| 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? |
17 Apr 2005 04:29:52 PM |
|
|
In article <3cfeafF6ncinjU1@individual.net>,
says...
Things are going well thanks, though the witchling's just getting over an
upper-respiratory virus that's making the rounds through her school. She's
pretty chipper today. I was laid off from Sony electronics last August and
took an extremely delightful six months off. I now work for a company that
designs and installs computer networks in schools. The family is well and
the cats are their usual silly selves.
How are you guys doing? :)
Everything is going pretty well here. I got offered a full time job as a
Test Manager at the company I was contracting for, and now am running a
bunch of test monkeys on a couple of largish projects. Liquid Grace is
working away at a job which is *so* much better than the last one (She
says hi, and smacked me for flirting!).
I'm back at Aikido, losing weight and bopping heads. The cats are
completely crazy, as they usually are. Now that we have Sammy on the
right drugs, she's hardly had an asthma attack in the past four months.
And LG's kid comes over shortly too. I'm looking forward to spending
some time with my stepson.
So, things are pretty grand at the moment! :) I'll be posting back here
for a little while, whilst I have a touch of spare time. Very good to
chat with you again.
Now, how about that spanking? :P
Cheers dudette,
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: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 05:25:56 PM |
|
|
"The Great Hairy One" <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ccd805e5e4e9db9896a4@freenews.iinet.net.au...
In article <3cfeafF6ncinjU1@individual.net>,
says...
Things are going well thanks, though the witchling's just getting over an
upper-respiratory virus that's making the rounds through her school.
She's
pretty chipper today. I was laid off from Sony electronics last August
and
took an extremely delightful six months off. I now work for a company
that
designs and installs computer networks in schools. The family is well
and
the cats are their usual silly selves.
How are you guys doing? :)
Everything is going pretty well here. I got offered a full time job as a
Test Manager at the company I was contracting for, and now am running a
bunch of test monkeys on a couple of largish projects. Liquid Grace is
working away at a job which is *so* much better than the last one (She
says hi, and smacked me for flirting!).
With me? Aw, c'mon. That's as safe as flirting with your sister (thought
not quite as creepy) :)
I'm back at Aikido, losing weight and bopping heads. The cats are
completely crazy, as they usually are. Now that we have Sammy on the
right drugs, she's hardly had an asthma attack in the past four months.
Good! Poor thing. Both my cats have been suffering from a bad case of
kitty-up-the-butt-itis. Every time I sit down for five seconds, they both
make a beeline for my lap. I thought they'd stop since the weather has been
warming up, but no such luck :)
And LG's kid comes over shortly too. I'm looking forward to spending
some time with my stepson.
Cool! I didn't know LG had a son :)
So, things are pretty grand at the moment! :) I'll be posting back here
for a little while, whilst I have a touch of spare time. Very good to
chat with you again.
Right back atcha. You've been missed :)
Now, how about that spanking? :P
Wooooooooooooooooot! Let me go get the leather teddy :)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CONservatyrd" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
28 Jan 2008 09:22:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:22:12 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:55h061p9vfvdof0b883jp6kq2vc5923j2s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:18:51 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:56:47 GMT, Ninth Commandment
<ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
I've heard of the Elohim. Could you please provide a Biblical
reference to them to me please?
Ned
I can.
Gen 1:1 "God" is the English translation of Elohim.
I was always told that the Elohim were what are now commonly known as
"angels"
Or was that your god screwing everyone?
Are you talking about Genesis 6?
No, Genisis AFTER Phil Collins joined ; )
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
--
Victory-Victory-Victory says Dumbya, HEY DUMBYA - that's ahhhwhat we
call "stuck on stupid" boy...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nebulous" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
29 Jan 2008 01:27:03 AM |
|
|
"CONservatyrd" <captmicro@msn.com> wrote in message
The Troubles of Matthew Mahoney
In a little town in Devonshire, in the mellow September moonlight,
A gentleman passing along a street saw a pitiful sight,
A man bending over the form of a woman on the pavement.
He was uttering plaintive words and seemingly discontent.
"What's the matter with the woman?" asked the gentleman,
As the poor, fallen woman he did narrowly scan.
"There's something the matter, as yer honour can see,
But it's not right to prate about my wife, blame me."
"Is that really your wife?" said the gentleman.
"Yes, sor, but she looks very pale and wan."
"But surely she is much younger than you?"
"Only fourteen years, sor, that is thrue."
"It's myself that looks a deal oulder nor I really am,
Throuble have whitened my heir, my good gintleman,
Which was once as black as the wings of a crow,
And it's throuble as is dyed it as white as the snow.
Come, my dear sowl, Bridget, it's past nine o'clock,
And to see yez lying there it gives my heart a shock."
And he smoothed away the raven hair from her forehead,
And her hands hung heavily as if she had been dead.
The gentleman saw what was the matter and he sighed again,
And he said, "It's a great trial and must give you pain,
But I see you are willing to help her all you can."
But the encouraging words was not lost upon the Irishman.
"Thrial!" he echoed, "Don't mintion it, yer honour,
But the blessing of God rest upon her.
Poor crathur, she's good barrin' this one fault,
And by any one I don't like to hear her miscault."
"What was the reason of her taking to drink?"
"Bless yer honour, that's jest what I oftentimes think,
Some things is done without any rason at all,
And, sure, this one to me is a great downfall.
'Ah, Bridget, my darlin', I never dreamt ye'd come to this,"
And stooping down, her cheek he did kiss.
While a glittering tear flashed in the moonlight to the ground,
For the poor husband's grief was really profound.
"Have you any children?" asked the gentleman.
"No, yer honour, bless the Lord, contented I am,
I wouldn't have the lambs know any harm o' their mother,
Besides, sor, to me they would be a great bother."
"What is your trade, my good man?"
"Gardening, sor, and mighty fond of it I am.
Kind sor, I am out of a job and I am dying with sorrow."
"Well, you can call at my house by ten o'clock to-morrow.
"And I'll see what I can do for you.
Now, hasten home with your wife, and I bid you adieu.
But stay, my good man, I did not ask your name."
"My name is Matthew Mahoney, after Father Matthew of great fame,"
Then Mahoney stooped and lifted Bridget tenderly,
And carried her home in his arms cheerfully,
And put her to bed while he felt quite content,
Still hoping Bridget would see the folly of drinking and repent.
And at ten o'clock next morning Matthew was at Blandford Hall,
And politely for Mr Gillespie he did call,
But he was told Mrs Gillespie he would see,
And was invited into the parlour cheerfully.
And when Mrs Gillespie entered the room
She said, "Matthew Mahoney, I suppose you want to know your doom.
Well, Matthew, tell your wife to call here to-morrow."
"I'll ax her, my lady, for my heart's full of sorrow."
So Matthew got his wife to make her appearance at Blandford Hall,
And, trembling, upon Mrs Gillespie poor Bridget did call,
And had a pleasant interview with Mrs Gillespie,
And was told she was wanted for a new lodge-keeper immediately.
"But, Bridget, my dear woman, you mustn't drink any more,
For you have got a good husband you ought to adore,
And Mr Gillespie will help you, I'm sure,
Because he is very kind to deserving poor."
And Bridget's repentance was hearty and sincere,
And by the grace of God she never drank whisky, rum, or beer,
And good thoughts come into her mind of Heaven above,
And Matthew Mahoney dearly does her love.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
16 Apr 2005 04:46:55 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:55h061p9vfvdof0b883jp6kq2vc5923j2s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:18:51 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:56:47 GMT, Ninth Commandment
<ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
I've heard of the Elohim. Could you please provide a Biblical
reference to them to me please?
Ned
I can.
Gen 1:1 "God" is the English translation of Elohim.
I was always told that the Elohim were what are now commonly known as
"angels"
If that's true then angels created the heavens and the earth, not God. But
Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth."
Seraphim and Cherubim are two groups of angels described by the bible. The
suffix "im" means plural. Whatever created the heavens and the Earth,
they were plural, according to the Bible.
Maybe "Jacks in the Green" did it.
Glenn Arnold
.
|
|
|
| User: "Telladunce DaSign" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
28 Jan 2008 09:22:09 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:55h061p9vfvdof0b883jp6kq2vc5923j2s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:18:51 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:56:47 GMT, Ninth Commandment
<ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
I've heard of the Elohim. Could you please provide a Biblical
reference to them to me please?
Ned
I can.
Gen 1:1 "God" is the English translation of Elohim.
I was always told that the Elohim were what are now commonly known as
"angels"
If that's true then angels created the heavens and the earth, not God. But
Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth."
Seraphim and Cherubim are two groups of angels described by the bible. The
suffix "im" means plural. Whatever created the heavens and the Earth,
they were plural, according to the Bible.
Maybe "Jacks in the Green" did it.
lmao...I love it when morons are put in place with their own words,
especially starting off with "If that's true" ...much like Keith Olbermann
does with Bill O'LIElly every night...
Glenn Arnold
--
"I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity
one redeeming feature"
- Thomas Jefferson
http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-fathers-xtianity.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nebulous" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
29 Jan 2008 01:26:46 AM |
|
|
"Telladunce Da'Sign" <sccrmxc12@comcast.net> wrote in message
The Troubles of Matthew Mahoney
In a little town in Devonshire, in the mellow September moonlight,
A gentleman passing along a street saw a pitiful sight,
A man bending over the form of a woman on the pavement.
He was uttering plaintive words and seemingly discontent.
"What's the matter with the woman?" asked the gentleman,
As the poor, fallen woman he did narrowly scan.
"There's something the matter, as yer honour can see,
But it's not right to prate about my wife, blame me."
"Is that really your wife?" said the gentleman.
"Yes, sor, but she looks very pale and wan."
"But surely she is much younger than you?"
"Only fourteen years, sor, that is thrue."
"It's myself that looks a deal oulder nor I really am,
Throuble have whitened my heir, my good gintleman,
Which was once as black as the wings of a crow,
And it's throuble as is dyed it as white as the snow.
Come, my dear sowl, Bridget, it's past nine o'clock,
And to see yez lying there it gives my heart a shock."
And he smoothed away the raven hair from her forehead,
And her hands hung heavily as if she had been dead.
The gentleman saw what was the matter and he sighed again,
And he said, "It's a great trial and must give you pain,
But I see you are willing to help her all you can."
But the encouraging words was not lost upon the Irishman.
"Thrial!" he echoed, "Don't mintion it, yer honour,
But the blessing of God rest upon her.
Poor crathur, she's good barrin' this one fault,
And by any one I don't like to hear her miscault."
"What was the reason of her taking to drink?"
"Bless yer honour, that's jest what I oftentimes think,
Some things is done without any rason at all,
And, sure, this one to me is a great downfall.
'Ah, Bridget, my darlin', I never dreamt ye'd come to this,"
And stooping down, her cheek he did kiss.
While a glittering tear flashed in the moonlight to the ground,
For the poor husband's grief was really profound.
"Have you any children?" asked the gentleman.
"No, yer honour, bless the Lord, contented I am,
I wouldn't have the lambs know any harm o' their mother,
Besides, sor, to me they would be a great bother."
"What is your trade, my good man?"
"Gardening, sor, and mighty fond of it I am.
Kind sor, I am out of a job and I am dying with sorrow."
"Well, you can call at my house by ten o'clock to-morrow.
"And I'll see what I can do for you.
Now, hasten home with your wife, and I bid you adieu.
But stay, my good man, I did not ask your name."
"My name is Matthew Mahoney, after Father Matthew of great fame,"
Then Mahoney stooped and lifted Bridget tenderly,
And carried her home in his arms cheerfully,
And put her to bed while he felt quite content,
Still hoping Bridget would see the folly of drinking and repent.
And at ten o'clock next morning Matthew was at Blandford Hall,
And politely for Mr Gillespie he did call,
But he was told Mrs Gillespie he would see,
And was invited into the parlour cheerfully.
And when Mrs Gillespie entered the room
She said, "Matthew Mahoney, I suppose you want to know your doom.
Well, Matthew, tell your wife to call here to-morrow."
"I'll ax her, my lady, for my heart's full of sorrow."
So Matthew got his wife to make her appearance at Blandford Hall,
And, trembling, upon Mrs Gillespie poor Bridget did call,
And had a pleasant interview with Mrs Gillespie,
And was told she was wanted for a new lodge-keeper immediately.
"But, Bridget, my dear woman, you mustn't drink any more,
For you have got a good husband you ought to adore,
And Mr Gillespie will help you, I'm sure,
Because he is very kind to deserving poor."
And Bridget's repentance was hearty and sincere,
And by the grace of God she never drank whisky, rum, or beer,
And good thoughts come into her mind of Heaven above,
And Matthew Mahoney dearly does her love.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
15 Apr 2005 06:31:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:48:38 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:18:51 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:56:47 GMT, Ninth Commandment
<ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
I've heard of the Elohim. Could you please provide a Biblical
reference to them to me please?
Ned
I can.
Gen 1:1 "God" is the English translation of Elohim.
So there were lots of"Gods" running around then were there?
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
15 Apr 2005 10:00:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:31:38 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:48:38 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:18:51 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:56:47 GMT, Ninth Commandment
<ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
I've heard of the Elohim. Could you please provide a Biblical
reference to them to me please?
Ned
I can.
Gen 1:1 "God" is the English translation of Elohim.
So there were lots of"Gods" running around then were there?
Ned
First there was one God and then there became other gods
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
16 Apr 2005 12:00:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:00:26 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:31:38 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:48:38 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:18:51 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:56:47 GMT, Ninth Commandment
<ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
I've heard of the Elohim. Could you please provide a Biblical
reference to them to me please?
Ned
I can.
Gen 1:1 "God" is the English translation of Elohim.
So there were lots of"Gods" running around then were there?
Ned
First there was one God and then there became other gods
Ok...why shouldn't we worship the other ones then?
Are some of them the fathers and mothers, literally, of the human race
as well?
Is that where the third generation of humanity came from?
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 09:46:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:00:24 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:00:26 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:31:38 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:48:38 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:18:51 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:56:47 GMT, Ninth Commandment
<ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
I've heard of the Elohim. Could you please provide a Biblical
reference to them to me please?
Ned
I can.
Gen 1:1 "God" is the English translation of Elohim.
So there were lots of"Gods" running around then were there?
Ned
First there was one God and then there became other gods
Ok...why shouldn't we worship the other ones then?
Are some of them the fathers and mothers, literally, of the human race
as well?
Is that where the third generation of humanity came from?
Ned
Ned,
Because God said believers are not supposed to worship other gods.
A god can be anything man, animal, beer, crack, etc. that comes
between God and man.
I do not know what you are referring to when you say the third
generation of humanity. Biblically a generation is forty years.
There is a three forty year period in the 120 years of Gen 6:3 where
the word "man" is Adam.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 01:33:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:46:30 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:00:24 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:00:26 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:31:38 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:48:38 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:18:51 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:56:47 GMT, Ninth Commandment
<ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
I've heard of the Elohim. Could you please provide a Biblical
reference to them to me please?
Ned
I can.
Gen 1:1 "God" is the English translation of Elohim.
So there were lots of"Gods" running around then were there?
Ned
First there was one God and then there became other gods
Ok...why shouldn't we worship the other ones then?
Are some of them the fathers and mothers, literally, of the human race
as well?
Is that where the third generation of humanity came from?
Ned
Ned,
Because God said believers are not supposed to worship other gods.
A god can be anything man, animal, beer, crack, etc. that comes
between God and man.
I do not know what you are referring to when you say the third
generation of humanity. Biblically a generation is forty years.
There is a three forty year period in the 120 years of Gen 6:3 where
the word "man" is Adam.
I'm talking about Adam and Eve's grandchildren. Who were their
parents?
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
12 Apr 2005 04:45:04 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 14:00:55 -0700, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops,
(Kenny Leong) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jbtl51tft9pptkadhdn2c5lu678m88tk0i@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:32:25 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
Did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the native flora
and fauna that does not naturally exist elsewhere on the planet or
didn't he?
Enquiring hearts and minds want to know.
Are you upset because you couldn't bring yourself to
admit that I made a true, scientific statement?
Explain how adam and eve were able to produce africans and chinese...you dumb dumb.
1) What does that have to do with my true, scientific
statement that no one has ever seen a star being born?
2) Please tell me you aren't as stupid as the question
you just asked.
--
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: A question for Pastor Dave |
12 Apr 2005 09:39:11 PM |
|
|
In article <j7go51hakv30lhr8nqdeb89f3cnik92kl5@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
What does that have to do with my true, scientific
statement that no one has ever seen a star being born?
No one has seen all of it because it takes longer than humans live and
because we have not had good enough telescopes long enough.
However the unspoken implication that we have not seen it because it
does not occur is contradicted by all of the available objective
evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
13 Apr 2005 04:38:56 PM |
|
|
on 12 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, Pastor Dave dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
On 12 Apr 2005 14:00:55 -0700, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops,
(Kenny Leong) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<jbtl51tft9pptkadhdn2c5lu678m88tk0i@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:32:25 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
Did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the native flora
and fauna that does not naturally exist elsewhere on the planet or
didn't he?
Enquiring hearts and minds want to know.
Are you upset because you couldn't bring yourself to
admit that I made a true, scientific statement?
Explain how adam and eve were able to produce africans and
chinese...you dumb dumb.
1) What does that have to do with my true, scientific
statement that no one has ever seen a star being born?
2) Please tell me you aren't as stupid as the question
you just asked.
Just answer the question, if you can. A&E is just a dumb story in an even
dumber book, written by dumb people without a clue that much later on we
would discover evolution, which poses some very serious threats to the
Genesis creation timeline.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 04:34:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:00:13 +1200, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:28:57 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
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.
No its not. I'm not focussing on the star birth question for now
because its not crucial to my position. I'm quite happy to discuss it
but I'm after rather more fruitful ground, for me at least, and that
being the fact that there is a very serious issue for anyone who holds
that the Bible is literally true and that is:
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.
You accuse me of trying to avoid the question.
Well do on, answer it...did Noah discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or didn't he?
The fact is, you asked
the question in an attempt to avoid admitting that my
simple statement is accurate.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm actually quite interested in this very
topic, now that you raise it but I'm even more interested in hearing
your answer to the question did Noah discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or didn't he?
I understand that there are astronomical images, that have been taken
within our lifetimes, that show areas of space, at one time, with no
star apparent and then at a later date there is a star in that region
where there was not before...
As the theory currently stands, putting it simply, out in interstellar
space there are clouds of gas, predominantly hydrogen, floating
around. Gravitational forces of attraction between the particles of
gas cause the gas to form into clumps which in turn, preferentially
attract more particles of gas until, eventually, the particles are
squeezed together to such an extent that a 'fusion' reaction takes
place and a star is formed...as I understand it you're asking if there
is any recorded evidence of this stellar ignition actually taking
place. Is that what you're asking for?
If so, I will go looking for it.
PCB
Come on Dave...answer my points.
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 05:27:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:34:09 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:00:13 +1200, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:28:57 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
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.
No its not. I'm not focussing on the star birth question for now
because its not crucial to my position. I'm quite happy to discuss it
but I'm after rather more fruitful ground, for me at least, and that
being the fact that there is a very serious issue for anyone who holds
that the Bible is literally true and that is:
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.
You accuse me of trying to avoid the question.
Well do on, answer it...did Noah discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or didn't he?
The fact is, you asked
the question in an attempt to avoid admitting that my
simple statement is accurate.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm actually quite interested in this very
topic, now that you raise it but I'm even more interested in hearing
your answer to the question did Noah discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or didn't he?
I understand that there are astronomical images, that have been taken
within our lifetimes, that show areas of space, at one time, with no
star apparent and then at a later date there is a star in that region
where there was not before...
As the theory currently stands, putting it simply, out in interstellar
space there are clouds of gas, predominantly hydrogen, floating
around. Gravitational forces of attraction between the particles of
gas cause the gas to form into clumps which in turn, preferentially
attract more particles of gas until, eventually, the particles are
squeezed together to such an extent that a 'fusion' reaction takes
place and a star is formed...as I understand it you're asking if there
is any recorded evidence of this stellar ignition actually taking
place. Is that what you're asking for?
If so, I will go looking for it.
PCB
Come on Dave...answer my points.
Irony meter... [.......___..]
--
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 |
11 Apr 2005 08:52:54 PM |
|
|
In article <9eul51d03fh0ggecjqagvlp81skpvprdll@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:34:09 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:00:13 +1200, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:28:57 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
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.
No its not. I'm not focussing on the star birth question for now
because its not crucial to my position. I'm quite happy to discuss it
but I'm after rather more fruitful ground, for me at least, and that
being the fact that there is a very serious issue for anyone who holds
that the Bible is literally true and that is:
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.
You accuse me of trying to avoid the question.
Well do on, answer it...did Noah discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or didn't he?
The fact is, you asked
the question in an attempt to avoid admitting that my
simple statement is accurate.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm actually quite interested in this very
topic, now that you raise it but I'm even more interested in hearing
your answer to the question did Noah discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or didn't he?
I understand that there are astronomical images, that have been taken
within our lifetimes, that show areas of space, at one time, with no
star apparent and then at a later date there is a star in that region
where there was not before...
As the theory currently stands, putting it simply, out in interstellar
space there are clouds of gas, predominantly hydrogen, floating
around. Gravitational forces of attraction between the particles of
gas cause the gas to form into clumps which in turn, preferentially
attract more particles of gas until, eventually, the particles are
squeezed together to such an extent that a 'fusion' reaction takes
place and a star is formed...as I understand it you're asking if there
is any recorded evidence of this stellar ignition actually taking
place. Is that what you're asking for?
If so, I will go looking for it.
PCB
Come on Dave...answer my points.
Irony meter... [.......___..]
IDiot Dave's irony meter is all rusted out.
The only valid ways to reject a scientific theory, like the one that
requires that stars be "born", are (1) find a scientific theory that is
a better match for the data we have and a better predictor of the new
data we are always finding or (2) oobserving events which the theory
says cannot occur (falsifying the theory).
Since Dave can do neither of these, he has no logical arguments at all
against the theory.
Thus his alogical attacks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 01:17:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:27:44 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:34:09 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:00:13 +1200, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:28:57 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
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.
No its not. I'm not focussing on the star birth question for now
because its not crucial to my position. I'm quite happy to discuss it
but I'm after rather more fruitful ground, for me at least, and that
being the fact that there is a very serious issue for anyone who holds
that the Bible is literally true and that is:
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.
You accuse me of trying to avoid the question.
Well do on, answer it...did Noah discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or didn't he?
The fact is, you asked
the question in an attempt to avoid admitting that my
simple statement is accurate.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm actually quite interested in this very
topic, now that you raise it but I'm even more interested in hearing
your answer to the question did Noah discover New Zealand in order to
save all the native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist
elsewhere on the planet or didn't he?
I understand that there are astronomical images, that have been taken
within our lifetimes, that show areas of space, at one time, with no
star apparent and then at a later date there is a star in that region
where there was not before...
As the theory currently stands, putting it simply, out in interstellar
space there are clouds of gas, predominantly hydrogen, floating
around. Gravitational forces of attraction between the particles of
gas cause the gas to form into clumps which in turn, preferentially
attract more particles of gas until, eventually, the particles are
squeezed together to such an extent that a 'fusion' reaction takes
place and a star is formed...as I understand it you're asking if there
is any recorded evidence of this stellar ignition actually taking
place. Is that what you're asking for?
If so, I will go looking for it.
PCB
Come on Dave...answer my points.
Irony meter... [.......___..]
So tell me, did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the
native flora and fauna that does not naturally exist elsewhere on the
planet or didn't he?
Can you answer me, or not?
PCB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
09 Apr 2005 09:22:00 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
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.
Your attempt at dodging the question is apparent to all ...... your Star
birth theory is debunked, we have moved on to 'literalist'
interpretation of the Bible ..... which is where every conversation with
you leads .... Post Colonial Boy has a valid point .... why won't you
address it ? Then we can move on to Koalas .....
--
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: "An Sionnach Rua" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
08 Apr 2005 09:28:51 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave 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.
That is correct. What's your theory?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
08 Apr 2005 10:29:45 AM |
|
|
On 8 Apr 2005 07:28:51 -0700, while wishing I would go
away, "An Sionnach Rua" <womblewilly@hotmail.com> said:
Pastor Dave 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.
That is correct.
Okay, that was an honest statement. I appreciate that.
I really do. Thank you. :)
What's your theory?
I believe that God created the universe and that He did
it in six literal days. I did not see that happen. No
human did. I cannot show you photographs. I do
believe that I can show certain evidences of a young
Earth, that you people currently consider evidence for
an old Earth. Both sides have evidence and often, the
same evidence. We simply draw different conclusions
from said evidence. We can discuss it if you like. We
probably will not agree and so, it is probably a futile
effort, but hey, maybe not. :)
My belief is based mostly on faith. I have not seen
God and cannot put Him in a test tube for you. Of
course, if I could, I'd be God, not Him. :)
I do believe that God lives within me and the evidences
of changes in my life, are evidence that I believe is
real. I was not born a pastor and I was quite a
trouble maker. :)
Anyway, that is my belief. We can discuss various
aspects of what is currently believed by most
scientists, etc.. If you're looking for absolute proof
that God exists and created the universe, I cannot
provide it for you. But your request would be a form
of hypocrisy, when you consider that absolute proof is
not something science deals in and you don't demand it
for your beliefs. In fact, science doesn't deal in
proving anything, but rather, disproving. I will say
that I feel that it takes more faith than I have, to
believe that nothing exploded and here we are and that
everything happened by itself.
You believe what you want to believe. All I ask, is
that when we discuss a scientific idea, that we
separate what can be demonstrated scientifically and
what is a belief. I believe I have done that in my
response to you.
Facts are facts. Beliefs take faith. The fact is that
we have clouds of gas and dust and stars are in them.
The faith you have, is that they are stellar nurseries
and stars are being born there. That was my only
point. No one has ever seen a star being born and so,
it takes a leap of faith, not fact, to claim that it is
happening in those clouds of gas and dust. I have made
a correct and scientific statement.
Bear in mind, I am not saying that people should not
study these clouds of gas and dust scientifically. I
love science! :) I just don't claim that a belief is a
scientific fact, when I cannot demonstrate it to be
true scientifically. Why is it unreasonable to require
the same from others?
--
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: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
09 Apr 2005 02:22:47 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:29:45 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On 8 Apr 2005 07:28:51 -0700, while wishing I would go
away, "An Sionnach Rua" <womblewilly@hotmail.com> said:
Pastor Dave 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.
That is correct.
Okay, that was an honest statement. I appreciate that.
I really do. Thank you. :)
What's your theory?
I believe that God created the universe and that He did
it in six literal days. I did not see that happen. No
human did. I cannot show you photographs. I do
believe that I can show certain evidences of a young
Earth, that you people currently consider evidence for
an old Earth. Both sides have evidence and often, the
same evidence. We simply draw different conclusions
from said evidence. We can discuss it if you like. We
probably will not agree and so, it is probably a futile
effort, but hey, maybe not. :)
My belief is based mostly on faith.
Faith is belief without proof, ergo you cannot "prove" any such thing.
I have not seen
God and cannot put Him in a test tube for you. Of
course, if I could, I'd be God, not Him. :)
Not you, you mean...
In any event, I believe in what you call "God". Its that I'm not so
simplistic about it as you are.
Assuming God created us, minds and all, then surely he intended for us
to use them...
I do believe that God lives within me and the evidences
of changes in my life, are evidence that I believe is
real.
Accepting all of that, for the sake of argument, it still does NOT
follow that the words of the modern King James Version bible (or
indeed any English translation) are the literal truth.
I was not born a pastor and I was quite a
trouble maker. :)
Anyway, that is my belief. We can discuss various
aspects of what is currently believed by most
scientists, etc.. If you're looking for absolute proof
that God exists and created the universe, I cannot
provide it for you. But your request would be a form
of hypocrisy, when you consider that absolute proof is
not something science deals in and you don't demand it
for your beliefs. In fact, science doesn't deal in
proving anything, but rather, disproving.
This is an insufficient understanding of the nature of science. Part
of the logical structure of Science is "Falsifiability" that is,
science seeks to provide assertions that purport to be about matters
of fact which are potentially "falsifiable". For example, the
scientific assertion: "All metals expand upon heating" could possibly
be falsified by the existence of a piece of metal that did not expand
upon heating...so far we haven't found one and therefore this is
accepted as factual...with the proviso that future evidence may impact
on this claim.
I will say that I feel that it takes more faith than I have, to
believe that nothing exploded and here we are and that
everything happened by itself.
Rubbish. How do you qualify that?
You believe what you want to believe.
No. Thats what you're doing.
All I ask, is
that when we discuss a scientific idea, that we
separate what can be demonstrated scientifically and
what is a belief. I believe I have done that in my
response to you.
It is true, I think, that there are facts that are not demonstrable by
scientific means, even on a mundane level, that are nonetheless facts.
Facts are facts. Beliefs take faith.
False. I believe that I have two hands. There is no "faith" involved.
The fact is that
we have clouds of gas and dust and stars are in them.
The faith you have, is that they are stellar nurseries
and stars are being born there. That was my only
point. No one has ever seen a star being born and so,
it takes a leap of faith, not fact, to claim that it is
happening in those clouds of gas and dust. I have made
a correct and scientific statement.
No. You've made a simplistic and illogical statement and you keep
ignoring the counter-examples made by other contributors to this
thread c.f. moving pictures, lumps of dough to bread...
Bear in mind, I am not saying that people should not
study these clouds of gas and dust scientifically. I
love science! :) I just don't claim that a belief is a
scientific fact, when I cannot demonstrate it to be
true scientifically.
No. You're making more claims than that. That, by itself is entirely
fair but you're claiming, amongst other things, that "The Universe was
literally created in six days"...
Why is it unreasonable to require
the same from others?
You're misrepresenting your own argument...this is at best "attacking
a straw man"...of your own making no less...at worst lying.
Which is it?
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
09 Apr 2005 08:28:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:22:47 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
In any event, I believe in what you call "God". Its that I'm not so
simplistic about it as you are.
You assume my beliefs are simplistic.
Assuming God created us, minds and all, then surely he intended for us
to use them...
Which does not mean that you are right and I am wrong.
What did He intend us to use those minds for? To
disbelieve Him?
Anyway, that is my belief. We can discuss various
aspects of what is currently believed by most
scientists, etc.. If you're looking for absolute proof
that God exists and created the universe, I cannot
provide it for you. But your request would be a form
of hypocrisy, when you consider that absolute proof is
not something science deals in and you don't demand it
for your beliefs. In fact, science doesn't deal in
proving anything, but rather, disproving.
This is an insufficient understanding of the nature of science. Part
of the logical structure of Science is "Falsifiability" that is,
science seeks to provide assertions that purport to be about matters
of fact which are potentially "falsifiable". For example, the
scientific assertion: "All metals expand upon heating" could possibly
be falsified by the existence of a piece of metal that did not expand
upon heating...so far we haven't found one and therefore this is
accepted as factual...with the proviso that future evidence may impact
on this claim.
My statement was accurate.
I will say that I feel that it takes more faith than I have, to
believe that nothing exploded and here we are and that
everything happened by itself.
Rubbish. How do you qualify that?
I just did and I don't think the point I made requires
a degree in rocket science to figure out.
You believe what you want to believe.
No. Thats what you're doing.
No, that's what we're both doing.
Facts are facts. Beliefs take faith.
False. I believe that I have two hands. There is no "faith" involved.
That's because you can see both of your hands.
--
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
.
|
|
| | | | |
