| 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: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 08:08:02 AM |
|
|
In article <6qkc615n5a55h37696lo4j1ev04hukve2a@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
In other words, you'll try to play dodge ball.
"If you can dodge a spanner, you can dodge a ball!"
"If you can dodge a car, you can dodge a ball!"
Nope, sorry mate, it's not dodge ball. It's asking you questions you
simply can't answer. And making you look foolish in the progress.
:)
Goodbye.
Can't stand the heat? I was only getting started!
Sheesh, I have to learn to stop breaking my toys. :(
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
21 Apr 2005 12:29:18 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:04:33 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:19:38 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <NYp9e.51872$Z14.41013@news.indigo.ie>,
says...
PD will explain that some of those are clearly, totally human, and some of
them clearly, totally animals, and that the division is obvious and anyone
who disagrees is a fraud and a liar.
Then we'll ask him which are clearly apes and which are clearly human.
And then we'll ask him why his opinion doesn't match any other
creationists opinion.
In other words, you'll try to play dodge ball.
Goodbye.
Silence in the fact of doctrinal criticism is suicide...
You're deciding to remain silent ergo you should be committing suicide
now Dave.
PCB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 08:03:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 04:19:12 GMT, Azrael
<god@my.computer.palace.com> spake thusly:
So how do you explain all those hominid fossils? How do you explain that
nearly all scientists who study human evolution disagree with you?
There is no hominid tree. If there were, this argument
would have been over long ago. If you think there is,
then prove it, but be ready to discuss each and every
fossil you name along the way.
Hominid Time Spans
Species Time Span (millions of years ago)
Ardipethicus ramidus 4.4
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 - 3.9
Australopithecus afarensis 3.9 - 3.0
Australopithecus africanus 2.8 - 2.4
Australopithecus aethiopicus 2.7 - 1.9
Australopithecus boisei 2.3 - 1.4
Australopithecus robustus 1.9 - 1.0
Homo sp. 2.5 - ?
Homo rudolfensis 2.4 - 1.9
Homo habilis 1.9 - 1.6
Homo ergaster 1.8 - 1.5
Homo erectus 1.2 - 0.4
Homo heidelbergensis 0.6 - 0.2
Homo neanderthalensis 0.3 - 0.03
Homo sapiens 0.1 - present
There is a graphic of it here:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/humtree.html
I said, "prove it". But none-the-less, let me give you
some help. Australopithecus afarensis is already off
that tree, according to many scientists. It is now a
"debated fossil". So your tree has already died. You
people still keep using the same old information. It
was nothing more than a 3 foot high, tree dwelling
monkey.
And btw, don't ask me for any documentation. I told
you guys to prove it.
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "T N Nurse" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 08:56:05 AM |
|
|
In article <sakc61dc0k283ovgiurfoguvvemk3ip5kj@4ax.com>,
Antagonist for God <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 04:19:12 GMT, Azrael
<god@my.computer.palace.com> spake thusly:
So how do you explain all those hominid fossils? How do you explain that
nearly all scientists who study human evolution disagree with you?
There is no hominid tree. If there were, this argument
would have been over long ago. If you think there is,
then prove it, but be ready to discuss each and every
fossil you name along the way.
Hominid Time Spans
Species Time Span (millions of years ago)
Ardipethicus ramidus 4.4
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 - 3.9
Australopithecus afarensis 3.9 - 3.0
Australopithecus africanus 2.8 - 2.4
Australopithecus aethiopicus 2.7 - 1.9
Australopithecus boisei 2.3 - 1.4
Australopithecus robustus 1.9 - 1.0
Homo sp. 2.5 - ?
Homo rudolfensis 2.4 - 1.9
Homo habilis 1.9 - 1.6
Homo ergaster 1.8 - 1.5
Homo erectus 1.2 - 0.4
Homo heidelbergensis 0.6 - 0.2
Homo neanderthalensis 0.3 - 0.03
Homo sapiens 0.1 - present
There is a graphic of it here:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/humtree.html
I said, "prove it". But none-the-less, let me give you
some help. Australopithecus afarensis is already off
that tree, according to many scientists.
Such as..?
It is now a
"debated fossil". So your tree has already died.
Debated does not mean dead. Try again.
You
people still keep using the same old information. It
was nothing more than a 3 foot high, tree dwelling
monkey.
And btw, don't ask me for any documentation.
lemme guess.. because you don't have any and are making this up as you
go along, aided by some google net skimming?
I told
you guys to prove it.
He did. What you forgot to add was - to your satisfaction.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
21 Apr 2005 04:31:15 PM |
|
|
In article <sakc61dc0k283ovgiurfoguvvemk3ip5kj@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
I said, "prove it".
Man, what do you know of science? There is no proof in science. Only
facts and evidence. From the evidence we produce a "best fit" theory.
But none-the-less, let me give you
some help. Australopithecus afarensis is already off
that tree, according to many scientists. It is now a
"debated fossil".
Can you provide EVIDENCE of this argument? Or are you just shooting your
mouth off and making unsupported statements?
So your tree has already died. You
people still keep using the same old information.
Because no one has refuted it - it is accepted by nearly all scientists
as factual.
It was nothing more than a 3 foot high, tree dwelling
monkey.
Say gidday to your (and the rest of ours) ancestor.
And btw, don't ask me for any documentation. I told
you guys to prove it.
I have no problem with this - questioning the evidence is good science.
It should stand up to scrutiny. However, be aware that there is no proof
in science, just facts and evidence.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
21 Apr 2005 12:30:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:03:04 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 04:19:12 GMT, Azrael
<god@my.computer.palace.com> spake thusly:
So how do you explain all those hominid fossils? How do you explain that
nearly all scientists who study human evolution disagree with you?
There is no hominid tree. If there were, this argument
would have been over long ago. If you think there is,
then prove it, but be ready to discuss each and every
fossil you name along the way.
Hominid Time Spans
Species Time Span (millions of years ago)
Ardipethicus ramidus 4.4
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 - 3.9
Australopithecus afarensis 3.9 - 3.0
Australopithecus africanus 2.8 - 2.4
Australopithecus aethiopicus 2.7 - 1.9
Australopithecus boisei 2.3 - 1.4
Australopithecus robustus 1.9 - 1.0
Homo sp. 2.5 - ?
Homo rudolfensis 2.4 - 1.9
Homo habilis 1.9 - 1.6
Homo ergaster 1.8 - 1.5
Homo erectus 1.2 - 0.4
Homo heidelbergensis 0.6 - 0.2
Homo neanderthalensis 0.3 - 0.03
Homo sapiens 0.1 - present
There is a graphic of it here:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/humtree.html
I said, "prove it". But none-the-less, let me give you
some help. Australopithecus afarensis is already off
that tree, according to many scientists. It is now a
"debated fossil". So your tree has already died. You
people still keep using the same old information. It
was nothing more than a 3 foot high, tree dwelling
monkey.
And btw, don't ask me for any documentation. I told
you guys to prove it.
You're the one claiming that God created man in his image...the onus
of proof is upon you.
PCB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 09:15:46 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <erc8615ik4lfbvk0b65mav8i90hv3br0j5@4ax.com>,
Antagonist for God pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:31:39 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <lph761hb8ml2tkuiuul5tniegriprvhbl8@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
Erm, no. We can trace the human mitochondrial genome back to a few
families - not to one particular individual.
Sorry, wrong. That's why she's called, "Mitochondrial Eve".
I don't think you understand the hypothesis. For one, there are any number
of "Mitochondrial Eves." And the "Eve" you're talking about also had an
"Eve" in her past. Nor do we know with certainty that only that
matrilineal line survived.
There's no real comparison to the biblical "Eve."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 08:52:47 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <lph761hb8ml2tkuiuul5tniegriprvhbl8@4ax.com>,
Antagonist for God pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
No we don't.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 05:00:23 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:_tGdnWbz7Jvt-fnfRVn-2A@megapath.net...
In our last episode <lph761hb8ml2tkuiuul5tniegriprvhbl8@4ax.com>,
Antagonist for God pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
No we don't.
It's an easy mistake to make. Due to the fact that everybody has two
parents, four grandparents, eight greatgrandparents and so on, genetic
material gets very mixed up and diluted. It is possible to trace back DNA
which is passed unaltered from mother to daughter, or from father to son.
The mitochondrial DNA follows an unbroken chain of daughters. It has nothing
to say about the women who gave birth to sons. It's possible that the same
woman was the originator of all the other chains of descent, which feature
at least one male, but there's no proof of it.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 08:22:22 AM |
|
|
Scríobh "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:_tGdnWbz7Jvt-fnfRVn-2A@megapath.net...
In our last episode <lph761hb8ml2tkuiuul5tniegriprvhbl8@4ax.com>,
Antagonist for God pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
No we don't.
It's an easy mistake to make. Due to the fact that everybody has two
parents, four grandparents, eight greatgrandparents and so on, genetic
material gets very mixed up and diluted. It is possible to trace back DNA
which is passed unaltered from mother to daughter, or from father to son.
The mitochondrial DNA follows an unbroken chain of daughters. It has nothing
to say about the women who gave birth to sons. It's possible that the same
woman was the originator of all the other chains of descent, which feature
at least one male, but there's no proof of it.
If an individual MtEve exists, its pretty much a certainly her father
is the descendant of all of us though.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 08:25:51 AM |
|
|
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:1f1a61hg0n8d94nmq20j14s9o4o69lig7b@4ax.com...
....
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
No we don't.
It's an easy mistake to make. Due to the fact that everybody has two
parents, four grandparents, eight greatgrandparents and so on, genetic
material gets very mixed up and diluted. It is possible to trace back DNA
which is passed unaltered from mother to daughter, or from father to son.
The mitochondrial DNA follows an unbroken chain of daughters. It has
nothing
to say about the women who gave birth to sons. It's possible that the
same
woman was the originator of all the other chains of descent, which
feature
at least one male, but there's no proof of it.
If an individual MtEve exists, its pretty much a certainly her father
is the descendant of all of us though.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that.
He might be an ancestor that we all have in common, but there might be other
male ancestors that aren't all shared.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 10:47:51 AM |
|
|
Scríobh "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:1f1a61hg0n8d94nmq20j14s9o4o69lig7b@4ax.com...
...
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
No we don't.
It's an easy mistake to make. Due to the fact that everybody has two
parents, four grandparents, eight greatgrandparents and so on, genetic
material gets very mixed up and diluted. It is possible to trace back DNA
which is passed unaltered from mother to daughter, or from father to son.
The mitochondrial DNA follows an unbroken chain of daughters. It has
nothing
to say about the women who gave birth to sons. It's possible that the
same
woman was the originator of all the other chains of descent, which
feature
at least one male, but there's no proof of it.
If an individual MtEve exists, its pretty much a certainly her father
is the descendant of all of us though.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that.
Ancestor of us all. My apologies, this putative Adam is of course a
common ancestor, not a common descendant
He might be an ancestor that we all have in common, but there might be other
male ancestors that aren't all shared.
Since my father isn't your father, I'm pretty sure that's true..
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 11:18:58 AM |
|
|
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:ft8a619k29t7c1qqokjoe405v17h8q87ua@4ax.com...
....
If an individual MtEve exists, its pretty much a certainly her father
is the descendant of all of us though.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that.
Ancestor of us all. My apologies, this putative Adam is of course a
common ancestor, not a common descendant
In retrospect, that was a bit too easy-going.
You're a liar. Goodbye.
There, that's better.
He might be an ancestor that we all have in common, but there might be
other
male ancestors that aren't all shared.
Since my father isn't your father, I'm pretty sure that's true..
I'm fairly sure that's the case, but can we prove it?
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 11:21:14 AM |
|
|
Scríobh "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:ft8a619k29t7c1qqokjoe405v17h8q87ua@4ax.com...
...
If an individual MtEve exists, its pretty much a certainly her father
is the descendant of all of us though.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that.
Ancestor of us all. My apologies, this putative Adam is of course a
common ancestor, not a common descendant
In retrospect, that was a bit too easy-going.
You're a liar. Goodbye.
There, that's better.
He might be an ancestor that we all have in common, but there might be
other
male ancestors that aren't all shared.
Since my father isn't your father, I'm pretty sure that's true..
I'm fairly sure that's the case, but can we prove it?
You lack my burly physique and bronzed Adonis good looks.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 11:25:09 AM |
|
|
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:quba61png736gnno0nhotnctk2m57sh0lp@4ax.com...
....
He might be an ancestor that we all have in common, but there might be
other
male ancestors that aren't all shared.
Since my father isn't your father, I'm pretty sure that's true..
I'm fairly sure that's the case, but can we prove it?
You lack my burly physique and bronzed
Hasn't that worn off since giving up the fags?
Adonis good looks.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 03:32:41 AM |
|
|
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <qiv561pgb8jvg7n5deqb6vhvopsghjsuf9@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Oh really? Care to state what it is, please. I am unaware of any actual
evidence supporting the existence of the ark, so if you have something,
I'd love to hear it.
Cheers,
TGHO
I said SOME evidence by scanning parts of the earth. It's just a
matter of time before hard evidence can be found.
People did not believe that pictures could be send through the air and
now we have television.
There have been many interesting programs on the Discovery Channel and
History Channel that use science to make discoveries.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 07:54:02 AM |
|
|
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pbdh615el9qlpovsr7i0e2a4ju9qcc80u2@4ax.com...
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <qiv561pgb8jvg7n5deqb6vhvopsghjsuf9@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Oh really? Care to state what it is, please. I am unaware of any actual
evidence supporting the existence of the ark, so if you have something,
I'd love to hear it.
Cheers,
TGHO
I said SOME evidence by scanning parts of the earth.
What? Where is this evidence?
It's just a
matter of time before hard evidence can be found.
Oh yeah, that's what they all say.
People did not believe that pictures could be send through the air and
now we have television.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
There have been many interesting programs on the Discovery Channel and
History Channel that use science to make discoveries.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Bride of Satan
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 08:31:52 AM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3csaeoF6mclkkU1@individual.net...
....
There have been many interesting programs on the Discovery Channel and
History Channel that use science to make discoveries.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
This has been left as an exercise for the class.
J/
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
http://www.zenhex.com/quiz.php?id=710
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
23 Apr 2005 02:50:12 AM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pbdh615el9qlpovsr7i0e2a4ju9qcc80u2@4ax.com...
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <qiv561pgb8jvg7n5deqb6vhvopsghjsuf9@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Oh really? Care to state what it is, please. I am unaware of any actual
evidence supporting the existence of the ark, so if you have something,
I'd love to hear it.
Cheers,
TGHO
I said SOME evidence by scanning parts of the earth.
What? Where is this evidence?
It's just a
matter of time before hard evidence can be found.
Oh yeah, that's what they all say.
People did not believe that pictures could be send through the air and
now we have television.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
There have been many interesting programs on the Discovery Channel and
History Channel that use science to make discoveries.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
I wish I could tell you what the program was about and how they had
proof that the ark existed, but it's been a long time since I saw it.
I may have it recorded on video tape.
If I find it on tape when I'll watch it again and full you in on the
facts.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
23 Apr 2005 12:05:03 PM |
|
|
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cvj61lr6843agtali0qoj4547i6mdaod1@4ax.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pbdh615el9qlpovsr7i0e2a4ju9qcc80u2@4ax.com...
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <qiv561pgb8jvg7n5deqb6vhvopsghjsuf9@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Oh really? Care to state what it is, please. I am unaware of any actual
evidence supporting the existence of the ark, so if you have something,
I'd love to hear it.
Cheers,
TGHO
I said SOME evidence by scanning parts of the earth.
What? Where is this evidence?
It's just a
matter of time before hard evidence can be found.
Oh yeah, that's what they all say.
People did not believe that pictures could be send through the air and
now we have television.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
There have been many interesting programs on the Discovery Channel and
History Channel that use science to make discoveries.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
I wish I could tell you what the program was about and how they had
proof that the ark existed, but it's been a long time since I saw it.
I may have it recorded on video tape.
If I find it on tape when I'll watch it again and full you in on the
facts.
Somehow I doubt there are any "facts" involved.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Bride of Satan
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
25 Apr 2005 01:32:22 AM |
|
|
In article <3cvj61lr6843agtali0qoj4547i6mdaod1@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
I wish I could tell you what the program was about and how they had
proof that the ark existed, but it's been a long time since I saw it.
I may have it recorded on video tape.
If I find it on tape when I'll watch it again and full you in on the
facts.
A *television* show? This is what you base your evidence on?? Come on,
mate. Give me some actual scientific evidence, not some rubbish on the
T.V.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One
ANZAC Day
Lest We Forget
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
25 Apr 2005 03:14:14 AM |
|
|
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <3cvj61lr6843agtali0qoj4547i6mdaod1@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
I wish I could tell you what the program was about and how they had
proof that the ark existed, but it's been a long time since I saw it.
I may have it recorded on video tape.
If I find it on tape when I'll watch it again and full you in on the
facts.
A *television* show? This is what you base your evidence on?? Come on,
mate. Give me some actual scientific evidence, not some rubbish on the
T.V.
Cheers,
TGHO
If they said on the news that they had found a curer for cancer or Big
Ben in London had been blown up most people would believe this as they
don't have a reason to not believe it.
The program on the discovery channel leaves it up to the viewer to
decide what is true or false, they don't give hard facts such as "This
is proof that the ark did exist".
There are also many science theories that are yet to be proved such as
time travel.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
25 Apr 2005 04:47:20 AM |
|
|
In article <hb9p61tvm6rqe3hfukvptn2fsauuof80sl@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
If they said on the news that they had found a curer for cancer or Big
Ben in London had been blown up most people would believe this as they
don't have a reason to not believe it.
I, personally, would want to see some evidence. From more than one
source, preferably.
The program on the discovery channel leaves it up to the viewer to
decide what is true or false, they don't give hard facts such as "This
is proof that the ark did exist".
If they don't give hard facts, then they are not doing science. Science
is based on hard facts.
Furthermore, science does not leave room for people to decide if it is
true or false, it just states the evidence.
There are also many science theories that are yet to be proved such as
time travel.
Okay, mate, I can see you lack some understanding of what a scientific
theory actually is. First of all, there is no proof in science, there
are simply facts and explanations on how those facts work. These
explanations are called theories. Whilst they may be the best
explanation for the facts we currently have, new facts may cause the
theory to be changed or updated.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One
ANZAC Day
Lest We Forget
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
25 Apr 2005 07:10:26 AM |
|
|
Wonder wrote:
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <3cvj61lr6843agtali0qoj4547i6mdaod1@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
I wish I could tell you what the program was about and how they had
proof that the ark existed, but it's been a long time since I saw it.
I may have it recorded on video tape.
If I find it on tape when I'll watch it again and full you in on the
facts.
A *television* show? This is what you base your evidence on?? Come on,
mate. Give me some actual scientific evidence, not some rubbish on the
T.V.
Cheers,
TGHO
If they said on the news that they had found a curer for cancer or Big
Ben in London had been blown up most people would believe this as they
don't have a reason to not believe it.
The program on the discovery channel leaves it up to the viewer to
decide what is true or false, they don't give hard facts such as "This
is proof that the ark did exist".
There are also many science theories that are yet to be proved such as
time travel.
Bible Studier
There's a Theory of time travel ?! If you mean Relativity ....... it
allows for Time Travel ....... but not in any practical way ..... once
again BS, just buy the odd Scientific American magazine ..... $10 a
month..... any Newsagent... even in Melbourne ( which is where I think
you are )..... you'll be amazed at what Science is finding ..... and
what it isn't finding...... i.e. evidence for 'The Flood' .....
--
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: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
23 Apr 2005 10:19:27 AM |
|
|
Wonder wrote:
Gidday BS,
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Oh really? Care to state what it is, please. I am unaware of any actual
evidence supporting the existence of the ark, so if you have something,
I'd love to hear it.
Cheers,
TGHO
I said SOME evidence by scanning parts of the earth.
What? Where is this evidence?
It's just a
matter of time before hard evidence can be found.
Oh yeah, that's what they all say.
People did not believe that pictures could be send through the air and
now we have television.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
There have been many interesting programs on the Discovery Channel and
History Channel that use science to make discoveries.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
I wish I could tell you what the program was about and how they had
proof that the ark existed, but it's been a long time since I saw it.
I may have it recorded on video tape.
If I find it on tape when I'll watch it again and full you in on the
facts.
Bible Studier
How stupid are you ? A documentary on TV is NOT an argument, I saw a
documentary on Discovery Channel about UFO's, some of the people in this
Doco were quite convinced UFO's ( and the Aliens that go with them )
existed ..... do you believe in UFO's too ? Is this how you get all your
science ?
I'll repeat it for you, NO ONE has ever found ANY evidence for the
existence of the Ark ..... lots of people have 'claimed' it, but none of
these claims has ever withstood even the slightest scrutiny ....
and despite your silly claims .... Mt.Ararat has been well and truly
scaled, mapped, explored and documented ......it's been famous for quite
some time now, as you are probably aware, even the US military has
comprehensively imaged it from their satellites...... guess what ?
no Ark .....
READ THESE :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
--
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: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
24 Apr 2005 10:38:14 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wonder wrote:
Gidday BS,
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Oh really? Care to state what it is, please. I am unaware of any actual
evidence supporting the existence of the ark, so if you have something,
I'd love to hear it.
Cheers,
TGHO
I said SOME evidence by scanning parts of the earth.
What? Where is this evidence?
It's just a
matter of time before hard evidence can be found.
Oh yeah, that's what they all say.
People did not believe that pictures could be send through the air and
now we have television.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
There have been many interesting programs on the Discovery Channel and
History Channel that use science to make discoveries.
And this proves the ark exists, how?
I wish I could tell you what the program was about and how they had
proof that the ark existed, but it's been a long time since I saw it.
I may have it recorded on video tape.
If I find it on tape when I'll watch it again and full you in on the
facts.
Bible Studier
How stupid are you ? A documentary on TV is NOT an argument, I saw a
documentary on Discovery Channel about UFO's, some of the people in this
Doco were quite convinced UFO's ( and the Aliens that go with them )
existed ..... do you believe in UFO's too ? Is this how you get all your
science ?
Everyone has options on UFO's mine is that they are testing a top
secret plane which can become visual at times and the talk about UFO's
and Aliens is just a cover up. No I don't have any proof of this.
Programs such as those on the Discovery Channel lay down the facts and
let the viewer decide on what is possible. In this case satellites
gave a pattern that seem to much the shape of the ark and the location
was in the most likely place were the ark might be found. It's not
strong enough proof that the ark existed but it's a start.
Bible Studier
I'll repeat it for you, NO ONE has ever found ANY evidence for the
existence of the Ark ..... lots of people have 'claimed' it, but none of
these claims has ever withstood even the slightest scrutiny ....
and despite your silly claims .... Mt.Ararat has been well and truly
scaled, mapped, explored and documented ......it's been famous for quite
some time now, as you are probably aware, even the US military has
comprehensively imaged it from their satellites...... guess what ?
no Ark .....
READ THESE :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duck" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
24 Apr 2005 11:56:50 AM |
|
|
Bible Studier wrote
Programs such as those on the Discovery Channel lay down the facts
and
let the viewer decide on what is possible. In this case satellites
gave a pattern that seem to much the shape of the ark and the
location
was in the most likely place were the ark might be found. It's not
strong enough proof that the ark existed but it's a start.
*It's years old and false. It was dreamed up by a Christian scientist
who wanted to believe it was the ark (and made quite a lot of money
from it) when real scientists examined it they found it to be rock
formation.
Duck
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
25 Apr 2005 09:48:35 AM |
|
|
"Duck" <duckkayak@'microsoftsemailservice'.com> wrote in message
news:426bcfa7_1@x-privat.org...
Bible Studier wrote
Programs such as those on the Discovery Channel lay down the facts
and
let the viewer decide on what is possible. In this case satellites
gave a pattern that seem to much the shape of the ark and the
location
was in the most likely place were the ark might be found. It's not
strong enough proof that the ark existed but it's a start.
*It's years old and false. It was dreamed up by a Christian scientist
who wanted to believe it was the ark (and made quite a lot of money
from it) when real scientists examined it they found it to be rock
formation.
What's odd about it is that there is no article of the Christian faith that
says that the ark would survive until the present day. It's even possible to
believe in the literal truth of the Noah account - something limited to a
minority of Christians - and have no requirement to believe that there is
any trace left of the ark. It would seem quite likely that following a
flood, there would be plenty of use for the only source of dry timber in the
entire world.
J/
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
http://www.zenhex.com/quiz.php?id=710
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duck" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
11 May 2005 12:11:51 AM |
|
|
"westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com> wrote in message
It's even possible to
believe in the literal truth of the Noah account - something limited
to a
minority of Christians - and have no requirement to believe that
there is
any trace left of the ark. It would seem quite likely that following
a
flood, there would be plenty of use for the only source of dry
timber in the
entire world.
*Good point and since it would've taken time to replenish the plants
after a year underwater, the animals would've been the only source of
food.....unless he squeezed in extra supply's for himself, his family
and animals as well. Doctor Who couldn't have designed better.
Duck
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
24 Apr 2005 01:43:06 PM |
|
|
Duck wrote:
Bible Studier wrote
Programs such as those on the Discovery Channel lay down the facts
and
let the viewer decide on what is possible. In this case satellites
gave a pattern that seem to much the shape of the ark and the
location
was in the most likely place were the ark might be found. It's not
strong enough proof that the ark existed but it's a start.
*It's years old and false. It was dreamed up by a Christian scientist
who wanted to believe it was the ark (and made quite a lot of money
from it) when real scientists examined it they found it to be rock
formation.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/mt_ararat.html points out a
little different story and is interesting in it's own right
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
