| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Dr Tam" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2005 10:02:18 PM |
| Object: |
Creation |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4408187.stm
A European team claims to have obtained the first direct image of a planet
beyond our own Solar System.
The "extrasolar planet" is said to orbit a star called GQ Lup - thought to
be like a young version of our Sun.
Similar claims have been made in the past, but sceptical scientists believe
the pictures merely show objects that share the same view in the sky.
The GQ Lup object is far more certain claims Ralph Neuhaeuser's team in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
GQ Lup and its companion are located in a star-forming region about 400
light-years away.
Dr Tam
.
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
13 Apr 2005 12:48:10 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:58:56 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:51:18 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:c44o51lrotdn2o7j5d63sc5j5v43jih8su@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:02:54 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> spake thusly:
Elroy Willis wrote:
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44
/
Now...there you go...star birth.
Too bad it's a waste of time. Dave will just handwave it away,
with a suitably clueless remark that he imagines to be clever, I
don't doubt. If he even bothers to look in the first place.
He'll probably look away, or turn his face to the ground and start
groveling to his god to make the nasty facts go away.
You make the unwarranted assumption that he is capable of
acknowledging facts as facts.
You don't know what a fact is. You present fantasy and
demand I call it science. You are a fool.
No, he presents science and you demand he call it fantasy. YOU are a
fool. A fool hath said in his heart, "There is no god."
And you have done this, by making merchandise of the Most Holy One and by
debasing yourself to promote false witness in His Name. Oddly, you seem
to believe that you will exempt yourself from the consequence of sin by
mouthing phrases that include the name of His only begotten son, even
though you clearly believe that lies will save you, not Jesus, since you
do not even make an attempt to follow His teachings.
End of today's sermon.
There are limits to what God will tolerate in His name, Dave...
Dave Oldridge,
Not commenting one way or the other about Pastor Dave's observations,
I did look at the picture and do not see the birth of a star in the
picture.
What would be sufficient to demonstrate this to you?
I also read the theories that accompanied the picture and it
is my opinion that the scientists have not gotten to the hypothesis
step yet and surely have not studied or refined their theory to the
point where they can affirm that their theory is true. Since the
Eagle nubula is 7,000 light years away, I doubt that any of the people
working on the project have been around long enough or will be around
long enough to prove their theory to be true.
The principle of uniformity of nature provides, again and again,
predictive value. There's a reason for this. What do you think that
is?
I think this is one area in which the scientific method can not
produce "proof" of the birth of a star. It would seem to me that if a
star were to be formed out of gases from expanses light years across,
it would take some time for the event to be completed; longer than any
man living would live to see it take place.
The moment of the first fusion taking place would do me...
We should take a moment here to define exactly what a "star" is.
For the sake of argument, please provide us with a definition of what
a "star" is so we can agree on it.
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
13 Apr 2005 06:21:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:48:10 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:58:56 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:51:18 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:c44o51lrotdn2o7j5d63sc5j5v43jih8su@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:02:54 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> spake thusly:
Elroy Willis wrote:
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44
/
Now...there you go...star birth.
Too bad it's a waste of time. Dave will just handwave it away,
with a suitably clueless remark that he imagines to be clever, I
don't doubt. If he even bothers to look in the first place.
He'll probably look away, or turn his face to the ground and start
groveling to his god to make the nasty facts go away.
You make the unwarranted assumption that he is capable of
acknowledging facts as facts.
You don't know what a fact is. You present fantasy and
demand I call it science. You are a fool.
No, he presents science and you demand he call it fantasy. YOU are a
fool. A fool hath said in his heart, "There is no god."
And you have done this, by making merchandise of the Most Holy One and by
debasing yourself to promote false witness in His Name. Oddly, you seem
to believe that you will exempt yourself from the consequence of sin by
mouthing phrases that include the name of His only begotten son, even
though you clearly believe that lies will save you, not Jesus, since you
do not even make an attempt to follow His teachings.
End of today's sermon.
There are limits to what God will tolerate in His name, Dave...
Dave Oldridge,
Not commenting one way or the other about Pastor Dave's observations,
I did look at the picture and do not see the birth of a star in the
picture.
What would be sufficient to demonstrate this to you?
I also read the theories that accompanied the picture and it
is my opinion that the scientists have not gotten to the hypothesis
step yet and surely have not studied or refined their theory to the
point where they can affirm that their theory is true. Since the
Eagle nubula is 7,000 light years away, I doubt that any of the people
working on the project have been around long enough or will be around
long enough to prove their theory to be true.
The principle of uniformity of nature provides, again and again,
predictive value. There's a reason for this. What do you think that
is?
I think this is one area in which the scientific method can not
produce "proof" of the birth of a star. It would seem to me that if a
star were to be formed out of gases from expanses light years across,
it would take some time for the event to be completed; longer than any
man living would live to see it take place.
The moment of the first fusion taking place would do me...
We should take a moment here to define exactly what a "star" is.
For the sake of argument, please provide us with a definition of what
a "star" is so we can agree on it.
PCB
Seeing it. God invented the process. Just not sure whether man has
it figured out 100% yet.
Uniformity of nature is nice. God invented that too
One of those things in the sky called stars or suns that aren't
planets, moons, or asteroids or satelites or airplanes or birds or
clouds or superman.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
13 Apr 2005 02:36:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:21:10 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:48:10 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:58:56 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:51:18 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:c44o51lrotdn2o7j5d63sc5j5v43jih8su@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:02:54 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> spake thusly:
Elroy Willis wrote:
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44
/
Now...there you go...star birth.
Too bad it's a waste of time. Dave will just handwave it away,
with a suitably clueless remark that he imagines to be clever, I
don't doubt. If he even bothers to look in the first place.
He'll probably look away, or turn his face to the ground and start
groveling to his god to make the nasty facts go away.
You make the unwarranted assumption that he is capable of
acknowledging facts as facts.
You don't know what a fact is. You present fantasy and
demand I call it science. You are a fool.
No, he presents science and you demand he call it fantasy. YOU are a
fool. A fool hath said in his heart, "There is no god."
And you have done this, by making merchandise of the Most Holy One and by
debasing yourself to promote false witness in His Name. Oddly, you seem
to believe that you will exempt yourself from the consequence of sin by
mouthing phrases that include the name of His only begotten son, even
though you clearly believe that lies will save you, not Jesus, since you
do not even make an attempt to follow His teachings.
End of today's sermon.
There are limits to what God will tolerate in His name, Dave...
Dave Oldridge,
Not commenting one way or the other about Pastor Dave's observations,
I did look at the picture and do not see the birth of a star in the
picture.
What would be sufficient to demonstrate this to you?
I also read the theories that accompanied the picture and it
is my opinion that the scientists have not gotten to the hypothesis
step yet and surely have not studied or refined their theory to the
point where they can affirm that their theory is true. Since the
Eagle nubula is 7,000 light years away, I doubt that any of the people
working on the project have been around long enough or will be around
long enough to prove their theory to be true.
The principle of uniformity of nature provides, again and again,
predictive value. There's a reason for this. What do you think that
is?
I think this is one area in which the scientific method can not
produce "proof" of the birth of a star. It would seem to me that if a
star were to be formed out of gases from expanses light years across,
it would take some time for the event to be completed; longer than any
man living would live to see it take place.
The moment of the first fusion taking place would do me...
We should take a moment here to define exactly what a "star" is.
For the sake of argument, please provide us with a definition of what
a "star" is so we can agree on it.
PCB
Seeing it. God invented the process. Just not sure whether man has
it figured out 100% yet.
Uniformity of nature is nice. God invented that too
One of those things in the sky called stars or suns that aren't
planets, moons, or asteroids or satelites or airplanes or birds or
clouds or superman.
When is a star a star? is Jupiter a star?
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
13 Apr 2005 03:57:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:36:02 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:21:10 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:48:10 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:58:56 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:51:18 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:c44o51lrotdn2o7j5d63sc5j5v43jih8su@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:02:54 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> spake thusly:
Elroy Willis wrote:
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44
/
Now...there you go...star birth.
Too bad it's a waste of time. Dave will just handwave it away,
with a suitably clueless remark that he imagines to be clever, I
don't doubt. If he even bothers to look in the first place.
He'll probably look away, or turn his face to the ground and start
groveling to his god to make the nasty facts go away.
You make the unwarranted assumption that he is capable of
acknowledging facts as facts.
You don't know what a fact is. You present fantasy and
demand I call it science. You are a fool.
No, he presents science and you demand he call it fantasy. YOU are a
fool. A fool hath said in his heart, "There is no god."
And you have done this, by making merchandise of the Most Holy One and by
debasing yourself to promote false witness in His Name. Oddly, you seem
to believe that you will exempt yourself from the consequence of sin by
mouthing phrases that include the name of His only begotten son, even
though you clearly believe that lies will save you, not Jesus, since you
do not even make an attempt to follow His teachings.
End of today's sermon.
There are limits to what God will tolerate in His name, Dave...
Dave Oldridge,
Not commenting one way or the other about Pastor Dave's observations,
I did look at the picture and do not see the birth of a star in the
picture.
What would be sufficient to demonstrate this to you?
I also read the theories that accompanied the picture and it
is my opinion that the scientists have not gotten to the hypothesis
step yet and surely have not studied or refined their theory to the
point where they can affirm that their theory is true. Since the
Eagle nubula is 7,000 light years away, I doubt that any of the people
working on the project have been around long enough or will be around
long enough to prove their theory to be true.
The principle of uniformity of nature provides, again and again,
predictive value. There's a reason for this. What do you think that
is?
I think this is one area in which the scientific method can not
produce "proof" of the birth of a star. It would seem to me that if a
star were to be formed out of gases from expanses light years across,
it would take some time for the event to be completed; longer than any
man living would live to see it take place.
The moment of the first fusion taking place would do me...
We should take a moment here to define exactly what a "star" is.
For the sake of argument, please provide us with a definition of what
a "star" is so we can agree on it.
PCB
Seeing it. God invented the process. Just not sure whether man has
it figured out 100% yet.
Uniformity of nature is nice. God invented that too
One of those things in the sky called stars or suns that aren't
planets, moons, or asteroids or satelites or airplanes or birds or
clouds or superman.
When is a star a star? is Jupiter a star?
Ned
I just gave a highly scientific answer that included Jupiter
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
13 Apr 2005 05:03:36 PM |
|
|
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
We should take a moment here to define exactly what a "star" is.
For the sake of argument, please provide us with a definition of what
a "star" is so we can agree on it.
Seeing it. God invented the process. Just not sure whether man has
it figured out 100% yet.
Uniformity of nature is nice. God invented that too
One of those things in the sky called stars or suns that aren't
planets, moons, or asteroids or satelites or airplanes or birds or
clouds or superman.
When is a star a star? is Jupiter a star?
I just gave a highly scientific answer that included Jupiter
Jupiter/Zeus was Jesus' "Father in Heaven," in case you didn't know.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
13 Apr 2005 07:40:09 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:3i5r51heh6heh155ka634ur6jrg98thlb9@4ax.com:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
We should take a moment here to define exactly what a "star" is.
For the sake of argument, please provide us with a definition of
what
a "star" is so we can agree on it.
Seeing it. God invented the process. Just not sure whether man
has
it figured out 100% yet.
Uniformity of nature is nice. God invented that too
One of those things in the sky called stars or suns that aren't
planets, moons, or asteroids or satelites or airplanes or birds or
clouds or superman.
When is a star a star? is Jupiter a star?
I just gave a highly scientific answer that included Jupiter
Jupiter/Zeus was Jesus' "Father in Heaven," in case you didn't know.
Uh, probably not. The Jews were not much into anthropomorphizing the sky
the way the Greeks and Romans did.
Of course, the ancients only differentiated planets from stars on the
basis of the fact that planets moved and didn't flicker as much as stars.
Today we know that they move because they are in the foreground, much
closer to us than stars so their movements are obvious, compared to the
much less obvious ones of the so-called "fixed stars" (which are not
fixed, of course). Some of the Alexandrian astronomers got pretty close
to the truth, but it took modern spectroscopy to show that "fixed stars"
are actually objects much like our sun (many of those you can see with
the naked eye are a lot bigger).
Jupiter, of course is mostly hydrogen, like most stars. But it's too
small to generate enough pressure in its core to ignite the fusion fire
that would make it an actual star. It's sort of an almost-star. It's
also a handy rock-catcher that helps keep asteroid collisions in the
inner system (where we live) rather rare.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
14 Apr 2005 07:58:43 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
One of those things in the sky called stars or suns that aren't
planets, moons, or asteroids or satelites or airplanes or birds or
clouds or superman.
When is a star a star? is Jupiter a star?
I just gave a highly scientific answer that included Jupiter
Jupiter/Zeus was Jesus' "Father in Heaven," in case you didn't know.
Uh, probably not. The Jews were not much into anthropomorphizing the sky
the way the Greeks and Romans did.
Many of them were, such as the ones that worshipped Venus/Ashtoreth as
the "Queen of Heaven." Do some research on Melchi-Zedek, who was the
priest that Abraham paid tithes to one day. Zedek is the Hebrew name
for the planet Jupiter. It's also spelled Tzedek, but it's the same
thing. Jesus was said to be a priest in the order of Melchi-zedek, so
it looks like he was a planet worshipper, assuming he existed at all.
See:
http://www.bettzedek.org/
"Bet Tzedek" means "House of Zedek" or "House of Justice."
Just like the Romans considered the planet Jupiter as a god of
Justice, so did many of the Jews. The Romans actually swore to
Jupiter/Jove before giving testimony in court, and is where the phrase
"By Jove" comes from.
Of course, the ancients only differentiated planets from stars on the
basis of the fact that planets moved and didn't flicker as much as stars.
Today we know that they move because they are in the foreground, much
closer to us than stars so their movements are obvious, compared to the
much less obvious ones of the so-called "fixed stars" (which are not
fixed, of course). Some of the Alexandrian astronomers got pretty close
to the truth, but it took modern spectroscopy to show that "fixed stars"
are actually objects much like our sun (many of those you can see with
the naked eye are a lot bigger).
Some of the earliest geocentric diagrams actually have the planets
depicted inside the sphere of fixed stars.
See here:
http://elroysemporium.com/jpg/cosmology1.jpg
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
14 Apr 2005 09:32:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:40:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Jupiter, of course is mostly hydrogen, like most stars. But it's too
small to generate enough pressure in its core to ignite the fusion fire
that would make it an actual star. It's sort of an almost-star. It's
also a handy rock-catcher that helps keep asteroid collisions in the
inner system (where we live) rather rare.
I had an astronomy prof who wanted to rename Jupiter "Hoover" for that
very reason.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
14 Apr 2005 10:02:06 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote in alt.atheism
Dave Oldridge drunkenly proclaimed the following:
Jupiter, of course is mostly hydrogen, like most stars. But it's too
small to generate enough pressure in its core to ignite the fusion fire
that would make it an actual star. It's sort of an almost-star. It's
also a handy rock-catcher that helps keep asteroid collisions in the
inner system (where we live) rather rare.
I had an astronomy prof who wanted to rename Jupiter "Hoover" for that
very reason.
It's definitely a good sucker-up of cosmic debris because of it's
enormous size.
Not enough so, though, that it sucks up everything, since it didn't
seem to suck up whatever caused the extinction of the dinosaurs or
the cosmic debris that made all the huge craters on the moon and
other planets and even our own earth.
I'm still a bit undecided on whether Jupiter and Thor are both
references to the same planet, even though Thor's Day/Thursday and
Jupiter Day/Jeu-di are the same days of the week and both of them were
thunder gods and gods of Justice.
Do you know if the northern europeans had spotted the five visible
planets and given them specific names apart from what other cultures
had named them in other parts of the world?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
14 Apr 2005 01:39:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:02:06 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
I had an astronomy prof who wanted to rename Jupiter "Hoover" for that
very reason.
It's definitely a good sucker-up of cosmic debris because of it's
enormous size.
Not enough so, though, that it sucks up everything, since it didn't
seem to suck up whatever caused the extinction of the dinosaurs or
the cosmic debris that made all the huge craters on the moon and
other planets and even our own earth.
Most of the craters we see on the Moon and Mars date from the Late
Heavy Bombardment period, about 4.0 - 3.8 billion years ago. The
solar system was still settling down, and there were many large
objects in orbits that intersected the orbits of the planets.
The Chicxulub impact was probably the result of an Apollo asteroid
having its orbit warped by Jupiter. The God of Thunder protects, but
he also smites...
I'm still a bit undecided on whether Jupiter and Thor are both
references to the same planet, even though Thor's Day/Thursday and
Jupiter Day/Jeu-di are the same days of the week and both of them were
thunder gods and gods of Justice.
Do you know if the northern europeans had spotted the five visible
planets and given them specific names apart from what other cultures
had named them in other parts of the world?
Oh! Oh! I did some research on this!
The Norse weren't as heavily into the planets=gods thing as the Greeks
were. But Jupiter was associated with Odin, not Thor. Thor wasn't
associated with any astronomical body, but instead with storms.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
13 Apr 2005 07:38:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:36 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
We should take a moment here to define exactly what a "star" is.
For the sake of argument, please provide us with a definition of what
a "star" is so we can agree on it.
Seeing it. God invented the process. Just not sure whether man has
it figured out 100% yet.
Uniformity of nature is nice. God invented that too
One of those things in the sky called stars or suns that aren't
planets, moons, or asteroids or satelites or airplanes or birds or
clouds or superman.
When is a star a star? is Jupiter a star?
I just gave a highly scientific answer that included Jupiter
Jupiter/Zeus was Jesus' "Father in Heaven," in case you didn't know.
You are saying that Jesus was a "Moonie" which can not be true; at
least within our scientific understanding the space time continuum.
Jesus predated Rev Mun unless of course Rev Mun traveled with Kirk and
Spock back in time and was known by a different name.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
14 Apr 2005 01:12:42 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:57:53 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:36:02 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:21:10 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:48:10 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:58:56 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:51:18 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:c44o51lrotdn2o7j5d63sc5j5v43jih8su@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:02:54 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> spake thusly:
Elroy Willis wrote:
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44
/
Now...there you go...star birth.
Too bad it's a waste of time. Dave will just handwave it away,
with a suitably clueless remark that he imagines to be clever, I
don't doubt. If he even bothers to look in the first place.
He'll probably look away, or turn his face to the ground and start
groveling to his god to make the nasty facts go away.
You make the unwarranted assumption that he is capable of
acknowledging facts as facts.
You don't know what a fact is. You present fantasy and
demand I call it science. You are a fool.
No, he presents science and you demand he call it fantasy. YOU are a
fool. A fool hath said in his heart, "There is no god."
And you have done this, by making merchandise of the Most Holy One and by
debasing yourself to promote false witness in His Name. Oddly, you seem
to believe that you will exempt yourself from the consequence of sin by
mouthing phrases that include the name of His only begotten son, even
though you clearly believe that lies will save you, not Jesus, since you
do not even make an attempt to follow His teachings.
End of today's sermon.
There are limits to what God will tolerate in His name, Dave...
Dave Oldridge,
Not commenting one way or the other about Pastor Dave's observations,
I did look at the picture and do not see the birth of a star in the
picture.
What would be sufficient to demonstrate this to you?
I also read the theories that accompanied the picture and it
is my opinion that the scientists have not gotten to the hypothesis
step yet and surely have not studied or refined their theory to the
point where they can affirm that their theory is true. Since the
Eagle nubula is 7,000 light years away, I doubt that any of the people
working on the project have been around long enough or will be around
long enough to prove their theory to be true.
The principle of uniformity of nature provides, again and again,
predictive value. There's a reason for this. What do you think that
is?
I think this is one area in which the scientific method can not
produce "proof" of the birth of a star. It would seem to me that if a
star were to be formed out of gases from expanses light years across,
it would take some time for the event to be completed; longer than any
man living would live to see it take place.
The moment of the first fusion taking place would do me...
We should take a moment here to define exactly what a "star" is.
For the sake of argument, please provide us with a definition of what
a "star" is so we can agree on it.
PCB
Seeing it. God invented the process. Just not sure whether man has
it figured out 100% yet.
Uniformity of nature is nice. God invented that too
One of those things in the sky called stars or suns that aren't
planets, moons, or asteroids or satelites or airplanes or birds or
clouds or superman.
When is a star a star? is Jupiter a star?
Ned
I just gave a highly scientific answer that included Jupiter
No you didn't...the point of mentioning Jupiter is that Jupiter emits
more energy than it receives from the Sun, i.e. some energetic
reaction is going on inside Jupiter i.e. Jupiter is star like.
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
13 Apr 2005 12:45:10 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:51:18 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:c44o51lrotdn2o7j5d63sc5j5v43jih8su@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:02:54 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> spake thusly:
Elroy Willis wrote:
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44
/
Now...there you go...star birth.
Too bad it's a waste of time. Dave will just handwave it away,
with a suitably clueless remark that he imagines to be clever, I
don't doubt. If he even bothers to look in the first place.
He'll probably look away, or turn his face to the ground and start
groveling to his god to make the nasty facts go away.
You make the unwarranted assumption that he is capable of
acknowledging facts as facts.
You don't know what a fact is. You present fantasy and
demand I call it science. You are a fool.
No, he presents science and you demand he call it fantasy. YOU are a
fool. A fool hath said in his heart, "There is no god."
And you have done this, by making merchandise of the Most Holy One and by
debasing yourself to promote false witness in His Name. Oddly, you seem
to believe that you will exempt yourself from the consequence of sin by
mouthing phrases that include the name of His only begotten son, even
though you clearly believe that lies will save you, not Jesus, since you
do not even make an attempt to follow His teachings.
End of today's sermon.
There are limits to what God will tolerate in His name, Dave...
Well said that man.
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
12 Apr 2005 01:36:51 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
while Pastor Dave was preaching from the housetops, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> spake thusly:
Elroy Willis wrote:
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44/
Now...there you go...star birth.
Too bad it's a waste of time. Dave will just handwave it away, with a
suitably clueless remark that he imagines to be clever, I don't doubt.
If he even bothers to look in the first place.
He'll probably look away, or turn his face to the ground and start
groveling to his god to make the nasty facts go away.
You make the unwarranted assumption that he is capable of
acknowledging facts as facts.
You don't know what a fact is.
Apparently it's YOU who doesn't know what a FACT is.
You present fantasy and demand I call it science. You are a fool.
You consider a story about a talking snake as "science" or "fact"
don't you?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
12 Apr 2005 05:59:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:00:29 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:47:08 +1200, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44/
Now...there you go...star birth.
Too bad it's a waste of time. Dave will just handwave it away, with a
suitably clueless remark that he imagines to be clever, I don't doubt.
If he even bothers to look in the first place.
How was I "lying" again?
Dave's definition of "lying" is saying anything that doesn't agree
with what he believes.
Oh yes and did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the
native flora and fauna or didn't he?
I eagerly await Dave's response to this one. <G>
He says he's not going to talk to me anymore. His faith must be too
weak.
<laugh>
The irony is that I'm a religious person myself...my faith must be
stronger than his....I know...he's envious of me.
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Here you go Pastor Dave Star Birth Pictures |
15 Apr 2005 12:20:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:59:54 +1200, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:00:29 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:47:08 +1200, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44/
Now...there you go...star birth.
Too bad it's a waste of time. Dave will just handwave it away, with a
suitably clueless remark that he imagines to be clever, I don't doubt.
If he even bothers to look in the first place.
How was I "lying" again?
Dave's definition of "lying" is saying anything that doesn't agree
with what he believes.
Oh yes and did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the
native flora and fauna or didn't he?
I eagerly await Dave's response to this one. <G>
He says he's not going to talk to me anymore. His faith must be too
weak.
That's a fact.
<laugh>
The irony is that I'm a religious person myself...my faith must be
stronger than his....I know...he's envious of me.
He is, and you're much smarter than he.
PCB
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
14 Apr 2005 01:13:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:56:26 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:39:29 +0100, while wishing I
would go away, Jochen Lueg <jl@argonet.co.uk> said:
In article <e08d511pm78rn5j0qlta7ba41mnjdsk57d@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:56:54 +0100, while wishing I
would go away, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com> said:
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qmcb51l4nej445le3rpr2s4fqiegnsc3ne@4ax.com...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:29:50 +0100, while wishing I
would go away, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com> said:
Require millions of years? It isn't a matter of what we require
Yes, it is, since you posed the question of time.
It's a matter of what means God used to create the world, and people. He
took millions of years to do it because that's how he wanted to do it.
I didn't mention God. You people did. Nor did I
mention the planet Earth. You people did. I made one
very simple statement. No one has ever seen a star
being born. That is a fact.
How do you know that? Someone may have seen it and you didn't read the
account. Someone may have seen it and didn't write about it. Someone may
have seen it and didn't know what it was.
What makes you so sure that no-one has seen it?
Oh, brother!
Thats no answer. Answer his question.
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
15 Apr 2005 08:28:49 AM |
|
|
Ned Kelly wrote:
Require millions of years? It isn't a matter of what we require
Yes, it is, since you posed the question of time.
It's a matter of what means God used to create the world, and people. He
took millions of years to do it because that's how he wanted to do it.
I didn't mention God. You people did. Nor did I
mention the planet Earth. You people did. I made one
very simple statement. No one has ever seen a star
being born. That is a fact.
How do you know that? Someone may have seen it and you didn't read the
account. Someone may have seen it and didn't write about it. Someone may
have seen it and didn't know what it was.
What makes you so sure that no-one has seen it?
Oh, brother!
Thats no answer. Answer his question.
Ned
Much like the 'real' Ned Kelly....... I sense a bit of subterfuge here (
minus the armour ) .... Ned, I understand your frustration with Dave
.......however, you might want to have a word with PCB ..... Sock
Puppetry is frowned upon in Usenet .....
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
15 Apr 2005 03:16:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:28:49 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ned Kelly wrote:
Require millions of years? It isn't a matter of what we require
Yes, it is, since you posed the question of time.
It's a matter of what means God used to create the world, and people. He
took millions of years to do it because that's how he wanted to do it.
I didn't mention God. You people did. Nor did I
mention the planet Earth. You people did. I made one
very simple statement. No one has ever seen a star
being born. That is a fact.
How do you know that? Someone may have seen it and you didn't read the
account. Someone may have seen it and didn't write about it. Someone may
have seen it and didn't know what it was.
What makes you so sure that no-one has seen it?
Oh, brother!
Thats no answer. Answer his question.
Ned
Much like the 'real' Ned Kelly....... I sense a bit of subterfuge here (
minus the armour ) .... Ned, I understand your frustration with Dave
......however, you might want to have a word with PCB ..... Sock
Puppetry is frowned upon in Usenet .....
Yes...its me...I just want Dave to give a clear and unequivocal answer
to my question about Noah.
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
16 Apr 2005 05:33:59 AM |
|
|
Ned Kelly wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:28:49 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ned Kelly wrote:
Require millions of years? It isn't a matter of what we require
Yes, it is, since you posed the question of time.
It's a matter of what means God used to create the world, and people. He
took millions of years to do it because that's how he wanted to do it.
I didn't mention God. You people did. Nor did I
mention the planet Earth. You people did. I made one
very simple statement. No one has ever seen a star
being born. That is a fact.
How do you know that? Someone may have seen it and you didn't read the
account. Someone may have seen it and didn't write about it. Someone may
have seen it and didn't know what it was.
What makes you so sure that no-one has seen it?
Oh, brother!
Thats no answer. Answer his question.
Ned
Much like the 'real' Ned Kelly....... I sense a bit of subterfuge here (
minus the armour ) .... Ned, I understand your frustration with Dave
......however, you might want to have a word with PCB ..... Sock
Puppetry is frowned upon in Usenet .....
Yes...its me...I just want Dave to give a clear and unequivocal answer
to my question about Noah.
PCB
No worries :) I figured that was the case, I think he killfiled PCB ....
He won't answer you though ....... I have been wrestling with Painful
Dave for years ...... he is a Fundie of the worst type ...... he NEVER
answers the 'tough' questions, just throws insults and runs away ......
it's kind of fun watching someone else have a go at him ... :)
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
17 Apr 2005 06:17:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:33:59 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ned Kelly wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:28:49 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ned Kelly wrote:
Require millions of years? It isn't a matter of what we require
Yes, it is, since you posed the question of time.
It's a matter of what means God used to create the world, and people. He
took millions of years to do it because that's how he wanted to do it.
I didn't mention God. You people did. Nor did I
mention the planet Earth. You people did. I made one
very simple statement. No one has ever seen a star
being born. That is a fact.
How do you know that? Someone may have seen it and you didn't read the
account. Someone may have seen it and didn't write about it. Someone may
have seen it and didn't know what it was.
What makes you so sure that no-one has seen it?
Oh, brother!
Thats no answer. Answer his question.
Ned
Much like the 'real' Ned Kelly....... I sense a bit of subterfuge here (
minus the armour ) .... Ned, I understand your frustration with Dave
......however, you might want to have a word with PCB ..... Sock
Puppetry is frowned upon in Usenet .....
Yes...its me...I just want Dave to give a clear and unequivocal answer
to my question about Noah.
PCB
No worries :) I figured that was the case, I think he killfiled PCB ....
Thats why I changed my handle...
He won't answer you though ...
But but I thought that silence in the face of doctrinal criticism was
suicide???
.... I have been wrestling with Painful
Dave for years ...... he is a Fundie of the worst type ...... he NEVER
answers the 'tough' questions, just throws insults and runs away ......
it's kind of fun watching someone else have a go at him ... :)
You are completely welcome to watch the fun :)
PCB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
14 Apr 2005 01:12:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:16:27 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:56:54 +0100, while wishing I
would go away, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com> said:
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qmcb51l4nej445le3rpr2s4fqiegnsc3ne@4ax.com...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:29:50 +0100, while wishing I
would go away, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com> said:
Require millions of years? It isn't a matter of what we require
Yes, it is, since you posed the question of time.
It's a matter of what means God used to create the world, and people. He
took millions of years to do it because that's how he wanted to do it.
I didn't mention God. You people did. Nor did I
mention the planet Earth. You people did. I made one
very simple statement. No one has ever seen a star
being born. That is a fact. Why all of the side
tracking, instead of just agreeing with a true
statement?
PCB and others have posted what looks, for all the world, to me to be
pictures from the Hubble space telescope of stars being born but you
seem to want to ignore it...why?
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
07 Apr 2005 04:19:58 PM |
|
|
In article <ivja519d66b7n4nov06qi98vgegntmmlqq@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Tell me again did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save the
Kiwis?
Gee, I don't know.
Make your mind up. Either Noah DID discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or he didn't and also the "world wide flood 15
cubits above the tallest of the world's mountains" didn't happen.
Make up MY mind? I'm NOT the one who mentioned New
Zealand. You deal with your own issues.
Then Pastor Dave does not require belief in the literal truth of the
Flood and Noah's Ark?
The Bible need not be not, in its entirety, literally true?
Careful! Such an admission puts you on the slippery slope.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
07 Apr 2005 02:49:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:24:27 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:02:44 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 03:31:50 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:58:19 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:31:55 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:01:58 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:30:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:02:18 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, "Dr Tam" <ProfTam@yahoo.co.nz> said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4408187.stm
A European team claims to have obtained the first direct image of a planet
beyond our own Solar System.
The "extrasolar planet" is said to orbit a star called GQ Lup - thought to
be like a young version of our Sun.
Similar claims have been made in the past, but sceptical scientists believe
the pictures merely show objects that share the same view in the sky.
The GQ Lup object is far more certain claims Ralph Neuhaeuser's team in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
GQ Lup and its companion are located in a star-forming region about 400
light-years away.
"Star forming region"? I don't think so. No one's
ever seen a star born. We've seen lots of them die,
but not one of them born.
It takes time you clod.
Ah, the magic evolutionists wand. When you can't back
up your claims, just say, "time". It's the magic cure
all, that proves everything you say, when you have no
proof.
<laughter>
Tell me again did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save the
Kiwis?
Gee, I don't know.
Make your mind up. Either Noah DID discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or he didn't and also the "world wide flood 15
cubits above the tallest of the world's mountains" didn't happen.
Make up MY mind? I'm NOT the one who mentioned New
Zealand. You deal with your own issues.
Duh...its very much an issue for you. If you're a Biblical literalist
then you *have* to deal with the idea that a flood covered the entire
world, including the highest mountain to a minimum depth of 15 cubits
BUT YET the Kiwis survived it...
Either Noah rescued them and consequently discovered New Zealand OR
the flood didn't happen as described.
Which is it?
The problem is yours. I don't subscibe to a literal interpretation of
the Bible.
Maybe he just needed a lot of time.
How much time? It seems to me that even 10,000 years is not sufficient
Oh, easy, millions of years. Maybe billions.
So Noah was around "maybe billions" of years ago?
<laughter>
to explain the existence of unique species in existence in New Zealand
It doesn't seem like enough to you, because you don't
much care what truth is.
Au contraire...I care *very* much. It is you who is believing what he
wants to believe despite evidence to the contrary.
You know very well how many
varieties of plants sprout up and how short of a time
it took to get many breeds of dogs
Alright...go on...show me another bird like the Kiwi that is native
elsewhere in the world...
and how fast viruses mutate and how many varieties of birds appear in a
fairly short time in a given area, when planted there
and yet, at the same time, you require millions of
years for it to happen. That makes you a hypocrite.
<raucous laughter>
That makes you someone who doesn't understand basic biology who'se
prepared to commit basic logical fallacies.
Of course special variation can happen in reasonably short order,
viral evolution is undeniably quick...at times but to claim that, on
that basis, that all genetic variation takes less than millions of
years is just wrong.
Tell me again, how long ago was Noah's flood?
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
07 Apr 2005 05:25:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:49:34 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
Make your mind up. Either Noah DID discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or he didn't and also the "world wide flood 15
cubits above the tallest of the world's mountains" didn't happen.
Make up MY mind? I'm NOT the one who mentioned New
Zealand. You deal with your own issues.
Duh...its very much an issue for you. If you're a Biblical literalist
No, it isn't. You responded to a very simple and
factual statement that no one has ever seen a star
being born, by talking about the Bible. Therefore, you
deal with your own issues. It doesn't matter what I
am. It only matters as to whether or not anyone has
ever seen a star being born. No one has.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
07 Apr 2005 08:41:52 PM |
|
|
In article <tncb511736b3h8agdoifuk2jg0egh1sud4@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
It only matters as to whether or not anyone has
ever seen a star being born. No one has.
No one has actually seen a "moving" picture move either.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
So0 shut up already!
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
Were they really that dense? If so, it is nothing to brag about.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
09 Apr 2005 02:11:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:25:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:49:34 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
Make your mind up. Either Noah DID discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or he didn't and also the "world wide flood 15
cubits above the tallest of the world's mountains" didn't happen.
Make up MY mind? I'm NOT the one who mentioned New
Zealand. You deal with your own issues.
Duh...its very much an issue for you. If you're a Biblical literalist
No, it isn't. You responded to a very simple and
factual statement that no one has ever seen a star
being born, by talking about the Bible. Therefore, you
deal with your own issues. It doesn't matter what I
am. It only matters as to whether or not anyone has
ever seen a star being born. No one has.
Regardless of the issues pertaining to my assertions re: Stars being
born...your going on about it is only you seeking to avoid answering a
hard question.
Either Noah DID discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or he didn't and also the "world wide flood 15
cubits above the tallest of the world's mountains" didn't happen.
Which is it?
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
09 Apr 2005 08:28:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:11:30 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:25:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:49:34 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
Make your mind up. Either Noah DID discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or he didn't and also the "world wide flood 15
cubits above the tallest of the world's mountains" didn't happen.
Make up MY mind? I'm NOT the one who mentioned New
Zealand. You deal with your own issues.
Duh...its very much an issue for you. If you're a Biblical literalist
No, it isn't. You responded to a very simple and
factual statement that no one has ever seen a star
being born, by talking about the Bible. Therefore, you
deal with your own issues. It doesn't matter what I
am. It only matters as to whether or not anyone has
ever seen a star being born. No one has.
Regardless of the issues pertaining to my assertions re: Stars being
born...your going on about it is only you seeking to avoid answering a
hard question.
Either Noah DID discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or he didn't and also the "world wide flood 15
cubits above the tallest of the world's mountains" didn't happen.
Your dishonesty is apparent to all. You accuse me of
trying to avoid the question. The fact is, you asked
the question in an attempt to avoid admitting that my
simple statement is accurate.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding | | | | |
