| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2003 04:26:02 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe" and
the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis]
1-2."suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous
"kind," as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses,
the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation
myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis.
Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who
was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the
Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the
events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6)
land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons
beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts,
mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this
order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box,
and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first
try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the
foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere
is not realistic.
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there,
knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the
appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living
organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical reactions
relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced that
this could happen? .Then again scientist has ran with tail between legs at
the abiogenesis quandry.
.
|
|
| User: "Eugene Kent" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
14 Sep 2003 05:03:44 PM |
|
|
" Of much greater interest to the Babylonians were the more esoteric
matters. They questioned as to how the universe was constituted, how the
world began tom take shape and what the relationship between heaven and
earth . The most important text about these things was the Creation Epic,
known in Babylonian as ENUMA ELISH, literally
'when above heaven had not yet been named,
when below earth had not yet been named.
It is a grandiose account which sets out from the unknown primeval chaos and
proceeds to the organization of the Babylonian world on a cosmic pattern .
It is the god Marduk, offspring of the third generation of gods, the son of
Ea, who takes on the task of creating the universe. He separates the
primordially mingled waters into sweet underground ocean and the salt sea.
He then sets outs the cosmic regions assigned to the gods Anu ( the upper
heaven ), Enlil ( the lower heaven and earth) and Ea ( the subterranean
region of Apsu) and arranges the position of the stars, sun, and moon which
provides the calendrical reconding of time. He creates the sources of fresh
water, rain and the rivers Tigris and Euphrates.The base material of
creation is the anthropomorphic vast body of Tiamat, the female of the
primordial pair of gods who had tried to stop the diversification of the
universe. Man is made from the blood of a rebellious and slain god, imbued
with divine breath, for the express purpose to relieve the gods from the
labor of maintaining the world. Marduk rewards himself for his triumph with
the creation of Babylon, 'the home of the Great Gods' and his sanctuary. The
poem concludes with the recitation of a hundred names.
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Kig8b.1019849$Bf5.146081@news.easynews.com...
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth
has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe"
and
the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis]
1-2."suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any
previous
"kind," as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished
Moses,
the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation
myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in
Genesis.
Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who
was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the
Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of
the
events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6)
land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and
seasons
beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame
beasts,
mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this
general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this
order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box,
and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your
first
try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the
foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from
somewhere
is not realistic.
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there,
knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the
appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living
organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical
reactions
relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced
that
this could happen? .Then again scientist has ran with tail between legs at
the abiogenesis quandry.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
12 Sep 2003 09:08:33 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote
news:<Kig8b.1019849$Bf5.146081@news.easynews.com>
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe" and
the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis]
1-2."suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous
"kind," as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses,
the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation
myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis.
Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who
was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the
Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the
events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning;
There is no evidence whatsoever that there ever was a true beginning.
We do not know if *this* universe was a beginning or is merely another
stage in a process or cycle. Deal with it.
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
Earth never was in darkness. The sun was shining before Earth
effectively came to be. Deal with it.
(3) light;
That's what you need, because all is evidently dark in your brain.
(4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land;
When 92% of Earth's habitat is aquatic and some 70% of its surface is
water-covered, how do you figure the math on this one? please do
enlighten us O fount of all wisdom....
land plants;
In the wrong order. Deal with it.
(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse,
In the wrong order. Deal with it.
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts,
mammals; (10) man.
in the wrong order. Deal with it.
Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order.
Lie. Deal with it.
What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this
order?
100% given the evidence. Deal with it.
[Rest of Jabriol *****(TM) snipped]
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution per se, so before you
blather more lies, ***** and assininity, you need to catch up on
your previous moronic efforts first.
Define and detail what the "colossal holes" are in the Theory of
Evolution. I have been waiting for weeks for you to list them, ever
since you plagiarised Booker's article from two decades ago.
Can you or can you not detail these colossal holes? If you can, then
do so, right here in this thread, which I will monitor. If you
cannot, then admit that you are doing nothing but spreading lies with
your clueless posts on evolution.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
12 Sep 2003 05:25:23 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Kig8b.1019849$Bf5.146081@news.easynews.com...
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth
has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe"
and
the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis]
1-2."suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any
previous
"kind," as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished
Moses,
the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation
myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in
Genesis.
Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who
was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the
Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of
the
events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6)
land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and
seasons
beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame
beasts,
mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this
general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this
order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box,
and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your
first
try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the
foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from
somewhere
is not realistic.
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there,
knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the
appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living
organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical
reactions
relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced
that
this could happen? .Then again scientist has ran with tail between legs at
the abiogenesis quandry.
What are the chances of a fruit fly guessing the earth is round?
--
:"Everythin's better with DoFunny on it."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
12 Sep 2003 07:30:36 PM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" wrote:
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Kig8b.1019849$Bf5.146081@news.easynews.com...
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth
has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe"
and
the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis]
1-2."suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any
previous
"kind," as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished
Moses,
the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation
myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in
Genesis.
Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who
was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the
Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of
the
events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6)
land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and
seasons
beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame
beasts,
mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this
general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this
order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box,
and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your
first
try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the
foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from
somewhere
is not realistic.
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there,
knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the
appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living
organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical
reactions
relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced
that
this could happen? .Then again scientist has ran with tail between legs at
the abiogenesis quandry.
What are the chances of a fruit fly guessing the earth is round?
===>Do you mean circular or spherical?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Kent" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
14 Sep 2003 05:05:09 PM |
|
|
A better chance than a human could.
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:nah8b.136$UN4.36@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Kig8b.1019849$Bf5.146081@news.easynews.com...
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it
is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth
has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe"
and
the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis]
1-2."suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any
previous
"kind," as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished
Moses,
the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation
myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in
Genesis.
Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone
who
was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the
Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of
the
events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a
beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and
water;
(3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land;
(6)
land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and
seasons
beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame
beasts,
mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this
general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this
order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a
box,
and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your
first
try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the
foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from
somewhere
is not realistic.
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was
there,
knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes
the
appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living
organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical
reactions
relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced
that
this could happen? .Then again scientist has ran with tail between legs
at
the abiogenesis quandry.
What are the chances of a fruit fly guessing the earth is round?
--
:"Everythin's better with DoFunny on it."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
13 Sep 2003 05:38:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:26:02 GMT the ET form known as
jabriol<jabriol@Neogenesis.net> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe" and
the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis]
1-2."suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous
"kind," as required by the evolution theory.
<rest of dribble snipped>
Back to the old bozo bin with Jabs.
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
12 Sep 2003 03:10:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:26:02 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
wrote:
Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order.
No, it doesn't, as has been pointed out to you before. Thanks for
playing, Jabbers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
12 Sep 2003 07:29:38 PM |
|
|
jabriol wrote:
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe" and
the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis]
1-2."suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous
"kind," as required by the evolution theory.
===>What about the plural ELOHIM and "Let us create"???
Does that no reflect polytheistic origins?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
12 Sep 2003 07:52:42 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3F6264F2.F25A8F04@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
jabriol wrote:
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it
is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth
has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe"
and
the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis]
1-2."suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any
previous
"kind," as required by the evolution theory.
===>What about the plural ELOHIM and "Let us create"???
Does that no reflect polytheistic origins?
point.. God wasnot talking to himself... therefore he has to be talking to
somebody. This show there were more than one doing the terraforming.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
16 Sep 2003 06:25:43 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<uTt8b.1053223$Bf5.150804@news.easynews.com>
I notice that you are studiously avoiding responding to my answers to
your posts. That means you are very smart - or fearful of having your
butt seriously whipped.
It is also called cowardice. You repeatedly post blatant lies about
topics you have only the haziest grasp of, and then run away when
someone reveals your lies.
Jabriol has proved evolution. He has evolved into a chicken.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
16 Sep 2003 10:13:26 PM |
|
|
Yawn!!!
do a google search on Budikkka..
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309161525.3b34f6fc@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<uTt8b.1053223$Bf5.150804@news.easynews.com>
I notice that you are studiously avoiding responding to my answers to
your posts. That means you are very smart - or fearful of having your
butt seriously whipped.
It is also called cowardice. You repeatedly post blatant lies about
topics you have only the haziest grasp of, and then run away when
someone reveals your lies.
Jabriol has proved evolution. He has evolved into a chicken.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Jon Hattan Terraforming Observer |
20 Sep 2003 02:01:43 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<qjQ9b.4456126$mA4.625996@news.easynews.com>...
Yawn!!!
do a google search on Budikkka..
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309161525.3b34f6fc@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<uTt8b.1053223$Bf5.150804@news.easynews.com>
I notice that you are studiously avoiding responding to my answers to
your posts. That means you are very smart - or fearful of having your
butt seriously whipped.
It is also called cowardice. You repeatedly post blatant lies about
topics you have only the haziest grasp of, and then run away when
someone reveals your lies.
Once again Jabriol The Liar side-steps the issue. I ask for weeks,
for a list and a definition of each of these colossal holes, and
Jabriol thinks I should have somehow seen his repsonse which was not
posted to *any of the challenges I posted*, but put under a
*misspelled* name in a different thread, which he then expects me to
go find!
You have excelled yourself in demonstrating that there is no depth of
cluelessness that you cannot descend to, given half a mind - which is
all you are apparently equipped with.
Well, guess what, I looked up some of the ***** in that series.
Much of it that the search returned was irrelevent, and not a single
one evidenced anything even remotely approaching a "colossal hole".
On short, I am still waiting.
**All** of it, without exception, consisted entirely of argument from
incredulity. Not a shred of whining was supported with any evidence
whatsoever - this from the arrogant imbecile who insists (rather
inaccurately) that the talk-origins archive isn't peer-reviewed! It
wasn't even your own incredulity from which you were arguing! All of
your material is plagiarised, some without even a remote attempt at
attribution, from antiquated articles from obscure newspapers,
creationist web sites or cheesey-***** books.
Where is *your* peer-reviewed argument, posted in standard science
journals, that casts serious doubt on the Theory of Wvolution?
Alternately, where is similar argument supportive of a better
explanation than the one evolution offers?
Oh that's right, you have none.
Here it is again:
Jabriol has proved evolution. He has evolved into a chicken.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
