| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2007 08:37:39 AM |
| Object: |
Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
Since creationists and fundies will habitually lie, cheat and wriggle
their way out of anything, and since they're also fundamentally
ignorant, let me clarify some parameters here which apply to all
threads in this flood series in order to head off some of their
endless supply of excuses to avoid addressing the real issues in any
given thread.
Who believes in a young Earth, a literal flood, and a recent creation?
Not me. I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 or so years old and I
don't believe there was a global flood. The best available evidence
overwhelmingly and flatly denies it.
But literally millions of people do believe these things. Surveys and
polls show this:
31% of mainline...Catholics, respectively, accept the creationist
account:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=254
63% of Americans think the Bible is literally true:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43957
45% of Americans believe God created humans within the last 10,000
years:
http://creationwiki.org/Creationism
Almost half of Americans believe that humans were created by God in
the last 10,000 years:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2860171
That the Christian god created man pretty much in his present form at
one time within the last 10,000 years is believed by 47% of the
population:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
44-48% believe humans were directly created by a god within the last
10K years and 57% believe that the Biblical account of creation is
more llikely to be the correct origin of life on Earth
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Gallup polls show consistent results since 1982. God created people
in present form, 10,000 years ago:
1982 1991 1993 1997
45% 47% 47% 44%
http://tinyurl.com/36ulyb
"Bishop Adoyo [head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he
claims have 10 million followers] believes the world was created
12,000 years ago, with man appearing 6,000 years later."
http://tinyurl.com/2osmws
Almost a quarter of the 1000 respondents believed God made the world
in 6 days"
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4255
The numbers vary somewhat depending on what questions are asked, but
the responses consistently indicate that a huge number of people
beleive these things. So when I discuss a young Earth and talk about
the flood, I'm not espousing my view. Far from it. I'm arguing
against what the Bible and literally millions of people claim and
believe.
When did the flood take place?
According to that Holy Bible, this flood took place only a few
generations after Adam:
Adam 130 years to next generation
Seth 105
Enos 90
Kenan 70
Mahallalel 65
Jared 162
Enoch 65
Methusaleh 187
Lamech 182
Noah 600 - flood
So the flood arose 1,656 years after Adam did, which is about 4,350
years before the present - according to the chronology of Matthew and
Luke. That's not what *I* claim, but what the Bible expressly
states. So either the flood was around 4,300 or so years ago, or the
Bible plainly and simply lies either about the flood or about its
chronology.
Anyone who wants to claim that the flood took place at some other time
needs to support their claim with solid evidence and overturn the
Bible chronology in a logical and rational way.
How long did the flood last?
The flood story story has a palistrophic structure:
7 days waiting for the flood (Gen 7:4)
7 more days waiting for the flood (7:10)
40 days of rain (7:17)
150 days of rising water (7:24)
150 days of receding water (8:3)
40 days of waiting (8:6)
7 days waiting (8:10)
7 more days waiting (8:12)
This totals to 408 days. From the ark-onauts point of view, this
means the flood effectively lasted over a year. Counting from the
first rain until people and animals could actually leave the ark means
the flood itself confined them for 394 days. For rough calculations,
we can round it to 400 days.
400 days during which animals would have to be housed, cleaned and
fed.
Some 400 days that animals which purportedly survived the flood
*outside* the ark would have had to swim in brine or tread water.
Some 400 days in which all the plants and fungi we see today would
have had to survive being immersed in rather salty, dirty water,
hidden from sunlight.
Some 400 days during which seeds and spores would have had to survive
burial in salty mud under thousands of feet of water and then find
soil that hadn't been washed into the ocean depths, germninate,
sprout, grow and fruit to feed the survivors from the ark who by that
time would have consumed all the supplies they had taken onboard..
How deep was the water?
Genesis 7 explicitly declares that "... all the high hills, that were
under the whole heaven, were covered". The Bible makes it
categorically clear that the ark was needed to safeguard life. If the
flood had been a local/regional one, an ark would not have been needed
- Noah and the animals could simply have walked away to higher
ground. So the Bible declares that all land was covered, including
the mountains. Yes - the term used in Genesis 7 means a *mountain* or
range of hills and the Christian god's word amplifies this by
specifying that they were *high* hills/mountains. The impression that
the writers wished to convey was that of a catastrophic global flood.
The highest mountain (above sea level, that is, not as measured from
the center of Earth!) is Everest. If you accept the Bible story, you
have to also accept that, according to the Holy Word of God the flood
was recent and it rose to some five miles in depth. Unless you can
provide scientific evidence that mountains were markedly lower 5,000
or so years ago and Everest simply shot up on the last 4,000 years.
No one has ever offered any such science.
#51
Now that the parameters have been set, what's the issue here?
During this entire time (~400 days), the animals would have to be
housed, cleaned, and fed. What are the problems with that?
The short answer is myriad. For example, a guinea pig (cavy) eats at
least 30g of food per day. Multiplying this by 400 gives 12kg. Just
for one guinea pig to be able to eat on the ark. And if it were not
fed properly, it would develop scurvy since guinea pigs cannot
manufacture vitamin C (they share that genetic defect with humans).
Did Noah know this? How?
#52
Guinea pigs aren't the only animals which require a specialised diet.
Cats lack a desaturase enzyme used to create arachadonic acid, an
essential fatty acid, so they have to it from their diet. Cats don't
efficiently make vitamin D from sunlight and they cannot convert plant
matter (beta-carotene) to vitamin A, so they have to get both of these
vitamins directly from their diet: fresh meat. Did Noah know this?
How?
And just how much meat would have to be taken on board? A tiger eats
roughly 100 pounds of meat every 10 days or so. Even if we halved
this requirement (and multiplied by the 400 days on the ark), one
tiger alone would require some 2,000 pounds of fresh meat so it could
eat during the flood.
According to this Oregon zoo page:
http://www.oregonzoo.org/Animals/slideshow.htm
"The animals dine on as much as 250 tons of timothy hay, 35 tons of
alfalfa hay, 1.5 tons of shrimp, 15 tons of carrots, 22 tons of apples
and tons of other foods per year."
This is for only 1,000 or so animals at Oregon zoo. Even by the most
conservative estimate (see Why There Was No Flood - Item #38:
http://tinyurl.com/33htqq) there were some 15,000 animals on the ark!
Where did they get the food to feed them? How did they know which
foods for which animals? Where did they store the food?
#53
Noah took every animal and his mate - in other words, a breeding
pair. They were not young animals as some people try to claim.
#54
And a lot of these animals require special diets. Sea otters frolick
in the ocean so you can argue that they wouldn't need to be aboard the
ark, in which case they would probably drown after trying to stay
afloat for a year. But the real problem is that they eat shellfish.
How are they supposed to eat shellfish when the shellfish are buried
under five miles (the height of Everest) or 15,000 feet (the height of
Mount Ararat) or even 500 feet (the height of a high hill) of water?
#55
There are 11,000 species of butterflies and moths in North America,
148,000 worldwide. Some of them are tied to specific flowers for
food. Were any of these on the ark, or do creationists think they
survived the raging world-wide ocean floating on a leaf? If there
were only two of them on the ark - let's call them motherflies, how
did we get to almost 150,000 species now, without evolution?
In addition to not dying out, these two ark-surviving motherflies had
to generate some 30 new species per year in the 4,300 or so years
since (the Bible tells us) the flood killed everything. That's some
three new species every single month, every single year since Noah.
Why do we not see this rate of 'variation' today? How come it has
never been seen? Remember that this does not include any extinct
species, nor does it count individuals, but only actual new species.
And these people who *require* this evolution actually deny there is
any evolution?
#56
Not only did the animals have to be housed, they had to have room to
move. Many of them had to be exercised. They all had to be fed,
watered, and cleaned (in addition to the full-time job of bailing
water out of the boat. Who did this? Special diets meant fresh
eucalyptus for the koalas, fresh bamboo for the appallingly badly
"designed" panda, and so on. How did eight people manage this?
Who cleaned the cages, and where did they dispose of the waste? Was
it all shovelled through that tiny single window? If it was, then how
was there any room for fresh air to get in to the sweltering animals
inside, cowering down in pitch darkness with the massive ark creaking
and being tossed rampantly by the huge waves and winds on an unbroken
worldwide ocean?
Do you have any clue whatsoever as to what conditions would be like on
such an ark? How dark and hot it would be? How it would smell? How
awful it would be to be tossed around on an ocean with no motor, no
sail, no navigation, no idea how long you would be floating (or even
if you would float at all) or when you would ever see land again?
I have a scientific recommendation for all "Ark-eologists" - use some
of your evangelistic wealth to recreate that ark. put eight people
aboard, and fill it with animals, food, and clean water. Set sail
upon the Pacific for a year, and
see how you fare. You want creationism to be taken as a science?
There is your chance to prove it.
Budikka - creationism is the science of lying
.
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 10:15:44 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1172327859.604330.288610@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Brevity snip>
I have a scientific recommendation for all "Ark-eologists" - use some
of your evangelistic wealth to recreate that ark. put eight people
aboard, and fill it with animals, food, and clean water. Set sail
upon the Pacific for a year, and
see how you fare. You want creationism to be taken as a science?
There is your chance to prove it.
Budikka - creationism is the science of lying
It's easy for them to believe. They'll thump their bibles and claim it was a
MIRACLE. They have (an illogical) an answer for everything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "madam speaker master@arms" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 12:41:15 PM |
|
|
Many people think the difference between science and religion is that
science can 'prove' its case. In fact nothing could be further from the
truth. In principle, every scientific theory can be DISPROVEN, and that is
the essential difference. Religious tenets are accepted on faith and cannot
be disproven.
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45e064bb$0$26701$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1172327859.604330.288610@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Brevity snip>
I have a scientific recommendation for all "Ark-eologists" - use some
of your evangelistic wealth to recreate that ark. put eight people
aboard, and fill it with animals, food, and clean water. Set sail
upon the Pacific for a year, and
see how you fare. You want creationism to be taken as a science?
There is your chance to prove it.
Budikka - creationism is the science of lying
It's easy for them to believe. They'll thump their bibles and claim it was
a MIRACLE. They have (an illogical) an answer for everything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 12:59:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:41:15 -0800, "madam speaker" <master@arms> wrote:
Many people think the difference between science and religion is that
science can 'prove' its case. In fact nothing could be further from the
truth. In principle, every scientific theory can be DISPROVEN, and that is
the essential difference. Religious tenets are accepted on faith and cannot
be disproven.
And certainly the existence of God cannot be disproved, no matter how desperate
people like bud the dud try.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "madam speaker master@arms" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 01:37:48 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:em21u2ppcob4qruuqb290h6jtn2o7mffa0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:41:15 -0800, "madam speaker" <master@arms> wrote:
Many people think the difference between science and religion is that
science can 'prove' its case. In fact nothing could be further from the
truth. In principle, every scientific theory can be DISPROVEN, and that is
the essential difference. Religious tenets are accepted on faith and
cannot
be disproven.
And certainly the existence of God cannot be disproved, no matter how
desperate
people like bud the dud try.
duke, American-American
*****
Ignorance is invincible, so it's not worth trying. In the scifi novel Full
Circle by Michael Boyle, a pandemic wipes out most of humanity, but in the
last few chapters what do you think we bring back? Yes indeed, by all the
gods!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 01:38:59 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:em21u2ppcob4qruuqb290h6jtn2o7mffa0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:41:15 -0800, "madam speaker" <master@arms> wrote:
Many people think the difference between science and religion is that
science can 'prove' its case. In fact nothing could be further from the
truth. In principle, every scientific theory can be DISPROVEN, and that is
the essential difference. Religious tenets are accepted on faith and
cannot
be disproven.
And certainly the existence of God cannot be disproved, no matter how
desperate
people like bud the dud try.
Actually Puke, it can. You see, your god was so stupid that he left 'his
word'. The other gods of whom we don't know squat cannot be disproved but a
god who left his inerrant word can :-))> See how that works, Puke?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
25 Feb 2007 08:11:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:38:59 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
And certainly the existence of God cannot be disproved, no matter how
desperate people like bud the dud try.
Actually Puke, it can. You see, your god was so stupid that he left 'his
word'. The other gods of whom we don't know squat cannot be disproved but a
god who left his inerrant word can :-))> See how that works, Puke?
His Word evidences his existence.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
25 Feb 2007 05:01:43 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:c763u2hk7tasut252v5guibutsll1u1p6b@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:38:59 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
And certainly the existence of God cannot be disproved, no matter how
desperate people like bud the dud try.
Actually Puke, it can. You see, your god was so stupid that he left 'his
word'. The other gods of whom we don't know squat cannot be disproved but
a
god who left his inerrant word can :-))> See how that works, Puke?
His Word evidences his existence.
His 'word' evidences his worthlessness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
26 Feb 2007 02:02:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:01:43 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually Puke, it can. You see, your god was so stupid that he left 'his
word'. The other gods of whom we don't know squat cannot be disproved but
a god who left his inerrant word can :-))> See how that works, Puke?
His Word evidences his existence.
His 'word' evidences his worthlessness.
Your reference is to all the other "gods" that don't exist, then.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
27 Feb 2007 08:22:48 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h5f6u255vktef2icgqir2gtnplbhts31ur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:01:43 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually Puke, it can. You see, your god was so stupid that he left 'his
word'. The other gods of whom we don't know squat cannot be disproved
but
a god who left his inerrant word can :-))> See how that works, Puke?
His Word evidences his existence.
His 'word' evidences his worthlessness.
Your reference is to all the other "gods" that don't exist, then.
No Puke, my reference is to gods who leave records.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
27 Feb 2007 03:31:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:22:48 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h5f6u255vktef2icgqir2gtnplbhts31ur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:01:43 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually Puke, it can. You see, your god was so stupid that he left 'his
word'. The other gods of whom we don't know squat cannot be disproved
but
a god who left his inerrant word can :-))> See how that works, Puke?
His Word evidences his existence.
His 'word' evidences his worthlessness.
Your reference is to all the other "gods" that don't exist, then.
No Puke, my reference is to gods who leave records.
The creation of the universe and humankind are good enough for me.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
27 Feb 2007 06:43:55 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oo89u21c62scvl84rcqu9opa0lede6hvf7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:22:48 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h5f6u255vktef2icgqir2gtnplbhts31ur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:01:43 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually Puke, it can. You see, your god was so stupid that he left
'his
word'. The other gods of whom we don't know squat cannot be disproved
but
a god who left his inerrant word can :-))> See how that works, Puke?
His Word evidences his existence.
His 'word' evidences his worthlessness.
Your reference is to all the other "gods" that don't exist, then.
No Puke, my reference is to gods who leave records.
The creation of the universe and humankind are good enough for me.
Then the Pink Unicorn thanks you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
01 Mar 2007 05:13:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:43:55 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oo89u21c62scvl84rcqu9opa0lede6hvf7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:22:48 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h5f6u255vktef2icgqir2gtnplbhts31ur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:01:43 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually Puke, it can. You see, your god was so stupid that he left
'his
word'. The other gods of whom we don't know squat cannot be disproved
but
a god who left his inerrant word can :-))> See how that works, Puke?
His Word evidences his existence.
His 'word' evidences his worthlessness.
Your reference is to all the other "gods" that don't exist, then.
No Puke, my reference is to gods who leave records.
The creation of the universe and humankind are good enough for me.
Then the Pink Unicorn thanks you.
Then give my regards to the pink unicorn, then call the guys in the white coats
for you.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 02:29:13 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:em21u2ppcob4qruuqb290h6jtn2o7mffa0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:41:15 -0800, "madam speaker" <master@arms> wrote:
Many people think the difference between science and religion is that
science can 'prove' its case. In fact nothing could be further from the
truth. In principle, every scientific theory can be DISPROVEN, and that is
the essential difference. Religious tenets are accepted on faith and
cannot
be disproven.
And certainly the existence of God cannot be disproved, no matter how
desperate
people like bud the dud try.
Take a beginners course in logic. You can't DISPROVE somehting that does not
exist. the burden
of proof is on you to prove that your God exists!
duke, American-American
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
25 Feb 2007 08:12:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:29:13 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
And certainly the existence of God cannot be disproved, no matter how
desperate
people like bud the dud try.
Take a beginners course in logic. You can't DISPROVE somehting that does not
exist. the burden
of proof is on you to prove that your God exists!
And therefore the plethora of evidence is 100% evidence of God.
There is no evidence for the non existence of God.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?RORyRmzka2Vu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
25 Feb 2007 12:19:08 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8963u211do6ue5pnaveqrpsitobbqkstr3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:29:13 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
And certainly the existence of God cannot be disproved, no matter how
desperate
people like bud the dud try.
Take a beginners course in logic. You can't DISPROVE somehting that does
not
exist. the burden
of proof is on you to prove that your God exists!
And therefore the plethora of evidence is 100% evidence of God.
Where? Why don't you provide some of this evidence you keep talking about?
A book based on ancient scrolls written by ignorant grape stompers and camel
milkers is not evidence of a god or gods.
There is no evidence for the non existence of God.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
25 Feb 2007 02:24:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:19:08 -0600, DärFläken <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
And therefore the plethora of evidence is 100% evidence of God.
Where? Why don't you provide some of this evidence you keep talking about?
A book based on ancient scrolls written by ignorant grape stompers and camel
milkers is not evidence of a god or gods.
It's everywhere's, it's everywhere's.
Take the big bang.
There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God almighty.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?RORyRmzka2Vu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
25 Feb 2007 02:36:59 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a1s3u2he4iad3la21t8ku225va45fe2mmv@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:19:08 -0600, DärFläken <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
And therefore the plethora of evidence is 100% evidence of God.
Where? Why don't you provide some of this evidence you keep talking
about?
A book based on ancient scrolls written by ignorant grape stompers and
camel
milkers is not evidence of a god or gods.
It's everywhere's, it's everywhere's.
Like where? Give us a hint where to look.
Take the big bang.
There is no evidence for the nonexistence of God almighty.
There are over 10,000 God almighties out there and not one shred of evidence
that any actually exist.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
26 Feb 2007 02:03:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:36:59 -0600, DärFläken <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Where? Why don't you provide some of this evidence you keep talking
about?
A book based on ancient scrolls written by ignorant grape stompers and
camel
milkers is not evidence of a god or gods.
It's everywhere's, it's everywhere's.
Like where? Give us a hint where to look.
Take the big bang.
There are over 10,000 God almighties out there and not one shred of evidence
that any actually exist.
Don't be stupid. There can be only one almighty God.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?RORyRmzka2Vu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
26 Feb 2007 03:38:47 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:f7f6u258ltreer1ilc9tj8jjdp823q2003@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:36:59 -0600, DärFläken <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Where? Why don't you provide some of this evidence you keep talking
about?
A book based on ancient scrolls written by ignorant grape stompers and
camel
milkers is not evidence of a god or gods.
It's everywhere's, it's everywhere's.
Like where? Give us a hint where to look.
Take the big bang.
There are over 10,000 God almighties out there and not one shred of
evidence
that any actually exist.
Don't be stupid. There can be only one almighty God.
WHY? What makes your almighty god real and everyone else's almighty god
imaginary?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
26 Feb 2007 05:03:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:38:47 -0600, DärFläken <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Take the big bang.
There are over 10,000 God almighties out there and not one shred of
evidence
that any actually exist.
Don't be stupid. There can be only one almighty God.
WHY? What makes your almighty god real and everyone else's almighty god
imaginary?
1. Mine is the only one that walked and talked and ate and drank with 500+ of
his followers for 40 days after he rose from the dead.
2. No other so much as lifted one wooden finger.
3. Who ever heard of more than one mightest God.
4. Wait - don't answer that - you do.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?RORyRmzka2Vu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
26 Feb 2007 08:56:45 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2np6u2li21a9nsi615ki894vdfrh0kq28v@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:38:47 -0600, DärFläken <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Take the big bang.
There are over 10,000 God almighties out there and not one shred of
evidence
that any actually exist.
Don't be stupid. There can be only one almighty God.
WHY? What makes your almighty god real and everyone else's almighty god
imaginary?
1. Mine is the only one that walked and talked and ate and drank with
500+ of
his followers for 40 days after he rose from the dead.
Dead people do not arise and walk about. They also claim all kinds of
magical things for their imaginary gods.
2. No other so much as lifted one wooden finger.
Nor did your imaginary god.
3. Who ever heard of more than one mightest God.
Everyone who read anything about religion and the gods.
4. Wait - don't answer that - you do.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
27 Feb 2007 03:33:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:56:45 -0600, DärFläken <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Don't be stupid. There can be only one almighty God.
WHY? What makes your almighty god real and everyone else's almighty god
imaginary?
1. Mine is the only one that walked and talked and ate and drank with
500+ of
his followers for 40 days after he rose from the dead.
Dead people do not arise and walk about.
My God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. Raising the
dead is no big deal.
They also claim all kinds of
magical things for their imaginary gods.
Not my God.
2. No other so much as lifted one wooden finger.
Nor did your imaginary god.
He was seen.
3. Who ever heard of more than one mightest God.
Everyone who read anything about religion and the gods.
Non answer.
4. Wait - don't answer that - you do.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 12:58:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:44 -0600, "Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote:
It's easy for them to believe. They'll thump their bibles and claim it was a
MIRACLE. They have (an illogical) an answer for everything.
if you want something illogical, try proving........nay, providing evidence that
God didn't create the universe and everything in it.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 01:47:56 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ck21u2tetj3e38hn6lvj5bk175g326995u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:44 -0600, "Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote:
It's easy for them to believe. They'll thump their bibles and claim it was
a
MIRACLE. They have (an illogical) an answer for everything.
if you want something illogical, try proving........nay, providing
evidence that
God didn't create the universe and everything in it.
Well, for starters we can examine his 'word'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
25 Feb 2007 08:12:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:47:56 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ck21u2tetj3e38hn6lvj5bk175g326995u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:44 -0600, "Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote:
It's easy for them to believe. They'll thump their bibles and claim it was
a
MIRACLE. They have (an illogical) an answer for everything.
if you want something illogical, try proving........nay, providing
evidence that
God didn't create the universe and everything in it.
Well, for starters we can examine his 'word'.
Ok, start.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 12:57:04 PM |
|
|
On 24 Feb 2007 06:37:39 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Since creationists and fundies will habitually lie, cheat and wriggle
their way out of anything, and since they're also fundamentally
ignorant,
You're describing yourself, bubba dud.
I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 or so years old and I
don't believe there was a global flood. The best available evidence
overwhelmingly and flatly denies it.
But literally millions of people do believe these things. Surveys and
polls show this:
31% of mainline...Catholics, respectively, accept the creationist
account:
What's wrong with it? You sure can't prove otherwise.
You're getting desperate, bubba dud, and the embarrassment is showing.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wombat" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 01:13:10 PM |
|
|
On 24 Feb, 19:57, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On 24 Feb 2007 06:37:39 -0800, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Since creationists and fundies will habitually lie, cheat and wriggle
their way out of anything, and since they're also fundamentally
ignorant,
You're describing yourself, bubba dud.
I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 or so years old and I
don't believe there was a global flood. The best available evidence
overwhelmingly and flatly denies it.
But literally millions of people do believe these things. Surveys and
polls show this:
31% of mainline...Catholics, respectively, accept the creationist
account:
What's wrong with it? You sure can't prove otherwise.
You're getting desperate, bubba dud, and the embarrassment is showing.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Boy are you thick. The more I read your incoherent ramblings the more
I wonder that you are a (presumably) rational human being.
Wombat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
24 Feb 2007 07:49:22 PM |
|
|
"Wombat" <trigby@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:1172344390.502662.198570@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
On 24 Feb, 19:57, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On 24 Feb 2007 06:37:39 -0800, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
Since creationists and fundies will habitually lie, cheat and wriggle
their way out of anything, and since they're also fundamentally
ignorant,
You're describing yourself, bubba dud.
I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 or so years old and I
don't believe there was a global flood. The best available evidence
overwhelmingly and flatly denies it.
But literally millions of people do believe these things. Surveys and
polls show this:
31% of mainline...Catholics, respectively, accept the creationist
account:
What's wrong with it? You sure can't prove otherwise.
You're getting desperate, bubba dud, and the embarrassment is showing.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Boy are you thick. The more I read your incoherent ramblings the more
I wonder that you are a (presumably) rational human being.
Wombat
I'm more convinced every day that he's just a slick troll.... nothing more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
25 Feb 2007 08:15:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:49:22 -0600, "Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm more convinced every day that he's just a slick troll.... nothing more.
I can't be a troll. People like bubba dud play on your ignorance of God and
scripture. She gets her panties all twisted up when I correct her, which is
traditionally very easy to do. She plays on your ignorance, and so I'm here to
correct her.
Like wombat, pick a subject.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?RORyRmzka2Vu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Was No Flood - Items #51 - 56 |
25 Feb 2007 12:27:12 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bd63u250p9bfomf6bq1nhu2n2gdvc21722@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:49:22 -0600, "Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm more convinced every day that he's just a slick troll.... nothing
more.
I can't be a troll. People like bubba dud play on your ignorance of God
and
scripture.
Who are you to judge what other people know? You yourself seem ignorant of
what the bible is all about.
She gets her panties all twisted up when I correct her,
which is
traditionally very easy to do. She plays on your ignorance, and so I'm
here to
correct her.
But you've never corrected her! All you do is call her names. You've yet to
produce anything to refute what she posts. That;s exactly what trolls do!
The flood is a good example.
Like wombat, pick a subject.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
