| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
12 Mar 2005 07:07:47 PM |
| Object: |
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65
This is the tenth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
56.
Our DNA since Noah
The Genesis flood story makes it clear that Bible writers thought the
flood was global and took place only a few thousand years ago. There
have always been local or small regional floods, many of which leave
traces in the geologic and fossil record. For example, at the
beginning of the Cretaceous period, much of central North America as
far north as Colorado was flooded by what is now called the Gulf of
Mexico, when sea levels rose. One of the evidences of this is 1500
foot-thick beds of limestone in Texas. Traces of a local flood have
been uncovered by archaeologists in the Middle East. There is evidence
of all kinds of flooding in the geologic record, including very
short-lived flash floods, but there's no evidence whatsoever to support
a year-long global flood to be found anywhere on (or under) the Earth.
So there was never a global flood. Such a thing is prohibited by the
laws of physics. But let's pretend, for a few minutes, that such a
flood happened. The Bible makes it clear that it cannot have been
earlier than around 10K years ago since the Bible also makes it clear
that the reason for the flood was human sin. This means the flood
could not possibly have occurred 4.5 billion years ago as some assinine
message posters have brainlessly tried to maintain.
According to Genesis, some god so repented his design flaws in humanity
(or his lack of omnisicence) that he decided to flood the planet to
flush it clean of all humanity - except for Noah and crew. This means
the flood cannot have been before there were humans who had language,
culture, and a certain level of civilization. These things have
happened only in the last 10K years or so. And the Biblical chronology
seems to nail down the time of the flood to somewhere around 4,300
years ago.
There only were eight survivors, four guys and their wives (despite
their being literally the womb of humanity in this story, not one of
the wives is named). Both Noah and his wife were (presumably)
genetically related to three of the others.
Humanity was considered to be on the verge of extinction when our
numbers dropped below 10,000, and perhaps as low as 2,000 people some
70K years ago according to an article on the BBC's website in June
2003. So how could we have recovered from a population of only 8?!
When our numbers plummeted, our genome loaded up on mutations that
would have been eliminated if populations had been higher, according to
another BBC article last January. How could we have survived that
starting form so few individuals?
The problem here for those who think there's a god is that there's too
much genetic variation in modern humans to have originated from only
eight people some 4,300 years ago.
According to an article in December 1993 Scientific American
(http://tinyurl.com/4qx9k), one of our genes (HLA-DRB1) has 59 alleles.
Each of us can have only two alleles of any one gene - one from mom,
one from dad. The most that the ark-o-nauts could have had between
them would be 16 (in practice less than that since some of them were
related, but let's grant the whole 16). 16 from 59 leaves 43.
Somehow, the human race has acquired 43 new alleles of this one gene
alone in only 4,300 years. That's "one good mutation" every 100 years!
And there are many other alleles of many other genes to consider.
No, it never happened. The story is critically flawed. Since it is so
a crucial story to claims for the existence of god and his relationship
with humanity, this means the whole concept of god is also flawed.
57.
One thing the Bible writers never considered was evolution. They
understood everything to have been created recently (geologically
speaking) and in the same form it has today. There was no fossil
record for them. They thought god directly created and maintained the
world. Including birds and their singing. But once again they're
shown to be wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4271511.stm
reveals that birds were not created all pre-programmed to sing for our
pleasure. Birds have to learn the ropes just like human children do.
So how did the Bible writers get their mistaken information? Was it
handed down to them from a god, and they were divinely inspired to pass
on these immortal mistruths to succeeding generations? Or is there
truthfully no god at all, and all the Bible writers were trying to do
is make sense of a vast, impersonal, confusing universe with too little
data to judge competently?
58.
While on the subject of bird brains and creationists in general (did I
phrase that ambiguously?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4286965.stm
reveals that birds develop novel feeding behaviors. No - that doesn't
mean they read a novel while they're enjoying a meal, it means they are
inventive, and it offers somewhat of a means to judge relative
intelligence of birds.
Some of the feeding behaviors are quite interesting - such as vultures
who hang out close to minefields so that they can enjoy a ground meat
meal when some animal wanders cluelessly into the minefield and blows
itself up (rather like when creationists wander mindlessly into the
Theory of Evolution with similar results).
Another observation was the great skua (this is a bird) which joined
seal pups feeding on the milk from their mother for a free meal (rather
like creationists who can't think for themselves but feed off the
websites of other creationists who are equally clueless).
Is this really evidence of some great god's divine scheme? Or is it
evidence that there is no god and organisms are going to evolve and
develop as best they can without benefit of any divine plan?
59.
(or #9 revisited)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/02/21/spark.shark/index.html
reveals that "An Australian company has developed technology that
intends to protect divers and surfers from being attacked by sharks
while they are in the water...The Shark Shield takes advantage of this
[shark feeding behavior] by emitting a much stronger pulse of
electricity. The battery-operated device is switched on when the diver
or surfer enters the water and the electrical current is generated
continuously. The current causes intense discomfort to the shark and,
as a result, they leave the area."
But according to the Bible, we are supposed to have dominion over the
animals. The word is used twice in Genesis 1. It literally means to
tread-down or subjugate. If that was true, why is it that 6,000 years
later (according to Bible chronology), we're still trying to find a way
to prevent sharks having dominon over us?
Clearly the Bible writers were making up this story of a god. Clearly
there is no god.
60.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4285235.stm
Three weeks or so ago, "Doctors...operated successfully to remove a
second head from a 10-month-old baby.
Manar Maged was originally one of conjoined identical twins, but her
sister failed to develop in the womb. "
What was god thinking when he permitted this to happen? Why is his
"design" so flawed and why weren't the anti-abortion dipshits all over
it? Surely such a surgery was against god's will?
Or is it just that there is no god, no divine plan, no perfect
creation, just mistakes of nature and Bible writers too clueless and
inexperienced to grasp that they were out of their depth when they
invented this puny, amateur, childish god?
61,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3955719.stm
Did some god really design cells so poorly that they can so readily run
amok with cancer?
Or is it more likely that there is no god and these cells are just
doing the best they can with what undirected nature has given them?
It gets worse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4257783.stm
reveals that scientists (not religion or prayer) have discovered that
the HIV virus (suitably modified) could be used to fight cancer! Does
this mean that the fundies who have been insisting for years that HIV
is a punishment for homosexuality are going to jump ship now and say
this proves their god's wisdom - that he sent us HIV to fight the
cancer his poor cell design caused?
How can there be a god that can create such poorly equipped followers?
62a.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4314859.stm
It turns out that "Massaging small babies with sunflower seed oil is a
cheap and easy way to protect them against infections".
Why is it that we even need to protect innocent newborns against
infection?
Is it because of original sin, or is it nothing more than the simple
fact that bacteria and viruses created, according to theists, by a
benevolent god, are the biggest killers on the planet?
In the western world, we don't have to worry so much about infection,
because science (not prayer or religion) is so good at preserving life
that sunflower seed oil can't contribute a whole heck of a lot. In
fact, science has become so good at this that fundamentalists are
forced to focus on another aspect of science - our ability to carry out
abortions without risking the life of the mother.
These mindless dipshits fuss over the abortion rate in the western
world. Yet not one of them pays any attention to the appalling death
rate in the so-called Third World.
Why is this?
Is it because *those* babies are a bit browner than western babies and
"therefore" harder to see? Or is it that these hypocrites don't want
attention focused on the *fact* that not only is there not a shred of
condemnation in the Bible for abortion, but that this god of theirs
murders children (actual living, breathing children, who are
independent of their mothers as opposed to indiscriminate masses of
cells in a womb) in the Third World at rates far higher than abortion
clinics terminate pregnancies?
Yes, in the Third World, mortality rates are far higher, despite prayer
and religion being common.
Why is this?
Does god hate those people?
Or is there no god and your mortality rate (just like the religion you
likely adopt) is nothing more than an accident of geography?
62b.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4318131.stm
reveals that measles **DEATHS** have fallen by almost 40% over the last
five years. Deaths. From measles, a disease that we pretty much
ignore in the west these days because we're so good at fighting it.
But even in 2003, there was a death-a-minute from measles.
Why don't the right to lifers get up in arms about this?
Because they're hypocrites. These deaths occur in nations where the
babies are brown and why would right-to-lifers care about those when
they can show a picture of an aborted white fetus and make news?
According to the article, "It costs less than $1 to immunise a child
with the measles vaccine."
Prayer won't prevent or cure measles. Religion won't do it. A vaccine
will.
Why doesn't a god do something about this? If this god so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten son, why is he letting so many
other sons and daughters die?
Or is there no god at all, just an impotent myth that keeps frightened
children (most of whom are adults) feeling safe in their beds at night?
63.
Here's something you can get your teeth into:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4279005.stm
It discusses teeth and evolution and how we have too many of the former
to fit into our jaw becuase of the latter.
Does this show some sort of intelligent design, or does it show
evolution proceeding in fits and starts of opportunism without any plan
or divine guidance?
Once again the theists are trying to force us to accept their invented
god no matter how stupid this god is.
64.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4329629.stm
reveals that "Whale, dolphin and porpoise strandings have doubled in
the UK over the last 10 years".
According to the IDiots, this has to be yet one more example of
intellgent design! What else could it be? Surely no god would ever
have designed oceanic mammals so poorly that they would commit suicide.
What kind of moral example is that to set?
Clearly there is some divine porpoise being revealed here. Did I say
porpoise? Sorry, purpose! Or maybe it *is* porpoise! Maybe Christ,
2,000-some years late, is finally arriving for his second coming. As a
dolphin.
65.
And while we're on the topic of marine mammals, what about those
whales? Why would a god design air-breathing organisms and then
condemn them to the sea? What could be more cruel than that? If
you're going to design a whale and confine it to the ocean, make it
breath like a fish, for goodness sake.
Either that or there is no god and nothing but undirected evolution
"designed" the whale et al.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
14 Mar 2005 05:56:31 AM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2005 17:07:47 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65
This is the tenth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
56.
Our DNA since Noah
The Genesis flood story makes it clear that Bible writers thought the
flood was global and took place only a few thousand years ago.
No, bud, you are the one wrapped up in that mistake.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
14 Mar 2005 08:27:11 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7uua319dmflp034lqe4eg23ovojvjmu7n0@4ax.com...
On 12 Mar 2005 17:07:47 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65
This is the tenth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
56.
Our DNA since Noah
The Genesis flood story makes it clear that Bible writers thought the
flood was global and took place only a few thousand years ago.
No, bud, you are the one wrapped up in that mistake.
duke
No Puke, the vast majority of creationists believe this. Gee whiz Earl, I
gave you credit for at least a portion of a brain and then you go and
disappoint me this way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
14 Mar 2005 05:50:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:27:11 -0500, "Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Our DNA since Noah
The Genesis flood story makes it clear that Bible writers thought the
flood was global and took place only a few thousand years ago.
No, bud, you are the one wrapped up in that mistake.
No Puke, the vast majority of creationists believe this.
And bud.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
15 Mar 2005 07:53:58 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eo8c31hv9g84ci7vbmkbsli6vf301rrgph@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:27:11 -0500, "Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Our DNA since Noah
The Genesis flood story makes it clear that Bible writers thought the
flood was global and took place only a few thousand years ago.
No, bud, you are the one wrapped up in that mistake.
No Puke, the vast majority of creationists believe this.
And bud.
Don't think so, *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
14 Mar 2005 06:55:42 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:27:11 -0500, "Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Our DNA since Noah
The Genesis flood story makes it clear that Bible writers thought
the
flood was global and took place only a few thousand years ago.
No, bud, you are the one wrapped up in that mistake.
No Puke, the vast majority of creationists believe this.
And bud.
Another lie. Actually it was lie #6 in the 16 lies I documented at
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx before I gave up because you've flat out told
too many to document them all. But I think 16 is plenty to show that
you are indeed a pathetic and worthless little liar.
And as usual, you've admitted this lie by admitting that the Bible does
indeed show a 6,000 year chronology and the ficitonal global flood was
indeed - **BY THE BIBLE'S OWN CHRONOLOGY YOU IGNORAMUS** some 4,300
years ago.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
15 Mar 2005 05:54:29 AM |
|
|
On 14 Mar 2005 16:55:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
And as usual, you've admitted this lie by admitting that the Bible does
indeed show a 6,000 year chronology and the ficitonal global flood was
indeed - **BY THE BIBLE'S OWN CHRONOLOGY YOU IGNORAMUS** some 4,300
years ago.
Nope.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
15 Mar 2005 07:54:17 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:j6jd31ptf7pqru6ov5kqrsu20jltfcj434@4ax.com...
On 14 Mar 2005 16:55:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
And as usual, you've admitted this lie by admitting that the Bible does
indeed show a 6,000 year chronology and the ficitonal global flood was
indeed - **BY THE BIBLE'S OWN CHRONOLOGY YOU IGNORAMUS** some 4,300
years ago.
Nope.
Yep.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
15 Mar 2005 09:19:02 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On 14 Mar 2005 16:55:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
And as usual, you've admitted this lie by admitting that the Bible
does
indeed show a 6,000 year chronology and the ficitonal global flood
was
indeed - **BY THE BIBLE'S OWN CHRONOLOGY YOU IGNORAMUS** some 4,300
years ago.
Nope.
Duck ***** thinks he can refute a fact by simply denying it. But then
he's a blind, gullible believer. Why would he even imagine he needs to
prove his claims - or at least provide evidence sufficient to satisfy a
judge?
You're just like a little boy, aren't you, Puke? But that's yet
another myth, because in reality you're nothing but a pathetic,
worn-out old man who's going down and going down hard.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 07:58:54 PM |
|
|
On 15 Mar 2005 19:19:02 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
PUKE LIED:
On 14 Mar 2005 16:55:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
And as usual, you've admitted this lie by admitting that the Bible
does
indeed show a 6,000 year chronology and the ficitonal global flood
was
indeed - **BY THE BIBLE'S OWN CHRONOLOGY YOU IGNORAMUS** some 4,300
years ago.
Nope.
Duck ***** thinks he can refute a fact by simply denying it. But then
he's a blind, gullible believer. Why would he even imagine he needs to
prove his claims - or at least provide evidence sufficient to satisfy a
judge?
I'm much more intelligent than you, bud.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
17 Mar 2005 06:22:27 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
I'm much more intelligent than you, bud.
,
Your stupidity is proven by how many times I've asked you the simplest
of questions, and you've run away. Anyone with even a shred of smarts
would have given an answer and rebutted my statements.
Your stupidity is amplified by how many times I've asked you to provide
even a slvier of support for your stupid-***** unsupported claims, and
you've run away. Anyone with even a shred of smarts would never have
said things he had no hope of ever beign able to support.
That's how there came to be FIFTY questions, fuckwit. Not stolen from
anywhere, as you've repeatedly conceded, but generated by your
cowardice, you fuckless *****.
And now you've dug yourself the deepest hole of all. You recklessly
libeled me with not a shred of evidence to support your lie. Now
you're for it and it's coming at you like one of those Baton Rouge
diesel engines, Duke. You won't be able to lie to the judge, Duke, and
you won't be able to skip to another thread. You will be **REQUIRED**
to support your claim, and you will fail, and you will be found guilty,
and you *will* post an apology. Count on it, moron. And I'll be there
laughing at you.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
18 Mar 2005 12:49:55 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2005 16:22:27 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
And now you've dug yourself the deepest hole of all. You recklessly
libeled me with not a shred of evidence to support your lie. Now
you're for it and it's coming at you like one of those Baton Rouge
diesel engines, Duke. You won't be able to lie to the judge, Duke, and
you won't be able to skip to another thread. You will be **REQUIRED**
to support your claim, and you will fail, and you will be found guilty,
and you *will* post an apology. Count on it, moron. And I'll be there
laughing at you.
haahaahaahaahaa.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
18 Mar 2005 04:34:01 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On 17 Mar 2005 16:22:27 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
And now you've dug yourself the deepest hole of all. You recklessly
libeled me with not a shred of evidence to support your lie. Now
you're for it and it's coming at you like one of those Baton Rouge
diesel engines, Duke. You won't be able to lie to the judge, Duke,
and
you won't be able to skip to another thread. You will be
**REQUIRED**
to support your claim, and you will fail, and you will be found
guilty,
and you *will* post an apology. Count on it, moron. And I'll be
there
laughing at you.
haahaahaahaahaa.
You think you're safe on Newcastle Avenue? Your cowardice is
well-known, but your "anonymous" handle won't protect you from the law.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
14 Mar 2005 06:41:16 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On 12 Mar 2005 17:07:47 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Our DNA since Noah
The Genesis flood story makes it clear that Bible writers thought
the
flood was global and took place only a few thousand years ago.
No, bud, you are the one wrapped up in that mistake.
Well this is yet another in a long, long, tediously long line of
unsupported wild-***** assertions and lies on your part.
I opened a thread specifically for you to make your case on that score
and you...ran away like the lying cowardly hypocrite that you are.
It's a little late now to be farting around under the patently
transparent pretence that you have even the tiniest shred of
respectability left.
Out of nothing more than sheer cowardice you ran away and abandoned
your opportunity to make your case. Now it's time to put away your
pretence that you can conduct an adult-level discussion or that you can
actually support your stupid blather.
What you need to do is start working on your apology before a court of
law forces you to do it. Your mistaken belief that Internet anonymity
will protect you is going to be your downfall. You still over on
Newcastle, Earl?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
15 Mar 2005 05:59:33 AM |
|
|
On 14 Mar 2005 16:41:16 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
The Genesis flood story makes it clear that Bible writers thought
the flood was global and took place only a few thousand years ago.
No, bud, you are the one wrapped up in that mistake.
Well this is yet another in a long, long, tediously long line of
unsupported wild-***** assertions and lies on your part.
Nope. Nothing in the bible about the earth being 6000 years old.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
15 Mar 2005 05:26:05 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
Nope. Nothing in the bible about the earth being 6000 years old.
Only the most moronic of morons would continually walk into these
traps, but you are living proof that that is no limit to rank
stupidity. And here is proof that you lied:
1.
In thread "Evidence That Duke Can't Refute", message registered Sep 29
2004, 3:58pm in alt.atheism, you specifically said, "if one adds up all
the days "mentioned" in the bible, and assumes they are "24-hour" days,
then the sum is approximately 6000 years."
So you therefore did say precisely the same thing I've been saying all
along - that the reason the creationists insist that the Earth is only
6,000 years old is because Biblical Chronology asserts this.
2.
In thread "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke", message registered
Oct 4 2004, 3:52am in alt.atheism, you said: "Adding up the biblical
days mentioned in the bible, and the sum is approximately 6000 years."
I said: "I've been trying to get this admission out of you since
September 16th."
You responded: "I've been saying it for years."
Duke caught in yet another of his endless lies.
Once again Puke is shown to be a lying, hypocritical coward. Nothing
new here. Duck ***** will out.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 08:09:17 PM |
|
|
On 15 Mar 2005 15:26:05 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
PUKE LIED:
Nope. Nothing in the bible about the earth being 6000 years old.
Only the most moronic of morons would continually walk into these
traps, but you are living proof that that is no limit to rank
stupidity. And here is proof that you lied:
1.
In thread "Evidence That Duke Can't Refute", message registered Sep 29
2004, 3:58pm in alt.atheism, you specifically said, "if one adds up all
the days "mentioned" in the bible, and assumes they are "24-hour" days,
then the sum is approximately 6000 years."
Yes siree, I did truly say that.
So you therefore did say precisely the same thing I've been saying all
along - that the reason the creationists insist that the Earth is only
6,000 years old is because Biblical Chronology asserts this.
Actually, bud, I've been saying it before you.
In thread "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke", message registered
Oct 4 2004, 3:52am in alt.atheism, you said: "Adding up the biblical
days mentioned in the bible, and the sum is approximately 6000 years."
Yep, I've been saying that for a long time.
I said: "I've been trying to get this admission out of you since
September 16th."
You responded: "I've been saying it for years."
Yep, I've been saying that for years.
Duke caught in yet another of his endless lies.
?????? Bud, you're a weird plagiarist.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
17 Mar 2005 05:25:52 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On 15 Mar 2005 15:26:05 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
PUKE LIED:
Nope. Nothing in the bible about the earth being 6000 years old.
Only the most moronic of morons would continually walk into these
traps, but you are living proof that that is no limit to rank
stupidity. And here is proof that you lied:
1.
In thread "Evidence That Duke Can't Refute", message registered Sep
29
2004, 3:58pm in alt.atheism, you specifically said, "if one adds up
all
the days "mentioned" in the bible, and assumes they are "24-hour"
days,
then the sum is approximately 6000 years."
Yes siree, I did truly say that.
So you therefore did say precisely the same thing I've been saying
all
along - that the reason the creationists insist that the Earth is
only
6,000 years old is because Biblical Chronology asserts this.
Actually, bud, I've been saying it before you.
In thread "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke", message
registered
Oct 4 2004, 3:52am in alt.atheism, you said: "Adding up the biblical
days mentioned in the bible, and the sum is approximately 6000
years."
Yep, I've been saying that for a long time.
I said: "I've been trying to get this admission out of you since
September 16th."
You responded: "I've been saying it for years."
Yep, I've been saying that for years.
Duck ***** admits he's a liar and he's too fundamentally stupid to even
grasp it. I'll bookmark this. Then I'll have my lawyer send you your
final warning.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
18 Mar 2005 12:53:00 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2005 15:25:52 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Duck ***** admits he's a liar and he's too fundamentally stupid to even
grasp it. I'll bookmark this. Then I'll have my lawyer send you your
final warning.
Budikka
Get your butt out of the cactus, bud.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
18 Mar 2005 04:29:39 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On 17 Mar 2005 15:25:52 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Duck ***** admits he's a liar and he's too fundamentally stupid to
even
grasp it. I'll bookmark this. Then I'll have my lawyer send you
your
final warning.
Budikka
Get your butt out of the cactus, bud.
You seem overly fond of my butt, Dukey-wookie, but the butt you need to
concern yourself with is yours, and how to get it out of the tight
sling it's in. If you don't apologize, you're going down hard and not
even your mythical god can help you.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
15 Mar 2005 06:05:01 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
Nothing in the bible about the earth being 6000 years old.
Once again, duke shows that he hasn't read his Bible.
According to the Bible, Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1
Chronicles 1:1), and adding the figures in the biblical genealogies
yields a date of about 6,000 years ago for Adam's creation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
15 Mar 2005 10:26:24 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
duke wrote:
Nothing in the bible about the earth being 6000 years old.
Once again, duke shows that he hasn't read his Bible.
According to the Bible, Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1
Chronicles 1:1), and adding the figures in the biblical genealogies
yields a date of about 6,000 years ago for Adam's creation.
This has been pointed out to Puke repeatedly, I have gone over this
with the loser repeatedly.
He is either liar, quite lterally a troll.
Or he is a truely stuid man, ineductable,
unable to think at a second grade level
Indeed, the biblical geneologies give us a world that is 6,000
years old, an for many years. Churches argued this literal 6,000
year old world was true.
They only stopped when data accumulated by people like
Hutton and Lyle made it a sure bet that this was simply not so.
It is still an article of faith among milliions of amazingly
ignorant american fundamentalists who mainly read nothing.
The problem is, this is indeed what the bible says is true.
And indeed it is not true. Which calls into question how this
got into the bible in the first place, ad what else is in
there that is obviously untrue.
Puke wishes to deny this is in the bible, when it is
because it shows that nonsense is indeed found in the
bible.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 05:39:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:26:24 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
According to the Bible, Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1
Chronicles 1:1), and adding the figures in the biblical genealogies
yields a date of about 6,000 years ago for Adam's creation.
This has been pointed out to Puke repeatedly, I have gone over this
with the loser repeatedly.
And it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that is nothing more than adding
up all the days/generations/genealogies up that are revealed in the bible, it
sums up to about 6000 years.
John 21:25 (New International Version)
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written
down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that
would be written.
Now apply that to the entirely of the bible, and think about it.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 04:18:05 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
And it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that is
nothing more than adding up all the days/generations/
genealogies up that are revealed in the bible, it
sums up to about 6000 years.
This after the hypocritical lying ***** posted the following in the
very same thread just a day or so before: "Nothing in the bible about
the earth being 6000 years old."
So which is your story today, Duck *****? That there's nothing in the
Bible about the Earth being 6K yrs old, or there's so much in the Bible
that it's readily possible to add up ages in genealogies and arrive at
6K yrs old?
So which is your story today, Duck *****? That the genealogies add up
to about 6K yrs old, and (for that reason and several others) the
non-existent flood had to have been, by Bible chronology, within the
last 4,500 years? Or that the flood was 4.5 billion years ago?
John 21:25 (New International Version)
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them
were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not
have room for the books that would be written.
Now apply that to the entirely of the bible, and think about it.
No, *****, *YOU* think about it. What's the key phrase in that
quote? Which part of the Bible did the quote come from? Let me answer
since it's been more than adequately demonstrated that the density of
your skull is akin to that of a black hole.
The key phrase is "Jesus did many other things..." and the sentence is
from the last gospel (that is the last one not thought too assinine to
throw out). This remark has to do solely with what this mythical Jesus
was supposed to have done, and nothing else. And the sentence itself
betrays the fact that this is fiction.
Duck ***** will out.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 08:05:19 PM |
|
|
On 16 Mar 2005 14:18:05 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
PUKE LIED:
And it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that is
nothing more than adding up all the days/generations/
genealogies up that are revealed in the bible, it
sums up to about 6000 years.
This after the hypocritical lying ***** posted the following in the
very same thread just a day or so before: "Nothing in the bible about
the earth being 6000 years old."
Still isn't. Too many years not mentioned.
So which is your story today, Duck *****? That there's nothing in the
Bible about the Earth being 6K yrs old, or there's so much in the Bible
that it's readily possible to add up ages in genealogies and arrive at
6K yrs old?
That's right - there's nothing in the bible about the earth being 6000 years
old.
So which is your story today, Duck *****? That the genealogies add up
to about 6K yrs old, and (for that reason and several others) the
non-existent flood had to have been, by Bible chronology, within the
last 4,500 years? Or that the flood was 4.5 billion years ago?
Sometime in the last 4.5 billion years, if there was one.
John 21:25 (New International Version)
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them
were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not
have room for the books that would be written.
Now apply that to the entirely of the bible, and think about it.
No, *****, *YOU* think about it. What's the key phrase in that
quote? Which part of the Bible did the quote come from? Let me answer
since it's been more than adequately demonstrated that the density of
your skull is akin to that of a black hole.
The key phrase is "Jesus did many other things..." and the sentence is
from the last gospel (that is the last one not thought too assinine to
throw out). This remark has to do solely with what this mythical Jesus
was supposed to have done, and nothing else. And the sentence itself
betrays the fact that this is fiction.
Wow, what a weird imagination.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
17 Mar 2005 05:29:47 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
And it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that is
nothing more than adding up all the days/generations/
genealogies up that are revealed in the bible, it
sums up to about 6000 years.
This after the hypocritical lying ***** posted the following in
the
very same thread just a day or so before: "Nothing in the bible
about
the earth being 6000 years old."
Still isn't. Too many years not mentioned.
Another unsupported LIE.
That's right - there's nothing in the bible about the earth being
6000 years
old.
Given that you just admitted you lied about this in another message in
this thread, you've served only to prove what everyone already knows:
you're a waste of a human being.
So which is your story today, Duck *****? That the genealogies add
up
to about 6K yrs old, and (for that reason and several others) the
non-existent flood had to have been, by Bible chronology, within the
last 4,500 years? Or that the flood was 4.5 billion years ago?
Sometime in the last 4.5 billion years, if there was one.
Another lie. How could it have been any time in the last 4.5 billion
years when the Bible clearly states there were humans alive at the time
of the flood? Have humans been on the planet for 4.5 billion years,
you stupid LIAR?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
18 Mar 2005 12:50:33 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2005 15:29:47 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Given that you just admitted you lied about this in another message in
this thread, you've served only to prove what everyone already knows:
you're a waste of a human being.
You're smoking bad weed, bud.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
18 Mar 2005 04:36:01 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On 17 Mar 2005 15:29:47 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Given that you just admitted you lied about this in another message
in
this thread, you've served only to prove what everyone already
knows:
you're a waste of a human being.
You're smoking bad weed, bud.
You're already legal trouble for the libeling me, and you think it's
the best thing for you to dig yourself deeper by starting a new lie
about drug use? That's what I would expect from someone as incompetent
and impotent as you.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 06:17:53 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:26:24 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
According to the Bible, Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1
Chronicles 1:1), and adding the figures in the biblical genealogies
yields a date of about 6,000 years ago for Adam's creation.
This has been pointed out to Puke repeatedly, I have gone over this
with the loser repeatedly.
And it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that is nothing more than adding
up all the days/generations/genealogies up that are revealed in the bible, it
sums up to about 6000 years.
Which, in God Years is 2,190,000 years. Noah was 600 years old when he
entered the Ark. Does that mean he was, in fact 219,000 years old? Or
maybe he was 1.64 years old? I don't know how the conversion rate works
with God. 1,000 years = 1 day or 1 day = 1,000 years? And does that
take into account inflation and discretionary spending? How does it
convert into Euros or Lira?
John 21:25 (New International Version)
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written
down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that
would be written.
Now apply that to the entirely of the bible, and think about it.
So, basically, Jesus had done many things. All could not be written
about. Is that right so far?
So, essentially, duke, what you're saying is that the Bible is an
incomplete book. Moses, Jesus, Noah, David, John, Daniel....all of them
are incomplete stories. So, you're basing your entire set of moral
ethics around a story fragment?
I guess that's okay.
"And then God said that to win eternal salvation, one must--" and the
story ends there. Sounds good to me. *rolls eyes* I hate it when they
cut off the story right before the climax. Ruins the whole story for me.
So, what happened during these not-written-about times? Did Jesus go on
a drunken bender with George W. Bush, causing him to smash his car into
a hedge? Did Noah time travel to the present day and is now that weirdo
in the park that makes newspaper boats and floats them on the lake? Did
David sell out to Nintendo for the role of Little Mac?
Oooh! Perhaps Moses went with Zaphod Beeblebrox to Magrathea and talk
with Slartibartfast! I can say anything I want about Christianity now!
There's no proof of any of this!
I'm excited now! Thanks duke! I'm going to party with Chris Rock and
Mary Magdalene now. :-) (She's got a thing for dark meat, y'know.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 08:00:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:17:53 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
And it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that is nothing more than adding
up all the days/generations/genealogies up that are revealed in the bible, it
sums up to about 6000 years.
Which, in God Years is 2,190,000 years.
Or 4.5 billion, if you believe the people that know.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 09:13:39 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:26:24 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
According to the Bible, Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1
Chronicles 1:1), and adding the figures in the biblical genealogies
yields a date of about 6,000 years ago for Adam's creation.
This has been pointed out to Puke repeatedly, I have gone over this
with the loser repeatedly.
And it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that is nothing more than
adding up all the days/generations/genealogies up that are revealed in the
bible, it sums up to about 6000 years.
Which it is exactly that, adding up the years.
This gives you a legth of time from Adam to the
present times.
Ypu being so stupid you can only be called retarded,
don't seem to grasp this fact, if you add these genologies up,
you end up with the world be claimed to be 6000 years old by
the bible.
Which we know full well is horse *****.
And thus that the Bible is laughably wrong.
And you are a proven, repeat, chronic idiot.
John 21:25 (New International Version)
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were
written
down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the
books that would be written.
Now apply that to the entirely of the bible, and think about it.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
