention to our
idiots. If you have any evidence that Americans are dumber than you
own people give it. Otherwise shove it.
Um... actually...
Being a US citizen, born and raised and all, I *do think we
are--frankly--dumber. You look at our education system and general
science knowledge compared to the rest of the West and we're bringing up
the rear these days.
This country has always had a hostility toward intellect and education.
Even in our last election, Gore was losing ground because people thought
of him as a "know it all."
I think that's all catching up to us...
Not so. It'll propbably take 4 more years of W. to straighten out what the
leftists' Christian President did, that's 4 yrs. if they do it in a civil
manner.
What?
Nevermind.
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:46:29 -0500, Jd wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:04:09 -0500, Jd
<jday123@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:06:23 -0500, Jd wrote:
Search the web if you want, and decide for yourself what is going on
behind the scenes. Here's the letter.....
What's going on is an old, worn out, tired urban legend...
Then why is everyone so energetically and frenziously replying?
To show you why it's a lie.
Obviously, you didn't notice that my post had NASA's own
response. Maybe you should read it again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
07 Aug 2003 09:48:03 PM |
|
|
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
keep believing it because your faith is so weak that it will crumble
without the support of these lies.
Are you really a bi-sexual?
There's no hyphen in the word. It's just "bisexual", and I am bisexual.
Why do you care? What does this have to do with the statement to which
you were responding?
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
OBviously you don't, and you're lying about your expertise, because a
computer counting backwards isn't going to find a "missing day". If it
tries to go backwards, it will just predict what the constellations looked
like if there hadn't been a day missing. If you disagree, then explain
exactly how a computer could find a "missing day" from such calculations.
Otherwise, you're just clinging to a lie because you're too weak in your
faith to continue believing without the support of hoaxes.
Let's see. If I don't prove God and the Bible using a computer,
them I'm "clinging to a lie"? Doesn't that also mean you are too
if you can't either?
Well, it's obvious that you have no reading comprehension ability.
I was alluding to the fact that you insisted that the "NASA and the Bible"
story might be true. Of course, you're a liar so you had to pretend that
I was saying something else.
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Saddam's name coded in a famous and old book: http://tinyurl.com/6mr4
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
A bi-sexual atheist eh? Too bad you didn't get #69.
What does that have to do with anything?
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
Been there done that. My take is that when those ungodly pagans
went to see the guys documentation, he said "I lost it".
I've pulled the same neat trick on occasion myself.
In other words, you've made ***** claims, then made up bogus excuses as
to why you couldn't back them up?
Try going way back to the start where I explained some things to
Bob.
I did. Your claims are *****, and now you're making bogus excuses.
This may complicate things a bit but what the heck. My personall
thoughts are that not only did the sun "stand still", so did the
moon.
Joshua 10:12 "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the
Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and
he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon
Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."
This was accomplished by God. The "missing day" story left
that part out and everyone seems to have overlooked that detail.
The fact that both the sun and moon were visable sorta narrows
things down a bit as far as computer calculations go doesn't it?
My personal take on it is that it's an old Hebrew myth regarding a war
that may have happened and supernatural events that did not happen.
If you have evidence that supernatural events have ever occured, I'd love
to see the evidence.
If you're going to ask me for evidence that supernatural events have never
occured, then you're unfairly shifting the burden of proof because you're
fundamentally dishonest.
It's easy to see most of you guys are computer illiterate idjuts.
Most of you probably call the IT dept. of your local organization
when your computers at work go down. That's because you've
become feminized and have simply become as trained dogs by your
wives who've shown you how to pick up the telephone everytime
something breaks.
Ah, since you have no logical arguments you resort to insults. You would
have completely discredited your position, except that you didn't have any
credibility to begin with.
Hmmm... guess that means you won't be writing me any more huh?
Sometimes it's fun to see what idiotic thing that you will say next.
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Not until you come up with some hard evidence that such a thing as "god"
exists...
That would be me.
Isaiah 43:12 "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed,
when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my
witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God."
I'm your living evidence.
Argument by assertion? Please.
Your "evidence" amounts to "I said so, therefore it's true". That
argument is total *****. Only a complete idiot or a liar would present
it as "evidence".
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Saddam's name coded in a famous and old book: http://tinyurl.com/6mr4
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
08 Aug 2003 10:26:49 AM |
|
|
In article <3f330f63$1_1@news.iglou.com> (Keenan Clay Wilkie) writes:
<
<Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
<
<>>keep believing it because your faith is so weak that it will crumble
<>>without the support of these lies.
<
<>Are you really a bi-sexual?
<
<There's no hyphen in the word. It's just "bisexual", and I am bisexual.
<Why do you care? What does this have to do with the statement to which
<you were responding?
Oh, it's all-important in determining the future course of the debate.
For example, if you're a woman who persists in pointing out JDay's
shortcomings, you are ipso facto a lesbian (e.g: Joni, FNC). So
clearly, if you're bisexual who commits similar lese majeste,
you're a ... a... Gee, I dunno. A weasel? A wombat? Geraldo?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "FNC" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
08 Aug 2003 10:57:18 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:26:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell)wrote:
In article <3f330f63$1_1@news.iglou.com> (Keenan Clay Wilkie) writes:
<
<Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
<
<>Are you really a bi-sexual?
<
<There's no hyphen in the word. It's just "bisexual", and I am bisexual.
<Why do you care? What does this have to do with the statement to which
<you were responding?
Oh, it's all-important in determining the future course of the debate.
For example, if you're a woman who persists in pointing out JDay's
shortcomings, you are ipso facto a lesbian (e.g: Joni, FNC). So
clearly, if you're bisexual who commits similar lese majeste,
you're a ... a... Gee, I dunno. A weasel? A wombat? Geraldo?
An Object of Fascination.
FNC, no, not a SNIFF!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
08 Aug 2003 03:40:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:26:49 +0000 (UTC), a wanderer, known to us only
as (Cary Kittrell) warmed at our fire and
told this tale:
Oh, it's all-important in determining the future course of the debate.
For example, if you're a woman who persists in pointing out JDay's
shortcomings, you are ipso facto a lesbian (e.g: Joni, FNC). So
clearly, if you're bisexual who commits similar lese majeste,
you're a ... a... Gee, I dunno. A weasel? A wombat? Geraldo?
Belgian?
--
Douglas Berry
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
09 Aug 2003 06:19:19 AM |
|
|
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
keep believing it because your faith is so weak that it will crumble
without the support of these lies.
Are you really a bi-sexual?
There's no hyphen in the word. It's just "bisexual", and I am bisexual.
Why do you care? What does this have to do with the statement to which
you were responding?
Are you also bi-emotional?
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
OBviously you don't, and you're lying about your expertise, because a
computer counting backwards isn't going to find a "missing day". If it
tries to go backwards, it will just predict what the constellations looked
like if there hadn't been a day missing. If you disagree, then explain
exactly how a computer could find a "missing day" from such calculations.
Otherwise, you're just clinging to a lie because you're too weak in your
faith to continue believing without the support of hoaxes.
Let's see. If I don't prove God and the Bible using a computer,
them I'm "clinging to a lie"? Doesn't that also mean you are too
if you can't either?
Well, it's obvious that you have no reading comprehension ability.
I was alluding to the fact that you insisted that the "NASA and the Bible"
story might be true. Of course, you're a liar so you had to pretend that
I was saying something else.
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Saddam's name coded in a famous and old book: http://tinyurl.com/6mr4
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
A bi-sexual atheist eh? Too bad you didn't get #69.
What does that have to do with anything?
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
Been there done that. My take is that when those ungodly pagans
went to see the guys documentation, he said "I lost it".
I've pulled the same neat trick on occasion myself.
In other words, you've made ***** claims, then made up bogus excuses as
to why you couldn't back them up?
Try going way back to the start where I explained some things to
Bob.
I did. Your claims are *****, and now you're making bogus excuses.
You seem to have both male and female emotions. It's tough
framing a reply under those circumstances. Generally, we
Christians go a little easier on the weaker gender.
This may complicate things a bit but what the heck. My personall
thoughts are that not only did the sun "stand still", so did the
moon.
Joshua 10:12 "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the
Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and
he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon
Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."
This was accomplished by God. The "missing day" story left
that part out and everyone seems to have overlooked that detail.
The fact that both the sun and moon were visable sorta narrows
things down a bit as far as computer calculations go doesn't it?
My personal take on it is that it's an old Hebrew myth regarding a war
that may have happened and supernatural events that did not happen.
If you have evidence that supernatural events have ever occured, I'd love
to see the evidence.
Yes. I have it. Faith, by Biblical definition is evidence indeed.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen."
If you're going to ask me for evidence that supernatural events have never
occured, then you're unfairly shifting the burden of proof because you're
fundamentally dishonest.
No I'm not going to ask you.
It's easy to see most of you guys are computer illiterate idjuts.
Most of you probably call the IT dept. of your local organization
when your computers at work go down. That's because you've
become feminized and have simply become as trained dogs by your
wives who've shown you how to pick up the telephone everytime
something breaks.
Ah, since you have no logical arguments you resort to insults. You would
have completely discredited your position, except that you didn't have any
credibility to begin with.
Hmmm... guess that means you won't be writing me any more huh?
Sometimes it's fun to see what idiotic thing that you will say next.
Hmmm... well have fun.
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Not until you come up with some hard evidence that such a thing as "god"
exists...
That would be me.
Isaiah 43:12 "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed,
when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my
witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God."
I'm your living evidence.
Argument by assertion? Please.
Your "evidence" amounts to "I said so, therefore it's true". That
argument is total *****. Only a complete idiot or a liar would present
it as "evidence".
They hit Jesus up with the same sort of argument. Here's a few
highlights....
John 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, "Thou bearest
record of thyself; thy record is not true".
John 8:23 And he said unto them, "Ye are from beneath; I am from
above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." - Jesus
John 8:48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, "Say we not
well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?"
And so they hung Jesus on a cross, and killed him (or so they
thought).
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer
that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
09 Aug 2003 02:55:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Jd wrote:
You seem to have both male and female emotions. It's tough
framing a reply under those circumstances. Generally, we
Christians go a little easier on the weaker gender.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I
pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your
eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the
shadow of my roof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
11 Aug 2003 11:30:17 AM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Jd wrote:
You seem to have both male and female emotions. It's tough
framing a reply under those circumstances. Generally, we
Christians go a little easier on the weaker gender.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I
pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your
eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the
shadow of my roof.
Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
womankind: it is abomination.
Jd
"...Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of
fire." (Hebrews 1:7)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
10 Aug 2003 03:48:09 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Larry Smith wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Jd wrote:
You seem to have both male and female emotions. It's tough
framing a reply under those circumstances. Generally, we
Christians go a little easier on the weaker gender.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I
pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your
eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the
shadow of my roof.
Gosh, why didn't you recite the OT scripture wherein the priest puts the
suspected wife to a cruel test of torture in order to determine if she is an
adulteress?
Give me time.
But consider if I did that, you would have nothing to do.
Or the 30,000 virgins ordered sold into lust-slavery by the Hebrew god for
the "sins" of their fathers?
Give me time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ian" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (5/8) |
10 Aug 2003 10:26:38 AM |
|
|
religion is the poor mans science :p
"Keenan Clay Wilkie" <darkstar@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3f330f63$1_1@news.iglou.com...
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
keep believing it because your faith is so weak that it will crumble
without the support of these lies.
Are you really a bi-sexual?
There's no hyphen in the word. It's just "bisexual", and I am bisexual.
Why do you care? What does this have to do with the statement to which
you were responding?
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
OBviously you don't, and you're lying about your expertise, because a
computer counting backwards isn't going to find a "missing day". If it
tries to go backwards, it will just predict what the constellations
looked
like if there hadn't been a day missing. If you disagree, then explain
exactly how a computer could find a "missing day" from such
calculations.
Otherwise, you're just clinging to a lie because you're too weak in your
faith to continue believing without the support of hoaxes.
Let's see. If I don't prove God and the Bible using a computer,
them I'm "clinging to a lie"? Doesn't that also mean you are too
if you can't either?
Well, it's obvious that you have no reading comprehension ability.
I was alluding to the fact that you insisted that the "NASA and the Bible"
story might be true. Of course, you're a liar so you had to pretend that
I was saying something else.
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Saddam's name coded in a famous and old book:
http://tinyurl.com/6mr4
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
A bi-sexual atheist eh? Too bad you didn't get #69.
What does that have to do with anything?
Keenan Clay Wilkie wrote:
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> writes:
Been there done that. My take is that when those ungodly pagans
went to see the guys documentation, he said "I lost it".
I've pulled the same neat trick on occasion myself.
In other words, you've made ***** claims, then made up bogus excuses
as
to why you couldn't back them up?
Try going way back to the start where I explained some things to
Bob.
I did. Your claims are *****, and now you're making bogus excuses.
This may complicate things a bit but what the heck. My personall
thoughts are that not only did the sun "stand still", so did the
moon.
Joshua 10:12 "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the
Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and
he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon
Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."
This was accomplished by God. The "missing day" story left
that part out and everyone seems to have overlooked that detail.
The fact that both the sun and moon were visable sorta narrows
things down a bit as far as computer calculations go doesn't it?
My personal take on it is that it's an old Hebrew myth regarding a war
that may have happened and supernatural events that did not happen.
If you have evidence that supernatural events have ever occured, I'd love
to see the evidence.
If you're going to ask me for evidence that supernatural events have never
occured, then you're unfairly shifting the burden of proof because you're
fundamentally dishonest.
It's easy to see most of you guys are computer illiterate idjuts.
Most of you probably call the IT dept. of your local organization
when your computers at work go down. That's because you've
become feminized and have simply become as trained dogs by your
wives who've shown you how to pick up the telephone everytime
something breaks.
Ah, since you have no logical arguments you resort to insults. You
would
have completely discredited your position, except that you didn't have
any
credibility to begin with.
Hmmm... guess that means you won't be writing me any more huh?
Sometimes it's fun to see what idiotic thing that you will say next.
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Not until you come up with some hard evidence that such a thing as "god"
exists...
That would be me.
Isaiah 43:12 "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed,
when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my
witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God."
I'm your living evidence.
Argument by assertion? Please.
Your "evidence" amounts to "I said so, therefore it's true". That
argument is total *****. Only a complete idiot or a liar would present
it as "evidence".
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Saddam's name coded in a famous and old book: http://tinyurl.com/6mr4
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (4/8) |
09 Aug 2003 06:19:18 AM |
|
|
James Powell wrote:
"Jd" <jday123@bellsouth.net> seagulled in message
news:atcuivsvf908vm6t3rno5q83ss3f8epjb4@4ax.com...
<snip>
Tell me.. what exactly does NOAH do?
Can't answer this one, eh?
<snip>
Hell Doug, a "hominid fossil" could be a bone from any fur
bearing creature. Did you know tha Darwin himself said you're
ancestors once swang from trees?
No, it can't. But then we already knew you have no concept of what a
paleontological specimen is.
"By considering the embryological structure of man,- the
homologies which he presents with the lower animals,- the
rudiments which he retains,- and the reversions to which he is
liable, we can partly recall in imagination the former condition
of our early progenitors; and can approximately place them in
their proper place in the zoological series. We thus learn that
man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably
arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World." -
Charles Darwin (Descent of Man, Chapter XXI "General Sumary and
Conclusion")
Based upon the best knowledge of his day, correct. I think modern views are
that we lost the tail long before we split from the apes. We probably
stopped being arboreal rather early as well.
The ultra-modern view is that meteors are the "cosmic sperm" and
planets are the "eggs". Obviously, no one here connected the
dots in my last posting which means there aren't any ultras here.
OTOH, it could mean that there is no one here from the leftists
side who can connect dots periods. That is the more likely case
and I think it's because they've lost the ability to glean wisdom
from metaphors, symbolism, parables and such because their minds
have been dulled as a results of too much "Virtual Reality".
Jesus did not allow hippocrits back then access to the sort of
wisdom I'm referring to, and I'm sure he hasn't changed his mind
over the last several thousand years.
Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, "Unto you it is given to
know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are
without, all these things are done in parables:
Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and
hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they
should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them".
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer
that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (3/8) |
05 Aug 2003 04:38:45 AM |
|
|
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I mean I actually saw that evidence with
my own eyes. Yet you guys believe men came from apes based on
exactly zero evidence. Why the double standard?
We have mountains of evidence that people like you refuse to look at.
Not only me. You do realize that somewhere between 80-95% of N.
Americans call themselves Christians don't you?
Most of whom have no trouble with evolution. Note that the largest
denomination of them are your "godmother worshippers" that YOU said
within the last 24 hours aren't really Christian.
Notice that down
the list below, you'll find that only .6% of the entire
population is atheistic.
Quoting the nincompoop's web site won't buy you much credibility. But
in any event, the number of atheists is totally unconnected with the
number who accept human evolution.
If you're into polls, here's one where "profeesional scientists"
(who you'd think favor evolution), were polled.
"According to the poll of professional scientists, over
one-fifth—20.6 percent—completely reject evolution. Less than
half of the scientists—48.3 percent—believe that it is even
possible for man to have evolved from lower forms without
supernatural intervention". February 1988 issue "Industrial
Chemist"
And we've determined in prior discussions that this trade publication
poll was as invalid and irrelevant as the nincompoop's polls on
shipping Jews to Madagascar.
But repeating old lies is natural for you, as a servant of the Prince
of Liars.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (3/8) |
05 Aug 2003 01:11:21 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <> wrote in message
news:3euuivock075g40cpjn0dbckl2rn59jlmn@4ax.com...
Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I mean I actually saw that evidence with
my own eyes. Yet you guys believe men came from apes based on
exactly zero evidence. Why the double standard?
We have mountains of evidence that people like you refuse to look at.
Not only me. You do realize that somewhere between 80-95% of N.
Americans call themselves Christians don't you?
Most of whom have no trouble with evolution. Note that the largest
denomination of them are your "godmother worshippers" that YOU said
within the last 24 hours aren't really Christian.
Funny how those with an agenda love to twist numbers to their benefit. When
you look at the U.S. Census you find that non-christians actually make up
15% of the population and that people who consider themselves to be
non-religious are the fastest growing group. Add to that people who consider
themselves non-practicing members of some group and you end up with
considerably less than JD's 80 - 95%. Of course the numbers mean little,
really, considering we have religious freedom in this country and that being
"Christian" doesn't determine how you vote or think. If it did then we would
have only one Christian church and we would have rewritten the constitution
long ago.
Notice that down
the list below, you'll find that only .6% of the entire
population is atheistic.
Quoting the nincompoop's web site won't buy you much credibility. But
in any event, the number of atheists is totally unconnected with the
number who accept human evolution.
If you're into polls, here's one where "profeesional scientists"
(who you'd think favor evolution), were polled.
"According to the poll of professional scientists, over
one-fifth-20.6 percent-completely reject evolution. Less than
half of the scientists-48.3 percent-believe that it is even
possible for man to have evolved from lower forms without
supernatural intervention". February 1988 issue "Industrial
Chemist"
And we've determined in prior discussions that this trade publication
poll was as invalid and irrelevant as the nincompoop's polls on
shipping Jews to Madagascar.
But repeating old lies is natural for you, as a servant of the Prince
of Liars.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (3/8) |
05 Aug 2003 11:07:30 AM |
|
|
In article <3euuivock075g40cpjn0dbckl2rn59jlmn@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
<
<Jd <jday123@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<>>>> I mean I actually saw that evidence with
<>>>>my own eyes. Yet you guys believe men came from apes based on
<>>>>exactly zero evidence. Why the double standard?
<>>>
<>>>We have mountains of evidence that people like you refuse to look at.
<>
<>Not only me. You do realize that somewhere between 80-95% of N.
<>Americans call themselves Christians don't you?
<
<Most of whom have no trouble with evolution. Note that the largest
<denomination of them are your "godmother worshippers" that YOU said
<within the last 24 hours aren't really Christian.
<
<>Notice that down
<>the list below, you'll find that only .6% of the entire
<>population is atheistic.
<
<Quoting the nincompoop's web site won't buy you much credibility. But
<in any event, the number of atheists is totally unconnected with the
<number who accept human evolution.
<
<>If you're into polls, here's one where "profeesional scientists"
<>(who you'd think favor evolution), were polled.
<>
<>"According to the poll of professional scientists, over
<>one-fifth—20.6 percent—completely reject evolution. Less than
<>half of the scientists—48.3 percent—believe that it is even
<>possible for man to have evolved from lower forms without
<>supernatural intervention". February 1988 issue "Industrial
<>Chemist"
<
<And we've determined in prior discussions that this trade publication
<poll was as invalid and irrelevant as the nincompoop's polls on
<shipping Jews to Madagascar.
Heh. Not to mention that their statistical universe was those
people who were motivated enough to mail in their responses.
As scientific as you average horoscope.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (4/8) |
09 Aug 2003 06:19:17 AM |
|
|
Joni Rathbun wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Jd wrote:
that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad
the earth by myself"
And the Greek myths claim another thing, and the Egyptian stories say
that Geb built the world.
All stories.
If we assume that the Patriarchs on lived 50 standard years, the Earth
is inside the Sun's Roche limit, and is torn apart by tidal forces.
No need to assume. We have their ages on record.
I speaking in terms of your "shorter years" theory. Working on the
idea that the Earth was circling the sun faster.
This event never happened. As others have pointed out, this myth
predates NASA by dozens of years.
Obviously, the new age hindus and other pagans have refined and
re-refined this into something called an "urban legend" which it
isn't since I've never heard it before.
Ah, so the entire universe must be vetted by you perssonally? Tell
me, do MASCONs exited under the lunar maria yet? Or do we need to
explain it to you.
I first encountered the "NASA discovers the missing day" story in the
mid-70s in a book of Urban Legends. It was, I believe "The Mexican
Pet", a great book on the subject of ULs. At that point, computers
were a subject of some mystery, so the idea of a computer trumping the
mortal scintists was quite popular among Christians afraid of the
modern world.
Do you think it's a mere coincidence WRT the Fed having named
one of their satellite systems for monitoring global weather...
NOAH? I routinely download from GOES which is what made me think
of that. Of course that name was probably derived way back in a
time before Christians began spawning urban legends to trick
pagans and keep them in fear.
What do you think of the fact that the 've named orbital observatories
after scinetists? Or that there is an asteroid named after Jerry
Garcia!
Tell me.. what exactly does NOAH do?
No. I think we should make churches pay taxes like everyone else and
use that money to advance science education.
I think that for all the work I've put into theses posts that you
guys should be voluntarily sending me your tithes. Call it a
"faith based initiative" and Uncle Sam might even sponser me to
collect your money.
I'd rather put out a contact on priests who molest children.
Good point. It's a shame how those homosexuals slipped into
churches to prey on helpless children ain't it?
Gosh, which homosexuals would those be? Pedophile, as most people
know, is not a synonym for homosexual. Nor does homosexuality explain
the many cases of priests molesting girls. Guess you don't think
the male/female molestations and rapes count. Kobe Bryant would
be delighted to have you on his jury.
Sounds as if you're making a distiction between Sodomites and
pedomites. Do you think pedophiles should have the same legal
benetfits as Sodomites? Apparently they did in Sodom and
Gomorrah.
Genesis 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city,
even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and
young, all the people from every quarter:
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer
that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA & The Bible (4/8) |
| | | | | | |
