Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM |
| Object: |
Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
28 Sep 2007 09:30:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:09:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:
Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.
So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but nothing
else?
Learning what "objective evidence" means is YOUR assignment.
In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence objective.
It's not. Rejection is subjective.
You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for the
other side.
There's NO objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed, so there's no reason to believe in one.
But then I doubt the angel Gabriel shouting in
your ear would be evidence to you.
It would be objective evidence that someone was shouting in my ear,
not objective evidence of a god.
Probably not. The only objective evidence you'll accept is waking up in
hell.
BTDT - there's no objective evidence of hell either. (It's just a
Christian misinterpretation of the Hebrew mention of the fires in the
garbage pit.)
Someone making a claim - no matter who the person is - is NOT
objective evidence.
In other words, science cannot work because scientific papers that you
don't have the resources to check yourself are just "claims."
Science doesn't prove, so that's not a problem for science. Only
religion has 'proofs'.
So where is your evidence for the CLAIM that God does not exist.
The only claim I make is that you haven't produced objective evidence
that it DOES exist and, until you do, there's no reason for me to
accept YOUR claim.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
Yes you are. You talk about an objectively real god - that's an
implicit claim that you have objective evidence of its objective
reality.
and I'm only saying that I believe it on faith
Oh. then the ONLY response necessary is, "who cares?" and there's no
reason to discuss the matter - so why did you bring it up? ("The
matter" being anything to do with the god you believe in.)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 06:40:27 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:bh3qf35b1m0lhkhv3s1kd62kcd996jpf90@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:09:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:
Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.
So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but nothing
else?
Learning what "objective evidence" means is YOUR assignment.
In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence objective.
It's not. Rejection is subjective.
OK, but so is my acceptance, but apparently atheists like Lee cannot
tolerate my existence.
You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for the
other side.
There's NO objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed, so there's no reason to believe in one.
There's no objective evidence that your lack of objective evidence is
actually objective. I've seen things, experienced things that cause me
to believe in God's existence. Learn to live with that. I've learned to
live with the fact that you haven't and may never.
But then I doubt the angel Gabriel shouting in
your ear would be evidence to you.
It would be objective evidence that someone was shouting in my ear,
not objective evidence of a god.
Probably not. The only objective evidence you'll accept is waking up
in
hell.
BTDT - there's no objective evidence of hell either. (It's just a
Christian misinterpretation of the Hebrew mention of the fires in the
garbage pit.)
Uh huh. So you believe. Clearly you've never experienced it directly.
Someone making a claim - no matter who the person is - is NOT
objective evidence.
In other words, science cannot work because scientific papers that you
don't have the resources to check yourself are just "claims."
Science doesn't prove, so that's not a problem for science. Only
religion has 'proofs'.
Actually, real religion does not. It has epiphanies and spiritual
experiences which are often subject to various interpretations (hence the
large number of sects) but it really lacks proof in any formal sense.
Certainly theological arguments can be erected if you accept (even
provisionally) certain underlying axioms. But that's not really THAT far
different from mathematical rigor.
So where is your evidence for the CLAIM that God does not exist.
The only claim I make is that you haven't produced objective evidence
that it DOES exist and, until you do, there's no reason for me to
accept YOUR claim.
I never asked you to. I never offered to produce objective evidence for
any of you, though I have related experiences that *I* believe qualified
as such when they occurred.
But let's do a hypothetical.
If you were able to examine Jesus' body when it was taken down from the
cross (assuming there really was such an event and person) and were able
to watch Him rise from the dead (or even encountered Him in person
afterwards) would that not constitute objective evidence?
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
Yes you are. You talk about an objectively real god - that's an
implicit claim that you have objective evidence of its objective
reality.
Yawn...you talk about there being no deity as if it were a certainty. Is
that not an implicit claim to have objective evidence of a universal
negative? And you call ME daft?
and I'm only saying that I believe it on faith
Oh. then the ONLY response necessary is, "who cares?" and there's no
reason to discuss the matter - so why did you bring it up? ("The
matter" being anything to do with the god you believe in.)
I brought it up originally (as I always do) in a crossposted debate with
another theist who clearly CLAIMS to accept the existence of God and even
certain basic theological concepts. And I was pointing out the
dissonance between his claimed belief and his overt actions. And I do
notice the rabid atheist attack on me for daring to BE a theist in their
august presence.
And you know what? If you don't like it, you can GO TO HELL. I'm
totally tired of dealing with you people. I NEVER had any desire to try
to convert you, so you can take your paranoia, fold it until it's all
corners and shove it the appropriate orifice.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 08:44:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:bh3qf35b1m0lhkhv3s1kd62kcd996jpf90@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:09:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:
Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.
So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but nothing
else?
Learning what "objective evidence" means is YOUR assignment.
In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence objective.
It's not. Rejection is subjective.
OK, but so is my acceptance, but apparently atheists like Lee cannot
tolerate my existence.
All he's saying (and all any of us are saying) is that you refuse to
provide objective evidence to back up your claims that your god
OBJECTIVELY exists. Stop making the claims and we'll stop asking for
evidence.
There's NO objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed, so there's no reason to believe in one.
There's no objective evidence that your lack of objective evidence is
actually objective.
Lack of evidence is neither subjective nor objective - it's lack.
I've seen things, experienced things that cause me
to believe in God's existence. Learn to live with that.
I have no problem with your belief, I just want objective evidence to
back up your claims that your god OBJECTIVELY exists.
BTDT - there's no objective evidence of hell either. (It's just a
Christian misinterpretation of the Hebrew mention of the fires in the
garbage pit.)
Uh huh. So you believe. Clearly you've never experienced it directly.
No, I've been dead and NOT experienced it, so I have a little more
direct knowledge than you do.
Science doesn't prove, so that's not a problem for science. Only
religion has 'proofs'.
Actually, real religion does not.
You're claiming that the Bible - which DOES claim scientific absolutes
- isn't real religion?
So where is your evidence for the CLAIM that God does not exist.
The only claim I make is that you haven't produced objective evidence
that it DOES exist and, until you do, there's no reason for me to
accept YOUR claim.
I never asked you to.
You do every time you claim an objectively real god.
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
You do every time you claim an objectively real god.
But let's do a hypothetical.
If you were able to examine Jesus' body when it was taken down from the
cross (assuming there really was such an event and person) and were able
to watch Him rise from the dead (or even encountered Him in person
afterwards) would that not constitute objective evidence?
Absolutely. If you were able to examine a real god who told you that
Christianity was nonsense, wouldn't that constitute objective
evidence?
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
Yes you are. You talk about an objectively real god - that's an
implicit claim that you have objective evidence of its objective
reality.
Yawn...you talk about there being no deity as if it were a certainty.
No, I talk about there being no deity as if it is a certainty that no
one has ever produced objective evidence that any deity has ever
objectively existed. If you want to believe in the objective
existence of every entity anyone has ever asserted, go ahead, but
rationality works the other way.
and I'm only saying that I believe it on faith
Oh. then the ONLY response necessary is, "who cares?" and there's no
reason to discuss the matter - so why did you bring it up? ("The
matter" being anything to do with the god you believe in.)
I brought it up originally (as I always do) in a crossposted debate with
another theist who clearly CLAIMS to accept the existence of God and even
certain basic theological concepts.
An atheist in alt.atheism? If not, why didn't you trim your news
group list?
And you know what? If you don't like it, you can GO TO HELL.
It's your hell, so you go to it. Assuming you aren't already in it,
which you probably are.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 10:32:33 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:3li0g3dd2q4rjk1nbqemdpe4k3661rc1a7@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:bh3qf35b1m0lhkhv3s1kd62kcd996jpf90@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:09:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:
Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.
So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else?
Learning what "objective evidence" means is YOUR assignment.
In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence objective.
It's not. Rejection is subjective.
OK, but so is my acceptance, but apparently atheists like Lee cannot
tolerate my existence.
All he's saying (and all any of us are saying) is that you refuse to
provide objective evidence to back up your claims that your god
OBJECTIVELY exists. Stop making the claims and we'll stop asking for
evidence.
There's NO objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed, so there's no reason to believe in one.
There's no objective evidence that your lack of objective evidence is
actually objective.
Lack of evidence is neither subjective nor objective - it's lack.
I've seen things, experienced things that cause me
to believe in God's existence. Learn to live with that.
I have no problem with your belief, I just want objective evidence to
back up your claims that your god OBJECTIVELY exists.
BTDT - there's no objective evidence of hell either. (It's just a
Christian misinterpretation of the Hebrew mention of the fires in
the garbage pit.)
Uh huh. So you believe. Clearly you've never experienced it
directly.
No, I've been dead and NOT experienced it, so I have a little more
direct knowledge than you do.
Science doesn't prove, so that's not a problem for science. Only
religion has 'proofs'.
Actually, real religion does not.
You're claiming that the Bible - which DOES claim scientific absolutes
- isn't real religion?
So where is your evidence for the CLAIM that God does not exist.
The only claim I make is that you haven't produced objective
evidence that it DOES exist and, until you do, there's no reason for
me to accept YOUR claim.
I never asked you to.
You do every time you claim an objectively real god.
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
You do every time you claim an objectively real god.
But let's do a hypothetical.
If you were able to examine Jesus' body when it was taken down from
the cross (assuming there really was such an event and person) and
were able to watch Him rise from the dead (or even encountered Him in
person afterwards) would that not constitute objective evidence?
Absolutely. If you were able to examine a real god who told you that
Christianity was nonsense, wouldn't that constitute objective
evidence?
It would, but the real gods I have encountered don't make that claim.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
Yes you are. You talk about an objectively real god - that's an
implicit claim that you have objective evidence of its objective
reality.
Yawn...you talk about there being no deity as if it were a certainty.
No, I talk about there being no deity as if it is a certainty that no
one has ever produced objective evidence that any deity has ever
objectively existed. If you want to believe in the objective
existence of every entity anyone has ever asserted, go ahead, but
rationality works the other way.
That's fine and it makes your opinion that there is none at least
intellectually honest. But do me the favour of accepting that the
evidence *I* have encountered has led me to a different conclusion.
The fact that I cannot produce that evidence on demand for you is no more
proof of its absence than is the lack of a film of the Big Bang proof
that it never happened.
and I'm only saying that I believe it on faith
Oh. then the ONLY response necessary is, "who cares?" and there's
no reason to discuss the matter - so why did you bring it up? ("The
matter" being anything to do with the god you believe in.)
I brought it up originally (as I always do) in a crossposted debate
with another theist who clearly CLAIMS to accept the existence of God
and even certain basic theological concepts.
An atheist in alt.atheism? If not, why didn't you trim your news
group list?
Why haven't YOU?
I don't usually trim newsgroups from the list because I never know which
groups the poster is actually reading. Maybe the fundy posted TO
alt.atheism and doesn't even read alt.bible. I suspect, though, that he
originally posted in alt.religion.christian.
And you know what? If you don't like it, you can GO TO HELL.
It's your hell, so you go to it. Assuming you aren't already in it,
which you probably are.
Yawn....actually it's YOUR hell and you ARE already in it. My mere
existence in your "holy newsgroup" is more than you can actually bear,
right?
Look, I didn't start all the mudslinging. But I'm sure as HELL prepared
to finish it. And you really do NOT want to tempt me too far in that
regard. I'm not a nutcase. I'm something much scarier--an actual
theurgist and exorcist.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 08:09:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:32:33 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:3li0g3dd2q4rjk1nbqemdpe4k3661rc1a7@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
It would, but the real gods I have encountered don't make that claim.
Another offer to produce objective evidence, but you'll still refuse
to produce it.
THAT'S why you're called a liar.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
And you just did.
That's fine and it makes your opinion that there is none at least
intellectually honest. But do me the favour of accepting that the
evidence *I* have encountered has led me to a different conclusion.
Post it - you just offered to above.
The fact that I cannot produce that evidence on demand
Makes you a liar, since you just claimed you could: "the real gods I
have encountered" is a claim that you have real evidence of those
gods.
for you is no more
proof of its absence than is the lack of a film of the Big Bang proof
that it never happened.
No one ever claimed that the big bang is an objectively witnessed
event - you DID claim that your gods are.
and I'm only saying that I believe it on faith
And now you said that you have objective evidence.
I don't usually trim newsgroups from the list because I never know which
groups the poster is actually reading. Maybe the fundy posted TO
alt.atheism and doesn't even read alt.bible.
He posted 'to' all the news groups in the header.
Yawn....actually it's YOUR hell and you ARE already in it. My mere
existence in your "holy newsgroup" is more than you can actually bear,
right?
Until you told us, I had no idea which group you read.
Look, I didn't start all the mudslinging. But I'm sure as HELL prepared
to finish it. And you really do NOT want to tempt me too far in that
regard. I'm not a nutcase. I'm something much scarier--an actual
theurgist and exorcist.
And you're going to do what? Sic a demon on me?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 03:00:03 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:rkf4g31s1kudkpolluemirtitg900otr07@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:32:33 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:3li0g3dd2q4rjk1nbqemdpe4k3661rc1a7@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
It would, but the real gods I have encountered don't make that claim.
Another offer to produce objective evidence, but you'll still refuse
to produce it.
THAT'S why you're called a liar.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
And you just did.
That's fine and it makes your opinion that there is none at least
intellectually honest. But do me the favour of accepting that the
evidence *I* have encountered has led me to a different conclusion.
Post it - you just offered to above.
The fact that I cannot produce that evidence on demand
Makes you a liar, since you just claimed you could: "the real gods I
have encountered" is a claim that you have real evidence of those
gods.
No, it's a claim to have HAD such evidence.
for you is no more
proof of its absence than is the lack of a film of the Big Bang proof
that it never happened.
No one ever claimed that the big bang is an objectively witnessed
event - you DID claim that your gods are.
and I'm only saying that I believe it on faith
And now you said that you have objective evidence.
Nope...you missed the past tense again. If or when I get some with your
name on it, I'll forward it immediately.
I don't usually trim newsgroups from the list because I never know
which
groups the poster is actually reading. Maybe the fundy posted TO
alt.atheism and doesn't even read alt.bible.
He posted 'to' all the news groups in the header.
Yes, he did. A don't read all the newsgroups in the header either. I
only read alt.bible on this list.
Yawn....actually it's YOUR hell and you ARE already in it. My mere
existence in your "holy newsgroup" is more than you can actually bear,
right?
Until you told us, I had no idea which group you read.
So, why do *I* get singled out for a huge character assassination and all
the creationist gets is a quick rebuttal (which is fine with me and what
I was doing in the first place).
Look, I didn't start all the mudslinging. But I'm sure as HELL
prepared
to finish it. And you really do NOT want to tempt me too far in that
regard. I'm not a nutcase. I'm something much scarier--an actual
theurgist and exorcist.
And you're going to do what? Sic a demon on me?
No, but if I find that you're really attached to one, I might turn it
loose. There are certain protocols and limitations that such entities
must follow. I can remove some of them. Or I can send it packing and if
you're besotted with it, you'll end up going with. More likely to happen
to a creationist than to your average atheist, though.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 10:18:05 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 4:00 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote innews:rkf4g31s1kudkpolluemirtitg900otr07@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:32:33 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:3li0g3dd2q4rjk1nbqemdpe4k3661rc1a7@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
It would, but the real gods I have encountered don't make that claim.
Another offer to produce objective evidence, but you'll still refuse
to produce it.
THAT'S why you're called a liar.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
And you just did.
That's fine and it makes your opinion that there is none at least
intellectually honest. But do me the favour of accepting that the
evidence *I* have encountered has led me to a different conclusion.
Post it - you just offered to above.
The fact that I cannot produce that evidence on demand
Makes you a liar, since you just claimed you could: "the real gods I
have encountered" is a claim that you have real evidence of those
gods.
No, it's a claim to have HAD such evidence.
Take some time to remember where you left it and get back to us. :)
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 02:50:30 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511085.735662.282970@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:00 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:rkf4g31s1kudkpolluemirtitg900otr07@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:32:33 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:3li0g3dd2q4rjk1nbqemdpe4k3661rc1a7@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
It would, but the real gods I have encountered don't make that
claim.
Another offer to produce objective evidence, but you'll still
refuse to produce it.
THAT'S why you're called a liar.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
And you just did.
That's fine and it makes your opinion that there is none at least
intellectually honest. But do me the favour of accepting that the
evidence *I* have encountered has led me to a different conclusion.
Post it - you just offered to above.
The fact that I cannot produce that evidence on demand
Makes you a liar, since you just claimed you could: "the real gods
I have encountered" is a claim that you have real evidence of those
gods.
No, it's a claim to have HAD such evidence.
Take some time to remember where you left it and get back to us. :)
Oh, the next time I run across something with your name on it, I will.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 07:55:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:00:03 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:rkf4g31s1kudkpolluemirtitg900otr07@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:32:33 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:3li0g3dd2q4rjk1nbqemdpe4k3661rc1a7@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
It would, but the real gods I have encountered don't make that claim.
Another offer to produce objective evidence, but you'll still refuse
to produce it.
THAT'S why you're called a liar.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
And you just did.
That's fine and it makes your opinion that there is none at least
intellectually honest. But do me the favour of accepting that the
evidence *I* have encountered has led me to a different conclusion.
Post it - you just offered to above.
The fact that I cannot produce that evidence on demand
Makes you a liar, since you just claimed you could: "the real gods I
have encountered" is a claim that you have real evidence of those
gods.
No, it's a claim to have HAD such evidence.
Objective evidence doesn't disappear. If there USED TO BE objective
evidence of your god, your god USED TO objectively exist. But if it
currently objectively exists, there's currently objective evidence of
that existence. Keep your tenses together.
Look, I didn't start all the mudslinging. But I'm sure as HELL
prepared
to finish it. And you really do NOT want to tempt me too far in that
regard. I'm not a nutcase. I'm something much scarier--an actual
theurgist and exorcist.
And you're going to do what? Sic a demon on me?
No, but if I find that you're really attached to one, I might turn it
loose. There are certain protocols and limitations that such entities
must follow. I can remove some of them. Or I can send it packing and if
you're besotted with it, you'll end up going with. More likely to happen
to a creationist than to your average atheist, though.
And you believe sane adults to believe that childish nonsense?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 02:43:10 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:4go9g3dnoesrnk2ioa40plhcc2i0k3cdce@4ax.com:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:00:03 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:rkf4g31s1kudkpolluemirtitg900otr07@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:32:33 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:3li0g3dd2q4rjk1nbqemdpe4k3661rc1a7@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
It would, but the real gods I have encountered don't make that
claim.
Another offer to produce objective evidence, but you'll still refuse
to produce it.
THAT'S why you're called a liar.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
And you just did.
That's fine and it makes your opinion that there is none at least
intellectually honest. But do me the favour of accepting that the
evidence *I* have encountered has led me to a different conclusion.
Post it - you just offered to above.
The fact that I cannot produce that evidence on demand
Makes you a liar, since you just claimed you could: "the real gods
I have encountered" is a claim that you have real evidence of those
gods.
No, it's a claim to have HAD such evidence.
Objective evidence doesn't disappear. If there USED TO BE objective
evidence of your god, your god USED TO objectively exist. But if it
currently objectively exists, there's currently objective evidence of
that existence. Keep your tenses together.
Oh, there is no doubt some current objective evidence. I just don't
happen to have it at my fingertips today.
Look, I didn't start all the mudslinging. But I'm sure as HELL
prepared
to finish it. And you really do NOT want to tempt me too far in
that regard. I'm not a nutcase. I'm something much scarier--an
actual theurgist and exorcist.
And you're going to do what? Sic a demon on me?
No, but if I find that you're really attached to one, I might turn it
loose. There are certain protocols and limitations that such entities
must follow. I can remove some of them. Or I can send it packing and
if you're besotted with it, you'll end up going with. More likely to
happen to a creationist than to your average atheist, though.
And you believe sane adults to believe that childish nonsense?
Some do, some don't. It doesn't matter and it isn't childish nonsense.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 11:22:10 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in news:4go9g3dnoesrnk2ioa40plhcc2i0k3cdce@4ax.com:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:00:03 GMT, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in news:rkf4g31s1kudkpolluemirtitg900otr07@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:32:33 GMT, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in news:3li0g3dd2q4rjk1nbqemdpe4k3661rc1a7@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
It would, but the real gods I have encountered don't make that claim.
Another offer to produce objective evidence, but you'll still refuse to produce it.
THAT'S why you're called a liar.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
And you just did.
That's fine and it makes your opinion that there is none at least
intellectually honest. But do me the favour of accepting that the
evidence *I* have encountered has led me to a different conclusion.
Post it - you just offered to above.
The fact that I cannot produce that evidence on demand
Makes you a liar, since you just claimed you could: "the real gods
I have encountered" is a claim that you have real evidence of those gods.
No, it's a claim to have HAD such evidence.
Objective evidence doesn't disappear. If there USED TO BE objective
evidence of your god, your god USED TO objectively exist. But if it
currently objectively exists, there's currently objective evidence of
that existence. Keep your tenses together.
Oh, there is no doubt some current objective evidence. I just don't
happen to have it at my fingertips today.
It used to be surprising how often we hear that. Now it's expected.
Look, I didn't start all the mudslinging. But I'm sure as HELL prepared
to finish it. And you really do NOT want to tempt me too far in
that regard. I'm not a nutcase. I'm something much scarier--an
actual theurgist and exorcist.
And you're going to do what? Sic a demon on me?
No, but if I find that you're really attached to one, I might turn it
loose. There are certain protocols and limitations that such entities
must follow. I can remove some of them. Or I can send it packing and
if you're besotted with it, you'll end up going with. More likely to
happen to a creationist than to your average atheist, though.
And you believe sane adults to believe that childish nonsense?
Some do, some don't. It doesn't matter and it isn't childish nonsense.
Yes, claiming the existence of demons is childish nonsense, because
there is no objective, verifiable evidence for them, and their
existence would contradict what is known about reality. I'm surprised
you think otherwise, and even more surprised you'd think atheists
would find such threats as anything other than amusing nutcase
posturing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 08:34:51 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 3:43 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote innews:4go9g3dnoesrnk2ioa40plhcc2i0k3cdce@4ax.com:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:00:03 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:rkf4g31s1kudkpolluemirtitg900otr07@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:32:33 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:3li0g3dd2q4rjk1nbqemdpe4k3661rc1a7@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:27 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I never offered to produce objective evidence for any of you
It would, but the real gods I have encountered don't make that
claim.
Another offer to produce objective evidence, but you'll still refuse
to produce it.
THAT'S why you're called a liar.
Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists
And you just did.
That's fine and it makes your opinion that there is none at least
intellectually honest. But do me the favour of accepting that the
evidence *I* have encountered has led me to a different conclusion.
Post it - you just offered to above.
The fact that I cannot produce that evidence on demand
Makes you a liar, since you just claimed you could: "the real gods
I have encountered" is a claim that you have real evidence of those
gods.
No, it's a claim to have HAD such evidence.
Objective evidence doesn't disappear. If there USED TO BE objective
evidence of your god, your god USED TO objectively exist. But if it
currently objectively exists, there's currently objective evidence of
that existence. Keep your tenses together.
Oh, there is no doubt some current objective evidence. I just don't
happen to have it at my fingertips today.
Too bad. Because all the objective evidence shows that your god
DOESN'T exist and is merely a figment of sick, deluded imaginations.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 09:22:36 AM |
|
|
Piggyback....
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:00:03 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Look, I didn't start all the mudslinging. But I'm sure as HELL
prepared
to finish it. And you really do NOT want to tempt me too far in that
regard. I'm not a nutcase. I'm something much scarier--an actual
theurgist and exorcist.
Which makes him a nutcase.
Why should that be scary to anybody who doesn't believe that
stupidity?
Perhaps a few hundred years ago when they held real power, torturing
confessions out of people who didn't believe what he does and then
burning them alive.
And you're going to do what? Sic a demon on me?
No, but if I find that you're really attached to one, I might turn it
loose. There are certain protocols and limitations that such entities
must follow. I can remove some of them. Or I can send it packing and if
you're besotted with it, you'll end up going with. More likely to happen
to a creationist than to your average atheist, though.
And he wonders why he gets treated as the certifiable lunatic he shows
himself.
No doubt he'll lie again that we call him that because he's Christian.
And you believe sane adults to believe that childish nonsense?
The loony has threatened creationists with it in the past.
He's too self-centred and stupid to realise that they're both just as
valid, and just as invalid as each other - because they are both just
different, incompatible religious beliefs.
To him his is real and the other is just what they believe apart from
the bits they have in common.
To us they're both just what they believe including the bits they both
have in common that he is too stupid to grasp, or too in denial to
grant are only common within Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 02:49:52 AM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:u2t9g3t3qc5krdmk4h5hmfmonhdcascd5l@4ax.com:
Piggyback....
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:00:03 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Look, I didn't start all the mudslinging. But I'm sure as HELL
prepared
to finish it. And you really do NOT want to tempt me too far in
that regard. I'm not a nutcase. I'm something much scarier--an
actual theurgist and exorcist.
Which makes him a nutcase.
Why should that be scary to anybody who doesn't believe that
stupidity?
Perhaps a few hundred years ago when they held real power, torturing
confessions out of people who didn't believe what he does and then
burning them alive.
And you're going to do what? Sic a demon on me?
No, but if I find that you're really attached to one, I might turn it
loose. There are certain protocols and limitations that such
entities must follow. I can remove some of them. Or I can send it
packing and if you're besotted with it, you'll end up going with.
More likely to happen to a creationist than to your average atheist,
though.
And he wonders why he gets treated as the certifiable lunatic he shows
himself.
Yes, I'm a lunatic. I don't accept your particular lunacy, so in your
fantasy world, I have to be a lunatic.
No doubt he'll lie again that we call him that because he's Christian.
You call me that because my experience and beliefs challenge your dogma
(in which your insecurity is totally obvious, moron).
And you believe sane adults to believe that childish nonsense?
The loony has threatened creationists with it in the past.
It's not nonsesne and it's not an idle threat.
He's too self-centred and stupid to realise that they're both just as
valid, and just as invalid as each other - because they are both just
different, incompatible religious beliefs.
Actually they are both a lot MORE valid than your insistent atheism. But
you'll never know that because you're totally immune to any perception
other than what you're programmed by your dogmas to see. Well, you're
entitled to your ignorance and even to your stupidity. But when you
libel other people, there are real conequences, one of them being that I
no longer feel constrained to accept anything you say at face value.
Everything you say is a product of your stupid bigotry and so, if you
want to convince me that you know anything at all about religion, you're
going to have to get someone else to do it. Because YOU BLEW IT. A long
while back.
To him his is real and the other is just what they believe apart from
the bits they have in common.
And to you, your delusion is real and mine is the delusion. But you
haven't got any more proof of your claims. You're so hopped up about
OTHER people getting proof for their claims that you forgot to get any
for your own.
To us they're both just what they believe including the bits they both
have in common that he is too stupid to grasp, or too in denial to
grant are only common within Christianity.
What you are is too much in denial to even be able to have a meaninful
conversation about religion.
But then you're a bigoted fundy atheist, for whom all theism is
anathema--to be attacked ruthlessly, ridiculed and lied about. You just
don't seem to see yourself in the mirror while you're doing it. Most of
your thrusts are projections of your own pathology onto others who don't
even begin to fit the descriptions.
But hey, that's because a REAL look at yourself and you'd probably puke
your guts out for a week.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
28 Sep 2007 10:03:29 AM |
|
|
On Sep 28, 10:30 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:09:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:
Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.
So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but nothing
else?
Learning what "objective evidence" means is YOUR assignment.
In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence objective.
It's not. Rejection is subjective.
You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for the
other side.
There's NO objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed, so there's no reason to believe in one.
But then I doubt the angel Gabriel shouting in
your ear would be evidence to you.
It would be objective evidence that someone was shouting in my ear,
not objective evidence of a god.
Probably not. The only objective evidence you'll accept is waking up in
hell.
BTDT - there's no objective evidence of hell either. (It's just a
Christian misinterpretation of the Hebrew mention of the fires in the
garbage pit.)
Like everything else in Christianity, the concept of Hell was borrowed
from other religions, and not just the Hebrew one at that.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 06:41:12 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190991809.082415.15490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 10:30 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:09:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:
Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.
So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else?
Learning what "objective evidence" means is YOUR assignment.
In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence objective.
It's not. Rejection is subjective.
You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for
the other side.
There's NO objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed, so there's no reason to believe in one.
But then I doubt the angel Gabriel shouting in
your ear would be evidence to you.
It would be objective evidence that someone was shouting in my
ear, not objective evidence of a god.
Probably not. The only objective evidence you'll accept is waking
up in hell.
BTDT - there's no objective evidence of hell either. (It's just a
Christian misinterpretation of the Hebrew mention of the fires in the
garbage pit.)
Like everything else in Christianity, the concept of Hell was borrowed
from other religions, and not just the Hebrew one at that.
You mistake the metaphor for the reality it is meant to convey.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 11:13:13 PM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 7:41 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1190991809.082415.15490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 10:30 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:09:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:
Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.
So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else?
Learning what "objective evidence" means is YOUR assignment.
In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence objective.
It's not. Rejection is subjective.
You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for
the other side.
There's NO objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed, so there's no reason to believe in one.
But then I doubt the angel Gabriel shouting in
your ear would be evidence to you.
It would be objective evidence that someone was shouting in my
ear, not objective evidence of a god.
Probably not. The only objective evidence you'll accept is waking
up in hell.
BTDT - there's no objective evidence of hell either. (It's just a
Christian misinterpretation of the Hebrew mention of the fires in the
garbage pit.)
Like everything else in Christianity, the concept of Hell was borrowed
from other religions, and not just the Hebrew one at that.
You mistake the metaphor for the reality it is meant to convey.
You assume that there is any reality behind the metaphor.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 10:26:46 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191211993.659493.189890@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 7:41 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190991809.082415.15490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 10:30 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:09:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:
Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.
So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else?
Learning what "objective evidence" means is YOUR assignment.
In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence
objective.
It's not. Rejection is subjective.
You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given
for the other side.
There's NO objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed, so there's no reason to believe in one.
But then I doubt the angel Gabriel shouting in
your ear would be evidence to you.
It would be objective evidence that someone was shouting in my
ear, not objective evidence of a god.
Probably not. The only objective evidence you'll accept is
waking up in hell.
BTDT - there's no objective evidence of hell either. (It's just a
Christian misinterpretation of the Hebrew mention of the fires in
the garbage pit.)
Like everything else in Christianity, the concept of Hell was
borrowed from other religions, and not just the Hebrew one at that.
You mistake the metaphor for the reality it is meant to convey.
You assume that there is any reality behind the metaphor.
I do not. I understand the metaphor. YOU assume that it's just a really
bad piece of fiction. I doubt you could even give me a FULL accounting
of the name YHWH (few Christian fundies can either, so don't feel bad).
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 03:49:57 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 11:26 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191211993.659493.189890@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 7:41 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190991809.082415.15490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 10:30 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:09:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:
Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.
So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else?
Learning what "objective evidence" means is YOUR assignment.
In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence
objective.
It's not. Rejection is subjective.
You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given
for the other side.
There's NO objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed, so there's no reason to believe in one.
But then I doubt the angel Gabriel shouting in
your ear would be evidence to you.
It would be objective evidence that someone was shouting in my
ear, not objective evidence of a god.
Probably not. The only objective evidence you'll accept is
waking up in hell.
BTDT - there's no objective evidence of hell either. (It's just a
Christian misinterpretation of the Hebrew mention of the fires in
the garbage pit.)
Like everything else in Christianity, the concept of Hell was
borrowed from other religions, and not just the Hebrew one at that.
You mistake the metaphor for the reality it is meant to convey.
You assume that there is any reality behind the metaphor.
I do not. I understand the metaphor. YOU assume that it's just a really
bad piece of fiction.
I'm not here to do a literary review but, yes, the Bible is fiction,
specifically mythological fiction.
I doubt you could even give me a FULL accounting
of the name YHWH (few Christian fundies can either, so don't feel bad).
We all know that Jehovah is derived from Yahweh. I
read on wikipedia some speculation that Yahweh is
based on the Sumerian god Ea / Enki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahu
"According to some, Yam was also called Ya'a or Yaw.
Damaged text in KTU 1.2 iv has been interpreted by
Mark S. Smith as describing a renaming of Yam from an
original name Yaw. The resemblance of the latter to
the Tetragrammaton YHWH led to speculation over a
possible connection between Yam and God of the Hebrew
Bible. However even if the reading is correct many
scholars argue the names have different roots and
reject the idea that they are related. Another
suggested reading of the name is Ya'a and it has also
been suggested as an early form of the divine name
Yah, Yahu. Earlier archaeologists like Theophilus G.
Pinches[1] quoted the research of Hommel, Professor of
Semitic languages at Munich, who suggested "that this
god Ya is another form of the name Ea...". By this
theory Ya'a thus appears to have been a God of the
waters, both salt (Yam) and fresh (Nahar), in some
ways similar to the Mesopotamian God Ea.[2] This view
has been supported in more recent times by
archaeologists like Jean Bottero[3] and others,[4]
although this is disputed by other scholars.[5][6]"
In Sumerian mythology, Enki was the creator of
mankind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enki
"In Sumerian myth, Enki lay asleep in the depths of
the primeval ocean, unable to hear the lament of the
gods as they complained about the difficulty of
cultivating wheat and making bread. Eventually the
primeval sea, Nammu brought the gods' tears to Enki.
Enki, as the god of wisdom, was expected to devise a
solution, so he solicited Nammu and the birth-goddess
Ninmah to use clay to form the first men, who would
toil and farm so that the gods could relax. [7]
[...]
"Another myth, "Enki and Adapa", tells of how humanity
loses the chance at immortality. Adapa U-an (Berossus'
Oannes), who is Abgallu (Ab = Water, Gal = Great, Lu =
Man) (Akkadian Apkallu), Enki's advisor, to the first
king of Eridu, Allulim, inadvertently breaks the wings
of the South Wind, Ninlil (See Lilith) (Nin = Lady,
Lil = Air), daughter of Anu (the Heavens) and wife to
Enlil, king of the gods. In terror at the thought of
their retribution, Adapa seeks the advice of Enki.
Enki advises that Adapa make a deep and sincere
atonement, but advises Adapa to eat nothing given to
him by the gods, as he will probably be given the food
of death, out of their anger at his deeds. Adapa takes
Enki's advice, but the gods, so impressed by the
sincerity of Adapa's sorrow and grief as to what he
did, offered instead the fruit of immortality. Adapa
remembering Enki's words, refuses, and so misses out
on the chance of eternal life."
So Enki created man and one of his creations was named
Adapa and Adapa angered the gods and ended up losing
his chance at eternal life.
So who is Satan? "Satan" is a Hebrew word meaning
"adversary".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
So who was the adversary of Yam? The adversary of Yam
was Baal ("Lord") Hadad.
"Of all the gods, Yam holds special hostility against
Baal Hadad over the divine assembly. Yam is a deity of
the sea and his palace is in the abyss associated with
the depths, or Biblical tehwom, of the oceans. (This
is not to be confused with the abode of Mot, the ruler
of the netherworlds.) In Ugaritic texts, Yam's special
enemy Hadad is also known as the "king of heaven" and
the "first born son" of El, whom ancient Greeks
identified with their god Kronos, just as Baal was
identified with Zeus, Yam with Poseidon and Mot with
Hades. Yam wished to become the Lord god in his place.
In turns the two beings kill each other, yet Hadad is
resurrected and Yam also returns. Some authors have
suggested that these tales reflect the experience of
seasonal cycles in the Levant."
Thus, we can see that Yehweh can be associated with
both the Sumerian god Enki and the Greek god Poseidon
while Hadad can be associated not only with the Greek
god Zeus (and the Roman god Jupiter) but also the
Akkadian god Adad, the Anatolian god Teshub, the
Egyptian god Set and the Sumerian god Ishkur. In
Sumerian mythology, Ishkur was sometimes refered to as
the son of Anu and brother of Enki and sometimes
refered to as the brother of Ishtar and a descendent
of both Enki and his brother Enlil. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adad )
That Ishkur was referred to as the son of Anu may be a
mistake based on the fact that he was considered one
of the Anunnaku, the race of beings descended from Anu
collectively known as the sons of Anu. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu )
It is worth pointing out at this point that Anu was
known to the Hebrews as El (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El ) and that the Annuaki
correspond to the Hebrew Elohim (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim). The Islamic
name Allah is believed to be derived from the name El.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah ).
Historically then El (the creator of the universe)
and Yahweh (the creator of mankind) were not the same
god. Judeo-Christian tradition combines the two gods
into one. It would appear as though Genesis chapter
one originally spoke about El and Genesis chapter two
originally spoke about Yehweh.
If El, Yahweh and Hadad were all mythological then the next question
is whether of not Jesus was real. It turns out he wasn't. (See
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com ). Jesus was invented in the first
century AD as a renaming of the five centuries old combination of the
Egyptian god Osiris, who could raise people from the dead, and the
Greek god Dionysus who could turn water into wine. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris-Dionysus ).
The myth of a god rising from the dead was borrowed not only from
Greek mythology (Adonis rose from the dead) but from Egyptian (Osiris)
and Sumerian mythology (Dumuzi/Tammuz). Even Norse mythology had a
god who rose from | | | | | | |
