PDA

View Full Version : PTT


old_cross_bound
16th Jun 2001, 08:48
PTT,
From: Reasoning thru Ultimate Realities, Faith vs. Proof/newsmax

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Up until this point we could agree. What we must now ask is "Where did the instructions come from?" Your answer would probably be that God wrote them, whereas mine would involve changes in molecules through the aforementioned biological conditions.
How do we choose between the two? To my mind it comes down to Occam's Razor again.</font>


***So what you are saying is that "intelligence" per se comes from biological conditions. This is a what came first argument, "the chicken or the egg". Intelligence is required to create molecules from nothing and molecules are required to create intelligence. Put another way, a change in moecules creates intelligence but it takes intelligence to trigger the change. Is this what you call Occam's Razor ? It doesn't look very simple to me at all.

ocb :)


[This message has been edited by old_cross_bound (edited 16 June 2001).]

golden_hands
16th Jun 2001, 12:16
It requires intelligence to write molecules (moecules) correctly.

Quote: "it takes intelligence to trigger the change".
Statistics don't have anything to do with intelligence further than understanding how it works! Also a change in molecules can be forced by chemicals & radiation (think of cancer)

Remember Murphy "anything that can go wrong will go wrong". That also means that if a change to a molecule can happen it will. This applies for a "bad" or a "good" change.

Furthermore you cannot create molecules from nothing.

Hersham Boy
16th Jun 2001, 14:54
No.5..... is alive!

I came here expecting to find an interesting thread on the Dutch postal service. I'm sorely disappointed.

Hersh

Nil nos tremefacit
16th Jun 2001, 15:01
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. (Entities ought not to be multiplied except by necessity.)

That's what I call Occam's Razor.

I think we're missing the lead in to this thread and I've no intention of dashing over to Newsmax. How is Occam's Razor relevant to your argument?

Grainger
16th Jun 2001, 18:21
OCB clearly never heard of emergent behaviour.

old_cross_bound
16th Jun 2001, 21:42
golden_hands
Statistics don't have anything to do with intelligence further than understanding how it works! Also a change in molecules can be forced by chemicals & radiation (think of cancer)

***Next you'll pull a PTT and say that cancer is cancer because it is more intelligent as a mutated cell than a normal cell is.

***Are cancer cells more or less intelligent than normal cells?

***PTT your cornered on this one and you did it to yourself this time!

ocb

golden_hands
17th Jun 2001, 06:20
Negative ocb.

First of all I didn't pull anything.

These are your words saying that cancer cells are more intelligent than normal cells. Don't assume things which are not written there.

A mutation can go both ways either wrong or right and thats it!

old_cross_bound
17th Jun 2001, 23:02
Please,

Excluding PTT, could the posters please not post to this thread. I'm trying to finish up a discussion with PTT and would appreciate your cooperation. I have no interest in getting off topic with anyone but to simply finish a discussion with him here.

Thanks for your cooperation!

ocb

HugMonster
18th Jun 2001, 03:46
Hmmmm - no sign of PTT here. In his absence, it appears the discussion is dead - so is anyone free to play, and post on any subject? :)

------------------
Breeding Per Dementia Unto Something Jolly Big, Toodle-pip

Slasher
18th Jun 2001, 07:24
Given the quantum physics and all the math Ive studied about the Universe, Im still in awe at what hydrogen atoms can do given 15 billion years of existance. As a scientist I too went through my period of thinking "Occams Razor" as being too simplistic. But after a time I came to realise its a pretty solid basis of science.
FYI OCB if you want to (scientificaly) investigate where the initiation of life realy starts from, read up all you can on supernovas. The amino-acid creating experiments of Harold Urey would be next. For intelligence, next research the evolution of the human brain through the eons especialy those conditions that triggered the (relatively recent) development of the cerebral cortex.

And BTW OCB thousands of years ago men explained the world as best they could by employing supernatural entitys, and at the same time endevoring to create a moral code for survival of society. That didnt mean they were stupid, thats all they had to go on. For all the Giordano Brunos, Galileos, Hypatias, etc since then who used science to explain the Universe instead of some mythical supreme being (and were punished for it by christian mystics), Im floored that there are reasonabley inteligent people in this time-era still clinging to ancient explainations.

Tricky Woo
18th Jun 2001, 13:49
OCB,

All that I wsh to add to Slasher's thoughtful advice is to suggest that you f**k off elsewhere, you sad old c*nt.

Regards,

TW

p.s. Mom says 'hi'.

HugMonster
18th Jun 2001, 15:40
Slasher, the reason why OCB clings so desperately to those "beliefs" is several-fold.

[list=a] He doesn't understand the science. We've seen many times how his pseudo-scientific analysis really lacks understanding of the principles involved. He doesn't understand the religous explanations. He consoles himself that belief in God is, per se, irrational and inexplicable, that God is also inexplicable, so nobody can understand God. Therefore, if he doesn't understand science, he brings scientists down to his level. He has an overwhelming need to CONTROL. If science is the new mysticism, and he doesn't have the intellectual ability to manipulate it's spells and incantations, he's effectively shut out from telling other people what they need to do. So he has to take refuge in an area where scientific powers are declared null and void upon entering. Lack of reasoning. He delights in not having to prove his claims. All he needs to do is tell people that they're wrong, that they need to change their hearts, and abracadabra he's won the argument (in his opinion). Hence his unbelievably stupid "Come strong..." catchline. It's his equivalent of the school playground taunt that says "I'm right and you're wrong - so nyaaaaah". Lack of a spirit of enquiry. He can't start from any place except an assumption that all his other assumptions are right. Therefore he starts from the end. His lack of intellect makes him fearful of ending up at a non-sequitur and having to start again, or wait for another part of the jigsaw to be revealed in the way that the predecessors of Copernicus, Galileo et al... Vision of "Conflict". He sees science as a threat to his religion. Therefore scientists are "evil". Therefore scientists are in opposition to God, and wrong. He doesn't understand that, even in the belief of most Christians (or many other faiths), God can work within scientists, direct their work, and therefore aid people's understanding of the physical world. God created the world. Therefore it is, in his eyes, incapable of evolution. He doesn't understand that God created a world that included the ability to evolve. Mutation works both ways, so that an organism can mutate into something that either enhances or diminishes its ability to survive and reproduce more effectively, or will bring its rapid demise even closer. This is at the heart of Darwinism, but Darwin was "evil", therefore this simple model must be wrong. God is unknowable. Some science attempts to "know" God, and is therefore a blasphemy. That scientists will never "know" God through this method is irrelevant in his eyes, since the blasphemy is all he sees.[/list=a]
When he finally understands that he cannot limit God to his feeble understanding, that God is outside the temporal, physical universe, and far, far more than he could ever conceive, then he will finally concede that his pathetic attempts to limit the understanding of others to his very limited beliefs are, in the greater scheme of things, fatally flawed.

golden_hands
18th Jun 2001, 15:55
Excellent Hugmonster!

I wonder if ocb can apprehend all this :) :)

con-pilot
19th Jun 2001, 01:53
Huh? He back again?

old_cross_bound
21st Jun 2001, 21:27
HugMonster
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Hmmmm - no sign of PTT here. In his absence, it appears the discussion is dead - so is anyone free to play, and post on any subject?
------------------
Breeding Per Dementia Unto Something Jolly Big, Toodle-pip</font>

What book did you copy this from? Don't you know that is illegal? How much money are you making for posting here?



Slasher


Given the quantum physics and all the math Ive studied about the Universe, Im still in awe at what hydrogen atoms can do given 15 billion years of existance. As a scientist I too went through my period of thinking "Occams Razor" as being too simplistic. But after a time I came to realise

realize not realise

its a pretty solid basis of science.
FYI OCB if you want to (scientificaly)

scientifically not scientficaly

investigate where the initiation of life realy

really not realy

starts from, read up all you can on supernovas. The amino-acid creating experiments of Harold Urey would be next. For intelligence, next research the evolution of the human brain through the eons especialy those conditions that triggered the (relatively recent) development of the cerebral cortex.
And BTW OCB thousands of years ago men explained the world as best they could by employing supernatural entitys, and at the same time endevoring to create a moral code for survival of society. That didnt mean they were stupid, thats all they had to go on. For all the Giordano Brunos, Galileos, Hypatias, etc since then who used science to explain the Universe instead of some mythical supreme being (and were punished for it by christian mystics), Im floored that there are reasonabley inteligent people in this time-era still clinging to ancient explainations.

***The basic uninformed response again I see. Do you have any new information that might challenge my true assertion. BTW fossilized dating contradicts itself. Newer life forms that have been proven to be more recent than older life forms have fossilized data saying just the opposite. Either the life forms are incorrect or the dating method is clear out of line scientifically. This comes from secular science not christians, sorry! Now how old do you think the earht really is? :)

Tricky woo,
thanks for the intelligent response. Tell the mum hello then go jump in a lake and choke on the moss.


HugMonster

Slasher, the reason why OCB clings so desperately to those "beliefs" is several-fold.

***The reason Hug doesn't is lack of faith.

He doesn't understand the science. We've seen many times how his pseudo-scientific analysis really lacks understanding of the principles involved.

***Wrong again I don't believe or trust science.

He doesn't understand the religous explanations. He consoles himself that belief in God is, per se, irrational and inexplicable, that God is also inexplicable, so nobody can understand God. Therefore, if he doesn't understand science, he brings scientists down to his level.

***Terribly poor observation but thats Hug for you.

He has an overwhelming need to CONTROL. If science is the new mysticism, and he doesn't have the intellectual ability to manipulate it's spells and incantations, he's effectively shut out from telling other people what they need to do. So he has to take refuge in an area where scientific powers are declared null and void upon entering.

***You know what they say, you are usually talking about yourself when you make these kind of remarks.

Lack of reasoning. He delights in not having to prove his claims. All he needs to do is tell people that they're wrong, that they need to change their hearts, and abracadabra he's won the argument (in his opinion).

***I wish you would win at least one of these arguments so this could get interesting but so far your just stumbling all over the place trying to figure out what you really think. One minute your a Christian the next you oppose it. So, like cement, solidify so we can talk.

Hence his unbelievably stupid "Come strong..." catchline. It's his equivalent of the school playground taunt that says "I'm right and you're wrong - so nyaaaaah".

***You like that! Cool!

Lack of a spirit of enquiry. He can't start from any place except an assumption that all his other assumptions are right. Therefore he starts from the end. His lack of intellect makes him fearful of ending up at a non-sequitur and having to start again, or wait for another part of the jigsaw to be revealed in the way that the predecessors of Copernicus, Galileo et al...

***Yea that presupposition thing really nails your true thoughts to the wall doesn't it?)
Vision of "Conflict". He sees science as a threat to his religion. Therefore scientists are "evil". Therefore scientists are in opposition to God, and wrong. He doesn't understand that, even in the belief of most Christians (or many other faiths), God can work within scientists, direct their work, and therefore aid people's understanding of the physical world.

***Science and evolution doesn't threaten my faith at all. It does threaten your health as Hitler plainly showed once and history does repeat. On the other hand a risen Christ can't be threatened by mortal men or mortal thoughts including theories of evolution, sorry!

God created the world. Therefore it is, in his eyes, incapable of evolution. He doesn't understand that God created a world that included the ability to evolve.

***God created each species as Genesis says silly. If he used evolution he would have said so. Pagan belief which can't handle the truth but only carnal thinking came up with evolution clear back in the days of Nimrod.

Mutation works both ways, so that an organism can mutate into something that either enhances or diminishes its ability to survive and reproduce more effectively, or will bring its rapid demise even closer. This is at the heart of Darwinism, but Darwin was "evil", therefore this simple model must be wrong.

***Modern evolutionist avoid the term mutation these days. Do you understand why they have changed? I do!

God is unknowable. Some science attempts to "know" God, and is therefore a blasphemy. That scientists will never "know" God through this method is irrelevant in his eyes, since the blasphemy is all he sees.

***God is incomprehensible but not unknowable. I know God and God is real and God revealed his presents to me 28 years ago, sorry!

When he finally understands that he cannot limit God to his feeble understanding, that God is outside the temporal, physical universe, and far, far more than he could ever conceive, then he will finally concede that his pathetic attempts to limit the understanding of others to his very limited beliefs are, in the greater scheme of things, fatally flawed.

***Nice attempt! One of us is truely narrow minded here I agree.


golden_hands

Excellent Hugmonster!
I wonder if ocb can apprehend all this

***Now you can bow and serve HugMonster. You have my permission!



con-pilot

Huh? He back again?

***Do you eat mad cows?

ocb :)

Which do you like better?
COME STRONG OR DON"T COME AT ALL

or

LINE IT OUT BABY!!!!

ps, you should tell each other, "I love you" , more often.



[This message has been edited by old_cross_bound (edited 21 June 2001).]

gul dukat
21st Jun 2001, 21:46
You've only gone and started the old bugger off again !!! GOOD GRIEF just when it was becoming fun round here again !!!

------------------
"earth is full ....go home "

HugMonster
21st Jun 2001, 23:32
Don't worry, gul - he probably doesn't understand that he's just re-illustrated every point I made about him.

Slasher
22nd Jun 2001, 02:07
Bwahahahaha! Hugs, I re-read OCBs reply 3 times and came to the conclusion your absoluteley right!

PS OCB, "realise" or "realize" are both acceptable forms of spelling, you uneducated twit. Now go back down to the Hotel Lobby Club. Iceoreanic is waiting for you.

old_cross_bound
24th Jun 2001, 03:27
What happened to the British humor I was looking forward to reading?
Is there anyone who is witty and not negative posting here?

PTT, I take it you have abandoned the forums.

Slasher, your spelling is unexceptable in the USA, sorry! Do you have spell check available?

Hug, You have failed again to give an intelligent response but have gained at least one mindless follower.

gul dukat, I've never talked to you before. You sound lonely and desperate. Do you know how to make friends?

ocb :)

Kulu
24th Jun 2001, 04:11
OCB!!! Hiya.

On the previous page you asked about the age of the "earht". The correct spelling is "earth".

"Unacceptable" is spelt as you see it at the beginning of this sentence, not as you have spelt it on the post immediately above this one.

I must say that it is disappointing that after a post of the depth and intelligence of Hugmonster's, your sole constructive response is to criticise (or should that be criticize) the spelling of others.

If you read up about quantum physics, after a short while you will get to the many worlds theory. That is when you will understand what I mean when I say that of all the possible universes you could have been born into, why did you have to be born into mine? And why is it so depressing to think that there are an infinite number of OCBs spouting infinite varieties of this crap?

The only cheering thought is that there are an infinite number of Kulus, too.

Edited once I found OCBs misspelt gem was just above this correctly spelt gem.



[This message has been edited by Kulu (edited 23 June 2001).]

Slasher
24th Jun 2001, 09:56
Bwahahahaha!

"What happened to the British humor I was looking forward to reading? Is there anyone who is witty and not negative posting here?" - well it certainley aint you is it Mr Bound!

Slasher, your spelling is unexceptable in the USA, sorry! Do you have spell check available? - Yeh I suppose it is "unexceptable"! Ha ha you really fell @rse over tit on that one didnt you OCB! And yeh and you do look more silly for it too!

gul dukat, I've never talked to you before. You sound lonely and desperate. Do you know how to make friends? - Yeh gul dukat, OCBs desperately askin you for advice!

Kulu its no good asking OCB to read up on quantum physics. To understand that ball-busting area of Science requires logic, clear thinking, and the ability to alter the way you look at the Universe despite what your everyday commonsense and perceptions tell you. OCB appears completeley devoid of any of those.

BTW OCB I see you again skirt around replying to hard questions and challenges by using the same technique adopted by politicians and religious leaders. Sorry but that doesnt work here with real people. May I suggest you ask around and get some advice from Raw Data, a pro-religious bloke who I had debates with on the subject a few years ago on this forum. He could take on any argument proffered and attack it by the balls with clear thinking and sound reasoning. He really got me on certain issues that ended up with me having a change of attitude on my part about those who follow the Christian faith. He was no bloodey Jesus-freak, and his logic (wether I liked it or not) was inescapable. He was a worthy opponent and gained my total respect.

Nil nos tremefacit
24th Jun 2001, 12:54
Ah, but Kulu, on another planet OCB has been converted to rational thought by the unswerving logic of the arguments ranged against him. :)

Conversely he has swayed Hug Monster. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Best of all, he has been topped by Islamic fundamentalists who have assassinated 'Dubya' and taken over the state of Texas. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

Oh, and a billion light years into the ether of a parallel universe you are the Archbishop of Canterbury and I am your dog 'Inquisition'. ;)

Kulu
24th Jun 2001, 15:33
In that case, my first official action will be to excommunicate OCB.

My second official action would be to restore you, Nil, to the full humanity you undoubtedly deserve, failing which I would at least get you a decent dog basket and the run of the (?)doggery, no wait, kennels, that's it.

My third official action would probably involve the sacred intonation "have her washed and sent to my room".

HugMonster
24th Jun 2001, 16:14
OCB has "swayed" me???????????????? :mad:

I think not, Nil.

To what do you think he has "swayed" me? You think I have changed my views thanks to his logic, his debating skills, his use of humour in his perceptive posts, his persuasive style?

BOLLOX :mad:

Nil nos tremefacit
24th Jun 2001, 19:16
...but I did say on another planet, Huggy! It would be one of your parallel selves that I was referring to, and indeed it would also be one of OCBs parallel selves.

Clearly on this planet and in this dimension OCB has a real problem (this assumes that he is of course posting from this planet and not elsewhere and that he is indeed a native). Somehow Hug I don't see many of us rallying to his banner. ;)

HugMonster
25th Jun 2001, 00:40
Ah - missed the significance of the planet bit - I thought you were referring to the other forum OCB is known to dismay... sorry!

Ah well - if I have parallel existences, that world is in DEEP trouble.

And we all know that there is no way in fifteen million aeons that there is a duplicate of OCB anywhere - so what say you - shall we kill him now, or put him under a glass case in a musem (preferably hung around with garlic)?

Oooh - that gives me another idea - OCB, can you please email this nice guy tony with your hoome address? You and he seem to have a common interest in fixing pilots that get broken...

golden_hands
25th Jun 2001, 01:14
OCB you show serious signs of having missed out on any education in any field. Remember that the USA only exists for a few hundred years. The same applies to your language (american). American language is a bastard form of genuine English.

And by the way its time for your daily shrink appointment.

Final 3 Greens
26th Jun 2001, 21:18
OCB

I told you before - take the [email protected] medicine

con-pilot
27th Jun 2001, 00:51
OCB, sorry, you are wrong as usual.

"Do you eat mad cows?"

Nope, good old beef from the US of A. Try it sometime, I'm sure you can find some there in Texas. Goes good with beer.

I'm more curious about what kind of weed you're smoking.

old_cross_bound
27th Jun 2001, 11:30
Kula, Bula,

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The only cheering thought is that there are an infinite number of Kulus, too.</font>

***What an honor or is that hourner to have you posting responses to me. I really couldn't handle a universe full of Kula's!
I'm glad you are unique and made in God's image just like the rest of us. I don't know if spell checking is one of your God given gifts or not but hey, who knows!

ocb :)

old_cross_bound
27th Jun 2001, 12:36
Slasher,

Kulu its no good asking OCB to read up on quantum physics. To understand that ball-busting area of Science requires logic, clear thinking, and the ability to alter the way you look at the Universe despite what your everyday commonsense and perceptions tell you. OCB appears completeley devoid of any of those.

***You mean like: Void of absolute constants like gravity, electromagneticism, strong and weak nuclear forces and the multiple dimensions needed to reconcile them.

BTW OCB I see you again skirt around replying to hard questions and challenges by using the same technique adopted by politicians and religious leaders. Sorry but that doesnt work here with real people.

***Your not real so how could you know who else may or may not be real, silly!

May I suggest you ask around and get some advice from Raw Data, a pro-religious bloke who I had debates with on the subject a few years ago on this forum.

***I debate them all. I don't care what they say they are. Titles mean nothing!

He could take on any argument proffered and attack it by the balls with clear thinking and sound reasoning. He really got me on certain issues that ended up with me having a change of attitude on my part about those who follow the Christian faith.

***Bring him on.

He was no bloodey Jesus-freak, and his logic (wether I liked it or not) was inescapable. He was a worthy opponent and gained my total respect.

***Great! Is he presupposed in his thinking? How would you know? What's his slant on the Universe?

I love arguing with people who constantly suggest comparitives with no superlative basis for their position. It's like a tree without a root or a boat without an anchor, you know.

Hug,
you are being deprogramned slowly, methodically and painfully. I finished soon but it's like a painful tooth being pulled when you get done it's all better, only different!


Nil nos tremefacit

Ah, but Kulu, on another planet OCB has been converted to rational thought by the unswerving logic of the arguments ranged against him.
Conversely he has swayed Hug Monster.

***Rational thought has been resrticted to truth seekers only!

Best of all, he has been topped by Islamic fundamentalists who have assassinated 'Dubya' and taken over the state of Texas.

***OH no! JIHADDDDD!!!!!!!

Oh, and a billion light years into the ether of a parallel universe you are the Archbishop of Canterbury and I am your dog 'Inquisition'.

***You get the stakes, I'll start the fire!

Kulu

In that case, my first official action will be to excommunicate OCB.

***Sorry, you're a little late!

My second official action would be to restore you, Nil, to the full humanity you undoubtedly deserve, failing which I would at least get you a decent dog basket and the run of the (?)doggery, no wait, kennels, that's it.

***Can he teach bible class too?

My third official action would probably involve the sacred intonation "have her washed and sent to my room".

***You forked tongue snake, away with you!

ocb :)

[This message has been edited by old_cross_bound (edited 27 June 2001).]

Slasher
27th Jun 2001, 14:14
Sh!t! You call that a logical reply?

Ive never realy had to ask this of another PPRuNer before, but OCB could I just ask what the hell is your age? Ill be fair and state mine. Its 40.

old_cross_bound
27th Jun 2001, 18:55
Slasher

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Sh!t! You call that a logical reply?
Ive never realy had to ask this of another PPRuNer before, but OCB could I just ask what the hell is your age? Ill be fair and state mine. Its 40. </font>

***You are too old to be posting the kind of nonsense you continue to post here, I would say, but you should respect your elders. I've been on the planet five years longer than you therefore the obligation is yours.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my responses. I rise to a challenge when one is presented but I see no need to until then. I'm very capable of exchanging nonsense for nonsense as you can tell.

So if you have something legit, let it rip! I'm still reading the nonsense everywhere but until someone gets serious with a serious question, take a chill pill and enjoy!

***I just thought of a good question for you: Do you believe you are presupposed in your thinking about things including the universes origins, or do you believe you are not presupposed and open minded in your thinking and if so, why? If not so, why?

ocb :)

Nil nos tremefacit
27th Jun 2001, 19:25
Ah, but OCB, I am a seeker after the truth, therefore you dictate that rational thought is restricted to me and my ilk. The truth I seek is opposite to the lies that you purport to be the truth. You are not a truth seeker since you seek to expound more lies. Therefore your thought is not rational.

The circular bit...

Since, however, you are correct that rational thought is restricted to truth seekers then you yourself are thinking rationally. By definition you are therefore a truth seeker, but, as stated, your lies are not the truth. Therefore if I accept that rational thought is restricted to truth seekers then I must accept that as I am not a truth seeker in your image my thought is not rational. However, as stated, you are not a truth seeker since you peddle lies therefore I am and my thought is rational and yours is not, but you correctly state..... :)

[This message has been edited by Nil nos tremefacit (edited 27 June 2001).]

old_cross_bound
27th Jun 2001, 21:39
Nil nos tremefacit,

Are you chasing your tail again?

You sound like a right wing judgmentally fundamentalist redneck. Do you think you are the final arbitor of truth for me or even you?
Get out of the fantasy lane and get back into the reality lane. Seeking the truth isn't about the "what" question it's about the "who" question, silly. Jesus is the truth. Anything or person other than Jesus is the lie. Now straighten up and fly right, knucklehead! God loves you and wants to know you, now! He's here, God the Holy Spirit is here now! Seek him!

ocb :)

PTT
29th Jun 2001, 03:04
Sorry about the late reply, I've been away.
First off, could you post a link to the discussion. I don't fully remember what we were on about - it has been three weeks, after all.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">So what you are saying is that "intelligence" per se comes from biological conditions. This is a what came first argument, "the chicken or the egg". Intelligence is required to create molecules from nothing and molecules are required to create intelligence. Put another way, a change in moecules creates intelligence but it takes intelligence to trigger the change. Is this what you call Occam's Razor ? It doesn't look very simple to me at all.</font>

You are making a false appeal to the second law of thermodynamics: yours is simply the design argument all over again, this time from the perspective of entropy.

Basically, the second law states that in any closed system, entropy tends to increase. Your argument is that on this planet there has been an increase in organization (i.e. a decrease in entropy) which has led to life. Thus, that increase in organization has been affected by some intelligence, as intelligence is the only thing which can decrease entropy. So far so good. I have a couple of points to make on this argument:
1. The universe is the closed system. Local decreases in entropy are entirely in line with the second law of thermodynamics. It is perfectly possible that, in the huge universe we live in, we are a local decrease in entropy.
2. The second law of thermodynamics is not all pervasive. It is merely an expression of probability. Simple example: Take your cup of black coffee and pour milk in it. The milk mixes with the coffee and, through the effects of Brownian motion, forms an apparently even mixture. This is a mixture in which there is no apparent segregation between milk and coffee - an increase in entropy has been afforded. It is, however, perfectly possible that, after a while, the random motion of the molecules will result in an ordered state: we may see all of the milk on the right of the cup and all of the coffee on the left, for example. This is, obviously, highly unlikely, but it is also perfectly possible. It is merely a low probability situation.
Therefore the universe does not continually degrade into a progressively chaotic state, and there are local "blips" of entropy decrease.

Furthermore, you state that it takes intelligence to trigger the change. Please explain exactly what you mean by that. As I have stated in my second point, there does not have to be intelligence involved to create entropy decreases - it is possible for them to "just happen."

Given, then, the two choices of
a. God created the universe and
b. the universe exists,
I would use Occam's Razor, in the form given by Nil Nos, to choose option b.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. (Entities ought not to be multiplied except by necessity.)

Thanks very much for devoting an entire thread to me, by the way. Would you not rather do this on Newsmax?

Ta muchly

PTT

old_cross_bound
3rd Jul 2001, 17:36
PTT,

I no longer post on newsmax. I've forgotten the discussion myself but we can follow up anyway.
What do you understand about the expoential decay curve? Take for example a glass of water with a thermometer in it w/equalibrium on the themometer. What does the curve look like going from one state to another? Say you drop five cubes of ice in the water and plot the curve in the glass, time vs temperture.
Why do you see the same curve through out nature and how did Moses know this in discussing the flood and the differences in the ages of the people changing from pre-flood to post flood? Why won't the reputable scientific secular community discuss or even touch this undeniable fact? What do you know about the insistance in the scientific community concerning uniformity throughout the universe? Age of the universe etc...?

ocb

Diesel8
3rd Jul 2001, 19:02
Why dont you rent a soapbox somewhere else or better yet, walk around with one of those signs, proclaiming your beliefs. I am sure you could convert a lot more people that way than you ever could here.

There is no point in getting into a discussion with you, since you have found the "truth". Jesus, if he ever existed, saw no need to ram his knowledge down peoples throat, he led by example. Perhaps you should learn something from that.
However, so far all you have done is antagonize the very people you are trying to enlighten, not exactly the way to do things.

It is not that I do not want to believe in a supreme being and order in the universe, the problem is I cannot given the evidence to the contrary. And, despite what you say, the evidence is overwhelming. Is science perfect, no, but scientist will also change the rationale, should empirical evidence support it.

You are free to believe a book full of holes, fables, myths and plain old stories. I do not need to enlighten you with the fact, that much of what is in the bible, has been plagiarized from other religious beliefs. That I am sure you know. But, if it gives you peace of mind and strenght, that is good.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not trying to engage you in a discussion.

D8

old_cross_bound
4th Jul 2001, 00:38
Diesel8,

I don't even know who you are and you're talking about having a pointless discussion with me?

Try introducing yourself first, stupid!

ocb

Nil nos tremefacit
4th Jul 2001, 03:45
OCB

Why do you insist in calling people stupid when they are doing the same as you? In our country calling people stupid as a way of emphasising a point in an argument is tantamount to proof that your point is weak. It is about as valid as your tactic of automatically gainsaying the views of others when, judging your language empirically, it is quite clear that you haven't given any time or thought to seriously analysing the other person's point of view. I know you cannot conceive that any opinion other than your own is valid, but, if you are ever to gain the respect of the majority who post here, you must attempt to understand what people are saying rather than cutting and pasting their comments and following them up with trite and often meaningless criticism.

HugMonster
4th Jul 2001, 03:46
No, OCB - he said he's NOT trying to have a discussion with you. You introduce yourself to someone with whom you DO want to have a discussion. There's a word for misunderstanding like that that I've seen recently - what was it? Now, what was it you called him, attacking the player rather than playing the ball?

Oh yes - here it is...
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">stupid!</font>

old_cross_bound
4th Jul 2001, 05:10
Hey you two,

If someone wants to introduce themselves and at least attempt to talk like a human being prior to wallering in the muck like you two do all the time, I will not call him stupid.

As far as you two go, I don't need to call you stupid; a smart person can see what you say clearly and no explaination is needed.

I've been called a lot worse than stupid here and I could care less about it. I figure it's their problem just like it's your problem when you make your silly clown like judgments of me, Goofies!

Now go back into your cages and remain there until I call you. We will be celebrating our independence day, from your country, tomorrow and I don't want to have to think about you two bird brains for a couple of days.
http://www.geocities.com/grace24u/4thofjul.html
ocb

[This message has been edited by old_cross_bound (edited 04 July 2001).]

Ed Winchester
4th Jul 2001, 11:52
I'm sure o_c_b started this thread in order to continue a discussion with PTT. PTT has now arrived on the scene. Why don't you just let them get on with it, instead of continually trying to bicker/score points. Surely it would be simpler to just ignore the thread?

max_cont
4th Jul 2001, 13:46
I agree Ed, I've never posted on any of OCB's threads and this is the last. (I hope)

I find it hard to believe that any
god would be so cruel to his subjects as to inflict OCB on them.

Since this course of action, if taken would not be the actions of a god who loved us all. Then there can only be one conclusion.

There is no god, simple.

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

OzDude
4th Jul 2001, 15:42
Considering that it is polite to introduce oneself before entering a discussion I would like to take this opportunity to say "here I am ocb. How do you do?" Now, to make my point...

You can always tell when someone has very little intelligence and a poor standard of education when they have to paraphrase everything in order to try and get a point across. Taken to the extreme as above by ocb it therefore becomes obvious that good old slash, nil, kulu and a few others have managed to trip up this 'dubya' clone and he nonetheless keeps coming back for more.

Picture the Ruprecht charachter played by Steve Martin in the comedy film Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and I belive you are picturing ocb at his best.

Not quite as scientific as Slash or PPT's replies but certainly comprehendable for ocb methinks. Now why the f u c k is this debate going on in a pilots forum? Can't the likes of ocb find a soapbox somewhere else that is inhabited with morons of equally low intelligence who perhaps would give a f u ck? (language used for cause and effect)

old_cross_bound
4th Jul 2001, 19:45
Ed Winchester

I'm sure o_c_b started this thread in order to continue a discussion with PTT. PTT has now arrived on the scene. Why don't you just let them get on with it, instead of continually trying to bicker/score points. Surely it would be simpler to just ignore the thread?

***Sounds fine with me. I can have a serious discussion with PTT that way, over factual data we've discussed in the past.



max_cont

I agree Ed, I've never posted on any of OCB's threads and this is the last. (I hope)
I find it hard to believe that any
god would be so cruel to his subjects as to inflict OCB on them.

Since this course of action, if taken would not be the actions of a god who loved us all. Then there can only be one conclusion.

There is no god, simple.

***Although wrong it was simply said. Very good. God didn't inflict ocb on anyone. He did suffer his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, to come into the world to save sinners like myself however. That's all he came for was sinners. Where do you fit and do you know him?

OzDude

Considering that it is polite to introduce oneself before entering a discussion I would like to take this opportunity to say "here I am ocb. How do you do?" Now, to make my point...

***Fine, thank you. Now pull out your hammer and have a go at the anvil.

You can always tell when someone has very little intelligence and a poor standard of education when they have to paraphrase everything in order to try and get a point across.

***You can also see this when someone has to use language (in it's limited form) to communicate and insults instead of well thought out points to identify what is really in their hearts.

Taken to the extreme as above by ocb it therefore becomes obvious that good old slash, nil, kulu and a few others have managed to trip up this 'dubya' clone and he nonetheless keeps coming back for more.

***Maybe they will put you on their gift list now, who knows.

Picture the Ruprecht charachter played by Steve Martin in the comedy film Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and I belive you are picturing ocb at his best.

***His legs were numb, he felt no pain ;)


Not quite as scientific as Slash or PPT's replies but certainly comprehendable for ocb methinks. Now why the f u c k is this debate going on in a pilots forum?

***Because Danny doesn't mind, because Danny owns the forum, because you do not!

Can't the likes of ocb find a soapbox somewhere else that is inhabited with morons of equally low intelligence who perhaps would give a f u ck? (language used for cause and effect)

***Can't you find a public bathroom stall that you feel more comfortable talking to?

ocb

Nil nos tremefacit
4th Jul 2001, 22:40
OCB

I thought you were going to be too busy celebrating to contribute today! Over here we're celebrating the fact that we let you have 'independence'. I've had a nice flat, warm beer with a light head on it - something you'll never really enjoy.

Actually you have kept the language, miles (not statute sadly), pints (not Imperial), pounds and ounces. You have also based your legal system on our Common Law. Only where you have sought to make yourselves different have you had problems (call that an election???). I'm also impressed that you have mostly chosen to have Presidents of British descent - certainly even the Irish ones are descended from people who emigrated as British subjects.

Have a nice piece of apple pie (English invention) and salute your flag - based on the coat of arms of the Washington family, granted by our College of Heralds ('cos you ain't got one!).

old_cross_bound
4th Jul 2001, 23:21
Nil nos tremefacit

OCB
I thought you were going to be too busy celebrating to contribute today! Over here we're celebrating the fact that we let you have 'independence'. I've had a nice flat, warm beer with a light head on it - something you'll never really enjoy.

***I thought I told you to stay put? Oh well, we'll be going to a celebration on Saturday so I have the day off.
Right, you let us! Next you'll say that you gave us freedom.

Actually you have kept the language, miles (not statute sadly), pints (not Imperial), pounds and ounces. You have also based your legal system on our Common Law. Only where you have sought to make yourselves different have you had problems (call that an election???).

***Thank goodness we made some changes so we could rescue you from the European dumping ground back in the 40's though.

I'm also impressed that you have mostly chosen to have Presidents of British descent - certainly even the Irish ones are descended from people who emigrated as British subjects.

***You can have Clinton if you want. He'd make a good prime minister for you.

Have a nice piece of apple pie (English invention) and salute your flag - based on the coat of arms of the Washington family, granted by our College of Heralds ('cos you ain't got one!).

***Don't want one, we have a risen Christ, one in who no improvements can or need to be made. If you had a heart for God you would know what I mean.

ocb

PTT
8th Jul 2001, 03:04
ocb

I no longer post on newsmax. I've forgotten the discussion myself but we can follow up anyway.
What do you understand about the expoential decay curve? Take for example a glass of water with a thermometer in it w/equalibrium on the themometer. What does the curve look like going from one state to another? Say you drop five cubes of ice in the water and plot the curve in the glass, time vs temperture.
Why do you see the same curve through out nature and how did Moses know this in discussing the flood and the differences in the ages of the people changing from pre-flood to post flood? Why won't the reputable scientific secular community discuss or even touch this undeniable fact? What do you know about the insistance in the scientific community concerning uniformity throughout the universe? Age of the universe etc...?

I am well aware of what a decay curve looks like. It has to do with the relationship between start conditions of the object, environmental conditions, and rate of adjustment. In many cases it is an approximation, because the adjustment made by the environment to the object is so small as to be disregarded.
What has this to do with your mythical flood? Where was Moses' description of the exponential decay curve in the old testament?
As far as I am aware, the scientific community does not insist that the universe is uniform, nor can it have been at the time of the big bang (if that's what happened). If it were, then the galaxies, stars and planets would be unlikely to form. Also, a fully uniform state is a high degree of organisation - it is more likely that there were local anomolies in density in the initial material at the time of the big bang.

Also, what the hell has this got to do with my answer to you?

Ta muchly

PTT

old_cross_bound
8th Jul 2001, 03:49
What has this to do with your mythical flood? Where was Moses' description of the exponential decay curve in the old testament?
As far as I am aware, the scientific community does not insist that the universe is uniform,

***You can take the recorded ages of the pre-flood people and the length of their lives and compare them to the post flood length of their lives and set it next to the decay curve and they match up perfectly. It's been done and for a scientist, this is real data.

Also, the science community does hold to "uniformity" as in the age of the universe. They can't imagine the universe being created instantaneously (all the stars set in place at once)by a higher life form superior to man. It destroys the use of the speed of light for a constant in measuring the age of the universe; now I understand that the speed of light can't even be held to be a constant.

I forgot what we were talking about also. So I just ask about this to get your opinion. I guess you are either not online much or tied up at newsmax. I'll go back and read my first post here and the one I took it from on newsmax if you like. I think it was your science thread but I've forgotten.

ocb

PTT
8th Jul 2001, 04:42
"You can take the recorded ages of the pre-flood people and the length of their lives and compare them to the post flood length of their lives and set it next to the decay curve and they match up perfectly. It's been done and for a scientist, this is real data."

Can you show me this data? Where were the ages recorded (guess: the Bible?)? How can only two data create a curve? Surely two would create a line - and any curve can be made to fit through two points. I await with baited breath...

PTT

[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: PTT ]

old_cross_bound
8th Jul 2001, 11:55
PTT,

Excuse me! You are not waiting with baited breath at all. Clearly in your mind you've already dismissed the claim without seeing the data. Not to scientific I would say but we tried.

ocb

PTT
8th Jul 2001, 13:10
ocb

Thanks very much for dismissing my request out-of-hand. I have not rejected your data at all - I am merely healthily sceptical of it. To accept that your data exists without seeing it for myself would be the same as accepting that dragons exist on your say-so. My scepticism arises from a natural requirement for observation ond the way your data was described. As I said, with only two data you have either a line or whatever curve you want to fit through it. You need at least three data to form a curve, and even then it would be a massive generalisation, as most data which actually adhere to any form of curve do so across the normal to the curve in a normal distribution pattern (bell curve). That's why we require more data to show the accuracy of the original curve.
I really would like to see your data. And my breath is indeed baited...

Ta muchly

PTT

old_cross_bound
8th Jul 2001, 19:23
PTT,

You can create the data on your your own. That way you'll have a hands on observation of your own. Take the criteria of the decay curve as can be easily found, then look at the age of Adam and all the other preflood ages of the ones spoken of in the book of Genesis and plot them on a graph using the same criteria. You'll see that over time the average age of a person range from about 900 years down to about 90 years.

Set the two curves side by side and observe and remember Moses did not have a calculator on Mt. Sinai when he wrote the God inspired book of Genesis. It's that simple and you'll have your own personal reference.

BTW, you have not mentioned the uniformity position of the scientific community I see.
Why?

ocb

HugMonster
8th Jul 2001, 20:01
I've heard some pseudo-scientific bolleaux in my time, but this takes the biscuit... :rolleyes:

PTT
8th Jul 2001, 20:23
ocb

As I am unwilling to partake in such an exhaustive piece of research (I have better things to do with my time), I must ask that you provide the data for me. A simple tabular format will do - you can e-mail it to me if you like. That said, how does your use of the decay curve comply with the observed fact of an increase in human longevity over time? Even if we discard fossil evidence, reliable written sources from 1,000 years ago (such as the Domesday Book) limit the human lifespan to much less than it is now. No apparent decay in longevity has occurred in that time.

BTW, you have not mentioned the uniformity position of the scientific community I see.
Why?
I forgot to.

"They can't imagine the universe being created instantaneously (all the stars set in place at once)by a higher life form superior to man"
Because it is inconsistent with observations. There is no evidence to suggest such a creation or such a being, so scientists search for the simplest answer still. No-one has claimed that they are definately right, merely that they propound possible answers.

"now I understand that the speed of light can't even be held to be a constant."
What do you mean by this? AFAIK, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Do you have a link to back yourself up at all?

Ta muchly

PTT

old_cross_bound
8th Jul 2001, 22:37
PTT

ocb
As I am unwilling to partake in such an exhaustive piece of research (I have better things to do with my time), I must ask that you provide the data for me. A simple tabular format will do - you can e-mail it to me if you like. That said, how does your use of the decay curve comply with the observed fact of an increase in human longevity over time? Even if we discard fossil evidence, reliable written sources from 1,000 years ago (such as the Domesday Book) limit the human lifespan to much less than it is now. No apparent decay in longevity has occurred in that time.

***I can give you the name of a book that's got all the data in it if you like but I won't do the work for you. If you don't care than it would be a waste of my time as well and I too have better things to do.

I'm not discounting the improvements in longevity as we see it today but it's a far cry from living a thousand years I would say. Man starts out living 1000 years then a major worldwide catastrophy occures and man then lives for only 90 years and as the world continues to die his life span drops to 40 years and in the last 150 years goes back up to about 70 years? Not much overall improvement I would conclude.

BTW, you have not mentioned the uniformity position of the scientific community I see.
Why?
I forgot to.

"They can't imagine the universe being created instantaneously (all the stars set in place at once)by a higher life form superior to man"
Because it is inconsistent with observations. There is no evidence to suggest such a creation or such a being, so scientists search for the simplest answer still. No-one has claimed that they are definately right, merely that they propound possible answers.

***No it isn't inconsistant at all. Give me one example.

"now I understand that the speed of light can't even be held to be a constant."
What do you mean by this? AFAIK, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Do you have a link to back yourself up at all?

***We don't live in a vaccum, we live in a universe and we can't just assume that the behavior of light is the same throughout the universe can we. S. Hawkins knows this. It's common, logical sense.

ocb

PTT
11th Jul 2001, 05:39
ocb

My apologies for the delayed reply.

I'm quite certain that I know which book you will refer me to.
Would you not agree that ANY increase in longevity is entirely opposed to your apparrent "exponential decay" curve? After all, seeing an increase in what is, apparrently, a decay curve, would be the opposite to the predictions of the curve. Science would suggest, then, that your prediction (and therefore your theory) is incorrect, rather than the observation being incorrect.

"***No it isn't inconsistant at all. Give me one example."
OK. We have never, in all of our observations of the universe, seen a massive, miraculous, incomprihensible, immaculate being. To claim that there is such a thing is inconsistent with observation.

"***We don't live in a vaccum, we live in a universe and we can't just assume that the behavior of light is the same throughout the universe can we. S. Hawkins knows this. It's common, logical sense."
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. That is what matters. The math works. Sorry, ocb, but you are grasping at straws.

Ta muchly

PTT

old_cross_bound
11th Jul 2001, 09:59
PTT

ocb
My apologies for the delayed reply.

I'm quite certain that I know which book you will refer me to.
Would you not agree that ANY increase in longevity is entirely opposed to your apparrent "exponential decay" curve? After all, seeing an increase in what is, apparrently, a decay curve, would be the opposite to the predictions of the curve. Science would suggest, then, that your prediction (and therefore your theory) is incorrect, rather than the observation being incorrect.

****What prediction? The decay curve is scientific, and I'm making a comparison not a prediction nor a theory.
Your thinking pattern is mysterious. You have a presupposed answer for the question and then you try to fill in the blank with some off beat logic that makes no sense. Are you being disingenuine or what?

"***No it isn't inconsistant at all. Give me one example."
OK. We have never, in all of our observations of the universe, seen a massive, miraculous, incomprihensible, immaculate being. To claim that there is such a thing is inconsistent with observation.

****We have seen one. Jesus who died on the cross. The problem with that today is that it isn't "believed" not that it didn't occure. You cannot verify this kind of historic event and the bible agrees in that those who believe it, live by faith.


"***We don't live in a vaccum, we live in a universe and we can't just assume that the behavior of light is the same throughout the universe can we. S. Hawkins knows this. It's common, logical sense."

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. That is what matters. The math works. Sorry, ocb, but you are grasping at straws.

****Do you really think that? How can the speed of light in a vaccum be scientifically compared to the speed of light in an endless universe? I'd like to know what kind of science that really is. Sound like voodoo science to me but give it a shot if you like.

ocb


:)

[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

PTT
11th Jul 2001, 17:43
ocb

Then your comparison doesn't work. You say that longevity has been reducing in the manner of the exponential decay curve since the times of your mythical flood. The observed fact is that lingevity has been increasing over the past few hundred years. Therefore there is no exponential decay. Your comparison is invalid.

"****We have seen one. Jesus who died on the cross. The problem with that today is that it isn't "believed" not that it didn't occur(sic). You cannot verify this kind of historic event and the bible agrees in that those who believe it, live by faith."
--I still haven't seen one. And I'd be very surprised if you've met the guy, too. You cant be that old ;)

"****Do you really think that? How can the speed of light in a vaccum be scientifically compared to the speed of light in an endless universe? I'd like to know what kind of science that really is. Sound like voodoo science to me but give it a shot if you like."
--Ahh, an appeal to ridicule. That's more like the old ocb.
Comparisons of this kind are made all the time, and in locality. Much as the speed of sound changes depending on the medium it's travelling through, so does the speed of light.
The relationship between the density of the medium and the speed of sound is proportional: the greater the density the greater the speed. With light, the opposite effect occurs: the greater the density, the slower the speed - EM waves travel pretty slowly through lead.
From this, we know that sound will not travel through a vacuum (as that is not possible) and EM waves (light) will be at their fastest in a vacuum. Want to know more?

Ta muchly

PTT

old_cross_bound
11th Jul 2001, 23:32
PTT

Then your comparison doesn't work. You say that longevity has been reducing in the manner of the exponential decay curve since the times of your mythical flood. The observed fact is that lingevity has been increasing over the past few hundred years. Therefore there is no exponential decay. Your comparison is invalid.


*****No, that's not what I said at all. The length of life decreased right after the flood dramatically not as you have said. The three sons of Noah out lived their great grand children. Thats when the change occured not over the past 3500 years, it was just like the decay curve is seen in todays science lab. If you are arguing about that, then you are just arguing against know facts.

"****We have seen one. Jesus who died on the cross. The problem with that today is that it isn't "believed" not that it didn't occur(sic). You cannot verify this kind of historic event and the bible agrees in that those who believe it, live by faith."

--I still haven't seen one. And I'd be very surprised if you've met the guy, too. You cant be that old

*****It's true, I have. His spirit is present here and now and he can touch your heart at any time if he wants to. The scriptures confirm this. Do you "know" him?

****Do you really think that? How can the speed of light in a vaccum be scientifically compared to the speed of light in an endless universe? I'd like to know what kind of science that really is. Sound like voodoo science to me but give it a shot if you like."

--Ahh, an appeal to ridicule. That's more like the old ocb.
Comparisons of this kind are made all the time, and in locality. Much as the speed of sound changes depending on the medium it's travelling through, so does the speed of light.
The relationship between the density of the medium and the speed of sound is proportional: the greater the density the greater the speed. With light, the opposite effect occurs: the greater the density, the slower the speed - EM waves travel pretty slowly through lead.
From this, we know that sound will not travel through a vacuum (as that is not possible) and EM waves (light) will be at their fastest in a vacuum. Want to know more?

*****Sure, it still doesn't address the question though. Until you can actually travel to another universe in another galaxy you can't confirm your data can you? Go ahead, tell me more though, I'm listening.

ocb
;)

[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

PTT
12th Jul 2001, 00:12
ocb

Oh, I see. The decay curve doesn't happen any more, but at the time of the flood human longevity decreased exponentially. Is that what you are saying? If so, can you quote your source, please? I will take a minor intuitive leap and suggest that your sole source is the bible - please correct that if I am wrong.
Having just checked an online version of the KJV I note that it says Noah died at 950 years old (Gen 9:29). The following ages come from Gen 11:10-32:
950 - Noah
600 - Shem
438 - Arphexad
433 - Salah
464 - Eber
239 - Peleg
239 - Reu
230 - Serug
148 - Nahor
Having plotted these on Excel, both against number of generations and against total time, I can tell you thet there is no evidence of an exponential decay curve. This is obvious anyway by the simple fact that Eber lived longer than both his father and his grandfather.
Your "exponential decay curve" theory is a non-starter, I'm afraid.
I don't even understand what you were trying to prove by it anyway (not that that matters anyway - it doesn't work).

"*****It's true, I have. His spirit is present here and now and he can touch your heart at any time if he wants to. The scriptures confirm this. Do you "know" him?"
--We have argued the validity of supernatural experiences many times, ocb. It is an undeniable fact that supernatural experiences, even those which seem to be with God himself, are not evidence for the existence of God outside of the experience itself. Pink elephants don't really exist either, but I've seen a few after some of the harder nights in the bar.
Furthermore, even if the being does exist outside of your individual experience, how can you know that it is telling you the truth? What evidence has it given to prove to you that it is, in fact, God? This all assumes the reality of the experience in the first place, of course...

"*****Sure, it still doesn't address the question though. Until you can actually travel to another universe in another galaxy you can't confirm your data can you? Go ahead, tell me more though, I'm listening."
--It has answered the question, ocb. Ever heard of particle accelerators? They verify the predictions made by the theory of relativity to an accuracy of 99.9993%. This kind of accuracy suggests that the theory is correct, but science is humble enough (and so it should be) to admit that, at the very last point, the theory still could be disproved.
There is no need to travel to other galaxies to confirm the data. It works here, and that is what matters at the moment. It is entirely possible that there are regions of the universe in which the rules are different, but we cannot simply assume this to be the case as we have no evidence that these regions actually exist. Let's work with what we observe rather than what we imagine, eh? BTW, there is no such thing as "another universe." Check out the definition of the word sometime. :D

Ta muchly

PTT

tony draper
12th Jul 2001, 00:26
Here's some old time religion for you.

THIS ae nighte, this ae nighte,
--Every nighte and alle,
Fire and fleet and candle-lighte,
And Christe receive thy saule.


When thou from hence away art past,
--Every nighte and alle,
To Whinny-muir thou com'st at last;
And Christe receive thy saule.


If ever thou gavest hosen and shoon,
--Every nighte and alle,
Sit thee down and put them on;
And Christe receive thy saule.


If hosen and shoon thou ne'er gav'st nane
--Every nighte and alle,
The whinnes sall prick thee to the bare bane;
And Christe receive thy saule.


From Whinny-muir when thou may'st pass,
--Every nighte and alle,
To Brig o' Dread thou com'st at last;
And Christe receive thy saule.


From Brig o' Dread when thou may'st pass,
--Every nighte and alle,
To Purgatory fire thou com'st at last;
And Christe receive thy saule.


If ever thou gavest meat or drink,
--Every nighte and alle,
The fire sall never make thee shrink;
And Christe receive thy saule.


If meat or drink thou ne'er gav'st nane,
--Every nighte and alle,
The fire will burn thee to the bare bane;
And Christe receive thy saule.


This ae nighte, this ae nighte,
--Every nighte and alle,
Fire and fleet and candle-lighte,
And Christe receive thy saule.


fleet
house-room
;) ;) :eek:

old_cross_bound
12th Jul 2001, 08:36
PTT

ocb
Oh, I see. The decay curve doesn't happen any more, but at the time of the flood human longevity decreased exponentially. Is that what you are saying? If so, can you quote your source, please? I will take a minor intuitive leap and suggest that your sole source is the bible - please correct that if I am wrong.
Having just checked an online version of the KJV I note that it says Noah died at 950 years old (Gen 9:29). The following ages come from Gen 11:10-32:
950 - Noah
600 - Shem
438 - Arphexad
433 - Salah
464 - Eber
239 - Peleg
239 - Reu
230 - Serug
148 - Nahor
Having plotted these on Excel, both against number of generations and against total time, I can tell you thet there is no evidence of an exponential decay curve. This is obvious anyway by the simple fact that Eber lived longer than both his father and his grandfather.
Your "exponential decay curve" theory is a non-starter, I'm afraid.
I don't even understand what you were trying to prove by it anyway (not that that matters anyway - it doesn't work).


***Now look at the age of Abraham and Issac and Jacob and you can see that the sons of Noah were still alive when Issac was alive.
Abraham lived about 120 years and Issac a little less etc... Assuming this data is true and correct, it demonstrates the evidence of a major change along the same plotted line as the decay curve.

Therefore, a catestrophic flood makes perfectly good sense.

Remember, all the things in Genesis that happened were written some four hundred years "after" Abraham lived, by Moses.
Moses didn't have a computer or a calculator to use when he wrote the first five books of the Bible but he wrote as he was instructed by God.
This is the point. What you see is solid evidence within the bible itself.
Need another reference, check out: "The Genesis Flood" by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. First published in 1961.

"*****It's true, I have. His spirit is present here and now and he can touch your heart at any time if he wants to. The scriptures confirm this. Do you "know" him?"

--We have argued the validity of supernatural experiences many times, ocb. It is an undeniable fact that supernatural experiences, even those which seem to be with God himself, are not evidence for the existence of God outside of the experience itself. Pink elephants don't really exist either, but I've seen a few after some of the harder nights in the bar.
Furthermore, even if the being does exist outside of your individual experience, how can you know that it is telling you the truth? What evidence has it given to prove to you that it is, in fact, God? This all assumes the reality of the experience in the first place, of course...

*** He does exist outside of my experience since there are millions of people who have had similar experiences. I've talked to many of them and we have shared what happened with each other and the biblical scriptures have verified this. The evidence is found not in your brain or mental abilities but rather in your heart. God gives you a heart of love in place of a heart of stone which we are all born with, once you decide to allow God, who knocks on the door to your conscience, into your life. Until then, you can't know if God is real. There is no 2000 year history and millions of conversions to pink elephants. I don't see a pink elephant plan for redemption of the soul anywhere either. Do you want to exist after this life or could you care less about your existence?

"*****Sure, it still doesn't address the question though. Until you can actually travel to another universe in another galaxy you can't confirm your data can you? Go ahead, tell me more though, I'm listening."

--It has answered the question, ocb. Ever heard of particle accelerators? They verify the predictions made by the theory of relativity to an accuracy of 99.9993%. This kind of accuracy suggests that the theory is correct, but science is humble enough (and so it should be) to admit that, at the very last point, the theory still could be disproved.
There is no need to travel to other galaxies to confirm the data. It works here, and that is what matters at the moment.

***It's good enough for you evidently but since we can't know how physics really work at every point in the Universe we don't really know, do we?
If Stephen Hawkins is right, all the laws of physics break down totally in a singularity and that may be what is really out there.

We really can't say, can we.

It is entirely possible that there are regions of the universe in which the rules are different, but we cannot simply assume this to be the case as we have no evidence that these regions actually exist. Let's work with what we observe rather than what we imagine, eh? BTW, there is no such thing as "another universe." Check out the definition of the word sometime.

***We cannot assume it "either way", can we. So if you are assuming it to be one way, you are reasoning and believing in faith not in fact.
You want facts or not?
Your reasoning here comes to an end with an endless universe which isn't observeable and now you have to go on faith, just like me.
Think about this next time before you dismiss mans history of man as it's written down in the bible and before you critisize those who believe in the God who created all of this.

Ta,

ocb

[ 12 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

PTT
13th Jul 2001, 16:15
ocb

"***Now look at the age of Abraham and Issac and Jacob and you can see that the sons of Noah were still alive when Issac was alive."
-- True. Here is a complete rundown of dates of birth and death from Noah to Jacob. Year 0 is the year of the flood.
Noah -600 350
Shem -98 502
Arphexad 2 440
Salah 37 470
Eber 67 531
Peleg 101 340
Reu 131 370
Serug 163 393
Nahor 193 341
Terah 222 427
Abraham 292 467
Isaac 392 572
Jacob 452 599

But what does it prove. There is still no evidence of exponential decay. Yes, there is decay apparent, but it is not in any way exponential. Plot the graph yourself.

"Therefore, a catestrophic flood makes perfectly good sense."
-- Why? I don't follow your reasoning here.

"Remember, all the things in Genesis that happened were written some four hundred years "after" Abraham lived, by Moses.
Moses didn't have a computer or a calculator to use when he wrote the first five books of the Bible but he wrote as he was instructed by God.
This is the point. What you see is solid evidence within the bible itself."
-- When it was written is not relevant to your case - it is more relevant to mine. How Moses calculated these things is irrelevant. If the bible is the truth then he wouldn't have had to calculate anything. The fact remains, though, that the decay is not exponential, so your argument is irrelevant.

Furthermore, your entire argument rests on the validity of the bible as a source of historical evidence, and this is something I would contest strongly anyway. I will continue to indulge you, though... ;)

"*** He does exist outside of my experience since there are millions of people who have had similar experiences."
-- Anecdotal evidence. Without wishing to dismiss your evidence out of hand, many people have claimed all kinds of unlikely things -- that they have been abducted by UFOs, visited by the ghost of Elvis, and so on. Are their claims as valid as yours? Furthermore, the crux of your claim (there are millions of people...) is no more than an appeal to popularity.

"The evidence is found not in your brain or mental abilities but rather in your heart. God gives you a heart of love in place of a heart of stone which we are all born with, once you decide to allow God, who knocks on the door to your conscience, into your life. Until then, you can't know if God is real. I don't see a pink elephant plan for redemption of the soul anywhere either. Do you want to exist after this life or could you care less about your existence?"
-- Appeal to the consequences of a belief. Just because you like the results of your belief doesn't make them true.

"***It's good enough for you evidently but since we can't know how physics really work at every point in the Universe we don't really know, do we?
If Stephen Hawkins is right, all the laws of physics break down totally in a singularity and that may be what is really out there."
-- So, you want to test everything everywhere before you will believe it now, eh? Would you do the same with your God?
Do you have any idea what a singularity is? There may indeed be many of them out there, and we know enough about them to say that we should stay well away. We also think that the four fundamental forces may become one under such conditions.
What we can do is say that the laws of physics which we have worked out work here and now. To reject them because they might not work elsewhere would be foolish.

"Your reasoning here comes to an end with an endless universe which isn't observeable and now you have to go on faith, just like me."
-- Actually, I have to keep an open mind. That's all. I'm allowed to say the words "I don't know" at any point at which knowledge fails me.

Ta muchly

PTT

Angel Gabrielle
13th Jul 2001, 18:39
Well, well ocb still peddling your inerrantist view of the Bible, that the World Began 6000 years or so ago, despite massive evidence to the contrary. If you believe the Bible is accurate, it is axiomatic that you must accept the biblical dating.

Any book that brings dissent rather than harmony cannot be written by a God of Love, any book that advocates damnation rather than salvation and a book that has caused endless wars, persecutions, torture, bigotry and hatred cannot have been inspired by a Supreme or Superior being, either ethically, morally or intellectually. A book that is so unintelligible that not only do "non-believers" reject it, but those who believe it to be the true word of God cannot agree upon its interpretation. This is the Bible that OCB uses to proclaim his message - the foolish, irrational, delusion that the Bible is "the word of God".

If the Bible was self-evidently written by God, as is claimed, then we would not be having this debate as it would be self-evidently impossible to refute the claim.

Ocb claims that early men mentioned in the Bible lived long lives because it says so in the Bible, there is no other evidence to support this contention. Just because it is in an ancient text does not make it fact, just because this ancient text has become transposed to ‘holy book’ for a religion does not make it irrefutable and immutable. When there is ample evidence that this ancient text and book is erroneous in parts, then we should take even greater care to ensure that what we quote as fact is able to stand up to scrutiny from independent minds.

Ocb is one of the pseudoscientists whose creed is ‘Baloney Baffles Brains’ . If you say something enough times and make the lie big enough, then enough people will believe you, if you invest it with religious overtones, then you are on a winner. Pseudoscience erects hypotheses as defence against the facts. Science on the other hand, uses hypotheses to explain theories which are not considered facts until they have survived rigorous tests of independent analysis.

This book has a hammerlock on the minds of so many like Ocb, who would rather see billions of human souls condemned to everlasting torment and perdition, than accept that his belief may have flaws.

Actually Moses didn't write the first five books - they are attributed to him that is all. The flood for instance. Deluge legends are taken from earlier stories – from Sumeria and Chaldea to Amenia and Greece, all with their local heroes who saved mankind in some way after a deluge.

You may be interested in a Quote from

'The Smithsonian's department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah's flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions:

Most Biblical scholars and Near Eastern archeologists and historians regard the Biblical story of the flood and Noah's Ark as a story handed down by oral tradition. This story has obvious relationships with the Mesopotamian account of a flood found in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Biblical and Mesopotamian accounts differ in important details--The respective boats are of different sizes and shapes; the Biblical boat lands on Mount Ararat, the Mesopotamian boat lands on Mount Nisir--and both stories may go back to a still earlier common source which remains unknown to us today.

Many people ask if the Biblical flood actually took place, i.e. a flood which literally covered the entire earth and wiped out all living things except those which managed to board the ark? The occurrence of a flood story in both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as in other folk traditions, does hint that there may have been enormous flooding of river valleys in a far distant time. However, thus far, after literally hundreds of archeological excavations at different times in the Near East, no all-encompassing flood stratum has ever been found. During the 1920's, Sir Leonard Woolley found a six foot...:thick flood layer at Ur with evidence of earlier occupations below the flood layer and later occupations above it. We now know that this flood stratum was deposited by a change in the course of the Euphrates River that meandered rather widely over the flood plain, much as the Mississippi River once did before flood control measures were taken. Other sites near Ur display no such evidence of a flood stratum. Another difficulty in verifying the Biblical story is that the identification of the particular mountain now known as Ararat goes back to no more than a few hundred years, and, in fact, we have no idea where an ancient Mount Ararat might have been located. In addition, there is no hard evidence of an early ship resting on top of any mountain anywhere in the Near East.

In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated. There are conflicts between present archeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers.

However, in the stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document. '


A Treaty, signed into law by President John Adams and written by George Washington in 1796 when he was President reads
“As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; it has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of the Musselmen (Muslims) ... no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The Founding Fathers apparently recognized religion to be the source of hate and war. It also proves the United States was not a Christian nation when it started – it had far greater ideals and wisdom than that.

Professor TailSpin
13th Jul 2001, 20:46
To me this is all very simple...

There is no God

The bible is the result of one of the best scams of all time. Religion is just the result of fear and the need to 'believe' that something is watching over us, etc etc etc.

:rolleyes: Get real! Science disproves much religion, and the most common argument from 'those who believe' is that I should have faith.

Faith in what exactly? Give me hard solid facts anyday.

I totally understand that everyone has their own personal views (be them strange or not), and these are mine.

Slasher
13th Jul 2001, 23:08
Yeh the Flood is another example of contradiction in christianity.
God is supposed to be a perfect being. God is Perfection in the religious sense meaning incapable or error. God is meant to be merciful, and cannot error in this area.
God unilateraly decides to wipe out a bunch of fornicators with rain that will last 40 days and nights. This cold-blooded mass slaughter will also include the drowning of little kids too. But God is incapable or error. So logic dictates this decision of his was without error.
Now after the Ark lands on Ararat what do we hear? "Ill never again wipe out Man", and sealed the promise acording to myth in a rainbow.
Just a minute. Here our perfect bloodey God appears to have learnt a lesson in mercy and impulsive vengance! Does this mean he is developing as a being? Doesnt logic dictate therefore God was admiting he was IN ERROR by causing the flood?
It seems he didnt learn much about mercy through that event. We see that inocents were still brutaly butchered by the sword when Joshua and his cut-throats raided Jericho.

I think "God" can learn a lot from humans.

old_cross_bound
14th Jul 2001, 03:24
PTT, I just skimmed through your post. I'm on my way to see a movie on how the flood happened. It shows how the planet looked just prior to the flood and how the fountains of the deep were opened up. It takes the way the mountains are all arranged in the Atlantic and compares them to the rocky mountain. There are seventeen point on the planet presently being studied by scientic, arceologist basically who have confirmed the likelihood of a great deluge,

I'll get back with you on the rest of the post later.

ocb

PTT
14th Jul 2001, 14:54
A movie? Must be true, then...

Angel Gabrielle
14th Jul 2001, 17:26
I dont't think anyone disputes that at some time billions of years ago this earth was covered mostly by ocean (well anyone who doesn't claim the Bible as fact). Evolution states that life started in the primordial oceanic environment. Life on earth started there from amino acids which formed coacervates, a very primitive system of proto-life.

Similar to bateria, this group is known as heterotrophic anaerobes. Fossils of some these oldest known forms of life have been found in Australian rocks dating back 3.5 billion years. Gradual changes in the earliest cells gave rise to new life forms, becoming every more complex until plants evolved some 700 million years ago. It took &gt;450,000 more years for plants to evolve on land. There are now some 300,000 different species of plants. All of these were supposedly contained in the ark along with the &gt; 5,000,000 species alive today.

If you use the Bible flood as a starting point - then only a few thousand years ago all plant life was destroyed except for the oceans - but miraculously an olive tree survived under water, which also miraculously remained in full leaf so that the dove could bring one back to Noah. Guess that's one plant God didn't destroy (even though it's stated everything was). Since he only had two ravens, guess the remaining one somehow found its mate – otherwise there wouldn’t be ravens now – but with no land and no food, apart from anything else it would have died from exhaustion or starvation. Wonder where today’s ravens came from.

Now, no one has yet discussed whether this deluge was fresh or saline. Very few fresh water aquatic plants or creatures can survive for long in saline and vice versa. So most of these would have died also. Even if some can survive in both conditions such as the Salmon, the dilution would have affected those too – and the food chain would have significantly diminished – thus ensuring they starved to death(in any case God destroyed all life on earth, except for what was in the ark and the olive tree).

No Bible inerrantist can explain how Noah was able to place a minimum of two creatures even on conservative estimates numbering in the millions, in an ark (every creature on the earth was to be placed in the ark), the dimensions of which are very specific, 450ft x 75ft x 45ft.. Nor how he could have fed and watered them (remember God had sealed the ark from the outside). He is commanded to take enough food and store it to feed them and his family for around 6 months, it was intended they all remain conscious (forget about the ones that should have been hibernating). Did anyone remember to tell the lion that he wasn’t supposed to eat his neighbour the deer. What about environmental controls for the different animals – polar bears and penguins need totally different conditions to camels and elephants. Hummingbirds and bees need flowers to survive. What did Noah and his family do with the effluent – would have been up to his neck in it a month, never mind six months.

Come to that – are penguins and polar bears clean or unclean. What about dolphins and sealions?

How did all the animals and plants then get dispersed around the world – did the kangaroos swim 10,000 miles to Australia, did the polar bears walk through desert to get to the North Pole, Did the army ants march back to the tropics under water. What about plants that grow only in one place, did they suddenly appear spontaneously. What happened to the dinosaurs did they die out before or after the flood. Not all plants use seed to reproduce, did he take cuttings.

Which of the many communicable diseases did Noah take on board, measles, typhoid, TB, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis etc. Animal and plant ailments – did he take healthy animals and then God infected them once they all landed. What about all the insects and bugs that plants need to reproduce – which of those were saved and which were ‘created’ after the flood. Though if you believe the bible, nothing has been created after Genesis, therefore everything on earth has descended only from what was inside Noah’s ark (‘cept of course the olive tree).

Did Noah check that each animal was sound of wind and limb (oops sorry, every animal must be host to every disease that ever happened since), and fertile (what happened if one was sterile). Did he insist that any young of these selected breeding pairs was left to die. Or did he only choose those which had no young.

As for post-deluvian humans - only Noah’s family survived, now that must have reduced the gene pool – begs the question where the different races came from – no evolution, so no change. Now, which race was Noah – Black, Asian, Chinese, Indian or White etc..

One of the first things this really upright guy did was plant a vineyard and get drunk - must have been very fast growing vines from a few cuttings, normally takes a years to grow vines, wait for them to mature, harvest the grapes and make the wine. Still whats a few decades to someone who measures his life in centuries.

All of these and many more are glossed over in an attempt to make the Bible fit the facts. The usual answer is that God could ensure that this happened, what they don’t answer is why God bothered to destroy everything with a flood. Why not just get rid of the troublesome folk and leave Noah and his family – surely that would have solved the problem and I’m sure that ‘GOD’ had the power. Or is it that creationists rather enjoy the thought of innocents suffering at the hands of a vengeful being.

We could also discuss the wooden construction of such an enormous vessel, a difficult enough task at the best of times, but achieved in record time by Noah and his 3 sons with primitive tools. Maybe God sent Jesus to help out - he was a carpenter after all.

One question which never seems to come up – since Noah and all the animals and plants would have been shut in (no windows) and no ventilation (pitched inside and out) because otherwise the deluge would have entered the ark and drowned everything inside. How could Noah and his family and the animals survive without fresh air and what air managed to seep through was depleted in oxygen. There would have been no photosynthesis from plants (since all had been destroyed), the sun would have been completely blocked out by clouds whilst the deluge continued,

Unless you can refute reasonably and rationally, without resorting to mumbo-jumbo about God being able to do anything, any of these questions, the whole edifice of the ‘Noah Myth’ falls apart. The whole point is that God had left them to their own devices – says so in the Bible.

One final question, perhaps the most important is why did God go about ridding teh world of violence in this manner. An omnipotent being capable of creating a universe, could just have removed all the offenders, or ensured they suffered for their sins, decided to collect the ones for saving in one relatively small place, just so that they could be redistributed again. And, this omnipotent, omniscient being apparently didn't foresee trouble when he created man the first time round, so had to destroy his creation and start again. Like Slasher said - didn't he know in advance that this was going to happen, if he didn't then why not?

To believe in the story of Noah, you have to believe and accept unquestioningly a God who is brutal, violent, unjust and short-sighted. A God who was incapable of solving the mess that ultimately he was responsible for without throwing a tantrum and destroying everything.

Well, apart from everything in the ark and that sub-aquatic olive tree.

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: Angel Gabrielle ]

old_cross_bound
15th Jul 2001, 00:36
Angel Gabriel,

Are you going to start talking about evolution now?

Lets look at todays science for a change not what Darwin thought in ancient times. Please try not be such a Darwin fundamentalist, it reminds me to much of Iran. Darwin didn't even know the kind of breakthroughs we would have since his days not to mention the genetic engineering going on today.

The evidence of micro-evolution, which Dobzhanasky and others commonly cite, are not only irrelevent but are themselves denials of genuine evolution, in the sense of natural process tending toward greater order and complexity. Rather, these chromosome and gene "mutations" are themselves almost always deteriorative rather than progressive and so constitute further verification of the universal entropy principle. This fact is admitted by no less an authority than H.J. Muller, perhaps the world's outstanding worker in the field of gene mutations and their supposed evolutionary significance:

It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of natural mutations that extensive test have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organism in it's job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to it's useful operation.

According to the conception of evolution based on the studies of modern genetics, the whole organism has it's besis in genes. Of these, there are thousands of different kinds, interacting with great nicety in the production and maintainance of the complicated mechanism of the given type of organism. Accordinly, by the mutation of one of these genes or another, any component structure or function, and in many cases combinations of these components, may become diversely altered. Yet in all except very rare cases the change will be disadvantageous, involving an impairment of function.

The Plain facts of the of the situation, therefore, are that evolution has been simply assumed as the universal principle of change in nature, despite the still more amazing fact that universal experience and experimentation have demonstrated this universal principle of change to be its very opposite; namely, that of deterioration! Truely, this is one of the most astounding paradoxes to be found in all the history of science!

Now those are facts and secular science has been given a long rope to liberally work out their seemingly accurate view of the physical world; they have hung themselves with it, obviously. Secular science has contradicted itself. It is now, in it's present state, self-contradicting.
It no longer is "science" but a religion which has been proven to be false by "itself".

So you can promote it all you want to those who share your view but not me.

ocb

old_cross_bound
15th Jul 2001, 00:48
PTT,

Actually it was a very good movie and it was narrated by a guy who had worked for the Pentegon in Washington. He demonstrated that through the shifting in plates in the earth would produce a huge crack in the center of the Atlantic ocean, all the way around the planet a huge high pressure water flow that would flood the entire earth. Then through geology we can see what really caused the extinction of so many animals and reptiles through out the world.
He showed what was considered to be very old fossils in sediment above what was thought to be more recent fossils in the evolutionary process. Although this dismisses evolution as a sound theory it does not dismiss the Noahic flood in the least but rather supports it by a preponderance of the observable evidence.


ocb

PTT
15th Jul 2001, 18:32
ocb

I'm sure it was excellent. I would prefer to see it myself before drawing any conclusions, though. I'm sure that you are aware that this film is as much conjecture as any other theory about origins...

Would you like to address the points I made in my last-but-one post now?

PTT

Angel Gabrielle
15th Jul 2001, 23:00
ocb, you have signally ignored my request for a rational and reasonable explanation of Noah and his ark.

No one disputes that billions of years ago the earth was covered with water - in many areas, localised flooding occurred millions, thousands and hundreds of years ago. However, so far you have failed to prove the earth was covered completely with water to a depth of several thousand feet only a few thousand years ago.

You have failed to answer even one of the points raised about the ark which is more the salient point.

As for your film about a crack in the Atlantic Ocean – the Bible says the floodgates of heaven opened and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights – are you now stating that the Bible is wrong.

One movie does not disprove anything until it has been tested, confirmed and verified by independent evidence.

Back to the deluvian myth – now, how did the biblical author know that the waters that covered the earth were a depth &gt;5 miles – no-one was outside to check, everyone was sealed up suffocating in the ark. Exactly where did all the water recede to – if it was that deep over all the earth.

As for the size of the ark, it was some 100’ larger than any other wooden boat in the history of the world. The largest wooden boats on record, of which the Wyoming was only 329’ long and the biggest, were built between 1900 and 1909 and required diagonal iron strapping for support – they leaked so badly they had to be pumped constantly and were only used for short coastal hauls as they were unsafe in deep water.

You’re very hot on Biblical dates, so here’s some to play with

The Bible states that 1300 years passed before the building of Solomon’s temple, which would date the flood at around 2200bc. Now, there are very good records from Egypt and other cultures which date back to before that date and none of them state that a flood happened and only a handful of survivors remained to rebuild civilisation.

A tablet fragment in the excavations at Nippur, describes how Ea (their god), instructs Atrakhasis (their Noah) to build a great ship to save his family and selected beasts, as he will send a great deluge to destroy the earth – this tablet is dated around 2100bc. No, it was not possible to create a great civilisation such as Babylon in 100 years. This Babylonian flood myth is some 1200 years older than the Hebrew version and virtually identical. In the Satapatha-Brahmana an early Brahmin text, there is also found an early tradition of a flood. Manu, a holy man, was warned by a fish that a flood would sweep away all creatures, but he would rescue him. He was directed to build a ship and enter it when the flood rose; he did so, and fastened the fish to the ship, and was drawn by it beyond the northern mountains.

The Biblical story is neither unique nor very original and is based on earlier flood myths.


Yes, I’ll argue evolution with you, but only once you get some sense into your answers. I have studied it, you so obviously haven’t.

old_cross_bound
15th Jul 2001, 23:22
PTT,

The movie is called the "Mysteries of the Ancient World" The incredible story of Noah's Ark, by Columbia House. The last 30 minutes of the movie was what I was interested in. The previous is just conjecture.


But what does it prove. There is still no evidence of exponential decay. Yes, there is decay apparent, but it is not in any way exponential. Plot the graph yourself.


***Did you figure in the life of Issac and Jacob, Joseph etc...?

"Therefore, a catestrophic flood makes perfectly good sense."
-- Why? I don't follow your reasoning here.

***Why would the decay curve be anywhere close to the decrease in the longetivity of life as recorded in the bible?

"Remember, all the things in Genesis that happened were written some four hundred years "after" Abraham lived, by Moses.
Moses didn't have a computer or a calculator to use when he wrote the first five books of the Bible but he wrote as he was instructed by God.
This is the point. What you see is solid evidence within the bible itself."
-- When it was written is not relevant to your case - it is more relevant to mine. How Moses calculated these things is irrelevant. If the bible is the truth then he wouldn't have had to calculate anything. The fact remains, though, that the decay is not exponential, so your argument is irrelevant.

***Sure it is. That's silly. So someone who could be proven to use todays science 4000 years ago would be iirelevant to you. Is this right? Am I understanding you correctly?


Furthermore, your entire argument rests on the validity of the bible as a source of historical evidence, and this is something I would contest strongly anyway. I will continue to indulge you, though...

***And me you. The bible is a historical document as well ; the Jews have confirmed the life of Jesus as well as the Greeks in their history.
Didn't you know that?
What do you have to fall back on for your argument, seriously?

"*** He does exist outside of my experience since there are millions of people who have had similar experiences."
-- Anecdotal evidence. Without wishing to dismiss your evidence out of hand, many people have claimed all kinds of unlikely things --

***I don't...

that they have been abducted by UFOs, visited by the ghost of Elvis, and so on. Are their claims as valid as yours? Furthermore, the crux of your claim (there are millions of people...) is no more than an appeal to popularity.

***Do any of the above, other than believers, have a four thousand year old book verifying anything, much less the personal, born again experience, an encounter with the God who created the Universe? Btw, which today has produced millions of witnesses to this supernatural conversion of the heart.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved. Just believe PTT. When you are alone and it's quiet, believe him.

"The evidence is found not in your brain or mental abilities but rather in your heart. God gives you a heart of love in place of a heart of stone which we are all born with, once you decide to allow God, who knocks on the door to your conscience, into your life. Until then, you can't know if God is real. I don't see a pink elephant plan for redemption of the soul anywhere either. Do you want to exist after this life or could you care less about your existence?"
-- Appeal to the consequences of a belief. Just because you like the results of your belief doesn't make them true.

"***It's good enough for you evidently but since we can't know how physics really work at every point in the Universe we don't really know, do we?
If Stephen Hawkins is right, all the laws of physics break down totally in a singularity and that may be what is really out there."
-- So, you want to test everything everywhere before you will believe it now, eh? Would you do the same with your God?

***I want to believe in something that is real which is God. What isn't real is mans interpretation of the Universe. It's always changing and 200 years from now people will think that what you believe to be true right now is just ignorance and nonsense.

Do you have any idea what a singularity is? There may indeed be many of them out there, and we know enough about them to say that we should stay well away. We also think that the four fundamental forces may become one under such conditions.

***Not without adding dimensions. It's been proven in math but not practice. This also shows the limits of logic as we understand it.

What we can do is say that the laws of physics which we have worked out work here and now. To reject them because they might not work elsewhere would be foolish.

***I'm not saying to reject them at all. They just don't disprove my faith at all and they are a tool for deception if misused. If it's a religion for you as it is for many, there is no hope in it at all, nothing redeemable whatsoever and the elements are here today and tomorrow thrown into the fire according to the scriptures.

"Your reasoning here comes to an end with an endless universe which isn't observeable and now you have to go on faith, just like me."
-- Actually, I have to keep an open mind. That's all. I'm allowed to say the words "I don't know" at any point at which knowledge fails me.

***That true and its a very good point. "I don't know" _ is something one says in honesty. When I say I Know God. I too say that in honesty as a witness to the truth. You have a choice you can choose to make or choose not to make. It's a choice that knocks at the door to your counscience all the time. God is real; he is personally reconciling each one of us, one at a time, to him, on a personal level. God is Love.

ocb

[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

old_cross_bound
15th Jul 2001, 23:39
As for the worldly experts:

Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

old_cross_bound
15th Jul 2001, 23:57
Angel Gabrielle


***You don't know the bible so how can you argue against it? The earth wasn't covered with 1,000's of feet of water above it during the flood, read the text.

Any book that brings dissent rather than harmony cannot be written by a God of Love, any book that advocates damnation rather than salvation and a book that has caused endless wars, persecutions, torture, bigotry and hatred cannot have been inspired by a Supreme or Superior being, either ethically, morally or intellectually. A book that is so unintelligible that not only do "non-believers" reject it, but those who believe it to be the true word of God cannot agree upon its interpretation. This is the Bible that OCB uses to proclaim his message - the foolish, irrational, delusion that the Bible is "the word of God".

***This is exactly right,... only the opposite.

***Read the book of John and then we'll talk. It was man that brought the cursings not God. Did you blame your parents for everything you did wrong as a kid, too?


ocb

[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

old_cross_bound
16th Jul 2001, 00:13
Slasher

Yeh the Flood is another example of contradiction in christianity.
God is supposed to be a perfect being. God is Perfection in the religious sense meaning incapable or error. God is meant to be merciful, and cannot error in this area.
God unilateraly decides to wipe out a bunch of fornicators with rain that will last 40 days and nights. This cold-blooded mass slaughter will also include the drowning of little kids too. But God is incapable or error. So logic dictates this decision of his was without error.
Now after the Ark lands on Ararat what do we hear? "Ill never again wipe out Man", and sealed the promise acording to myth in a rainbow.
Just a minute. Here our perfect bloodey God appears to have learnt a lesson in mercy and impulsive vengance! Does this mean he is developing as a being? Doesnt logic dictate therefore God was admiting he was IN ERROR by causing the flood?
It seems he didnt learn much about mercy through that event. We see that inocents were still brutaly butchered by the sword when Joshua and his cut-throats raided Jericho.
I think "God" can learn a lot from humans.

***God is totally sovereign. He doesn't need any of us. If he made us he can un-make us if he wants to. What he cannot do is lie. He will not forsake his own character for you or anyone else. He is incapable of character error; lets get the text right and quit using our imagination to fill in the blanks.

***God isn't restricted to your interpretation of justice anymore than he is your interpretation of truth or what you think is "good" and what isn't. It's his interpretation that counts, he is the creator. You are the creature and your sense of justice changes, his never does and he can have mercy on whomever he choose to have mercy on. He can also harden whomever he chooses to harden. Check out Pharoah going up against Moses. It was us who fell in the garden, not God.

BTW, it was the sons of Noah who built the Pyramids using pre-flood technology. We have not been able to duplicate it and there wasn't a bigger ship built than Noahs for nearly 4000 years after the flood. Think about it.

ocb

Angel Gabrielle
16th Jul 2001, 01:37
OCB - of course I know the Bible - go read it for yourself.

The earth was flooded to a depth of 20ft above the highest mountain - reckon 29000 for Mount Everest - and you have several thousand feet. Unless of course you think the bible is wrong. Or there weren't any mountains over a few hundred feet then?

As for the rest - you have made patently absurd claims - none of which are either valid or backed up by solid evidence.

Come back when you can explain how Noah contained &gt;5,000,000 species in a small ark -and no, I don't believe that 8 primitive men could build an ark 450' long x 75' x 45'.

3 men did not build the pyramids. The Gt Pyramid of Giza dates back to before the flood. No inscription anywhere in Egyptian or other literate cultures a global flood as a factual event. There is evidence of people going back over 5000 years in the Nile Valley. The oldest city in the world, Jericho (yes the one mentioned in the Bible) has archaeological remains dating back to 8000bc - before Genesis - odd that.

Come back when you can discuss any subject with some kind of rationality and sense.

old_cross_bound
16th Jul 2001, 04:58
AG,

However, so far you have failed to prove the earth was covered completely with water to a depth of several thousand feet only a few thousand years ago.

*** A few thousand "isn't" twenty feet, silly. Besides, your thinking is opposite of what the scriptures say so you have not read the scriptures or you don't get it obviously.

Have you even heard the gospel messege yet?

All that fossil bull is just pagan nonsense. When they were looking and sifting through coal deposits they said were over one hundred million years old they found a gold bracelet and a hammer. So I guess the single cell creatures had some DNA that was able to swing a hammer and enjoy fine jewelry at the same time, right?

Who force fed you this crap anyway? You are so deep into pagan thinking you don't know which way is up not mention how to get out!

ocb

[ 16 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

Angel Gabrielle
16th Jul 2001, 15:07
OCB, you're snarling and snapping like a cornered beast. What are you so afraid of facing?

Whichever version of the Bible you read - it states specifically that the mountains of the earth were covered. The depth above is irrelevant. Unless you contend that 4000 years ago there were no mountains - and you can't because the Bible says there were - then you have to accept that the waters covered the earth to a depth of several thousand feet.

I note you have ignored all the other questions raised by Noah and his ark - conveniently producing an unreferenced and unverified comment about a possible (hoax) find in a coal seam which may or may not be the age you claim.

I assume, therefore, that you are unable to refute any of the claims sensibly. You deny what is patently written in the Bible because you can't explain it.

Come back when we can have a reasoned debate about any subject including the Bible, which I have studied and you so clearly have not.

As for coal, this was first laid down &gt;300million years ago and took millions of years to compress to form seams. It is formed from plant material, which gradually compressed into the seams which are mined. Coal was still being formed 70million years ago during the cretaceous period. You can sneer, deny and refuse to accept reality, but it doesn't make it any less fact.

Let me know if you wish to find out how other fossil fuels were formed over millions of years. Yes, that's right fossil fuels, that which you think is pagan nonsense (but which you are quite happy to receive benefits from). The one-cell organisms you were referring to existed some 3billion years ago.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but stick with it ocb, you may yet learn something if you pay attention in class.

Professor TailSpin
16th Jul 2001, 16:07
Millions of people claim that they belong to the Christian religion, but few of them know anything about the alleged life of the founder of their religion, a mythological fellow named Jesus. Why is this so? Since secular history is silent on the historical actuality of the alleged life and teachings of Jesus, our only source of information on him is the Bible. The Bible is claimed to be the very word of god, but few Christians have ever read the Bible to see what it says. If they would read the Bible, most of them would probably be surprised and shocked as to what it says. With that in mind, let's examine the Bible to see what it says about this alleged Jesus and what he was supposed to have said and taught.

--------------------
THE TRUTHFUL WITNESS
"If I [Jesus] bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (John 5:31)

"I [Jesus] am one that bear witness of myself..." (John 8:18)

According to these scriptures, Jesus was a false witness.

--------------------
THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary...." (Matthew 1:16)

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being ... the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."(Luke 3:23)

--------------------
WHO JESUS SAID WAS GOD
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

According to this scripture, Jesus thought that the Jewish law (i.e., the Old Testament) reported that he said the Jews were gods.

--------------------
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh...." (Romans 1:3)

--------------------
THE SO-CALLED SON OF GOD'S COURAGE
"And I [Jesus] say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." (Luke 12:4)

"Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple..." (John 8:59)

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because Jews sought to kill him." (John 7:1)

A case of do as I say, not as I do!

--------------------
THE PRINCE OF PEACE
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I [Jesus] tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." (Luke 12:51-2)

"Think not that I [Jesus] have come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

"...for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

And to think that these ravings are supposed to be the sayings of one some call the prince of peace.

--------------------
WHOLESOME FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"For I [Jesus] am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-6)

"If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"Honour thy father and thy mother..." (Matthew 19:19)

"And call no man your father upon earth..." (Mathew 23:9)

--------------------
HIS FOLLOWERS
"All that ever came before me [Jesus] are thieves and robbers..." (John 10:8)

--------------------
THE HOUR OF THE CRUCIFIXION
"And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." (Mark 15:25)

(John 19:12-18) clearly shows that he was not crucified until after the sixth hour.

--------------------
SCRIPTURAL ACCURACIES
"Then was fulfilled [by Jesus] that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet..." (Matthew 27:9)

It was Zechariah, not Jeremy, who made that prophecy. See (Zechariah 11:12)

"...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He [Jesus] shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23)

There is no mention by the Old Testament prophets that this Jesus fellow would be called a Nazarene. God was often confused when writing the Bible.

--------------------
BROKEN PROMISES
"Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [the end of the world] be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)

"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matthew 21:22)

The early followers of Jesus died waiting for the end of the world, and even today, over 1900 years later, some Christians still believe that the world is to end in their generation, and that Jesus will give them anything that they ask for in prayer.

--------------------
RESURRECTION
His friends come to Jesus' tomb, but the doorstone is rolled away and one angel sitting on the outside gives the news to them before they go in. (Matthew 28:1-8)

His friends come to the tomb, go inside, find nobody, are perplexed, and then two men give them the news. (Luke 24:1-4)

The other resurrection stories are different as well.

--------------------
WHAT IS THE BIBLE?
The Bible is one of twenty-seven books for which divine origin is claimed. Christians deny the divinity of all Bibles but their own.

Out of 250 Jewish-Christian writings, sixty-six have arbitrarily been declared canonical by Protestants. The rejected books are of the same general character as those now published together as the "Holy Bible." Circumstances rather than merit determined selection.

For 150 years the Christian Bible consisted of the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament was not formed until the latter half of the second century when Irenaeus selected twenty books from among forty or more gospels, nearly as many acts of apostles, a score of revelations and a hundred epistles. Why were these particular books chosen? Why four gospels instead of one? Irenaeus: "There are four quarters of the earth in which we live and four universal winds." The gospels were unknown to Peter, Paul, and the early church fathers. They were forged later.

The Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century. The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons were not adopted until modern times. The Bible was recognized as a collection of independent writings. The Council of Trent (1563) determined the Roman Catholic, Protestants denounce the Catholic Bible as a "popish imposture." The Greek Catholics at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 finally accepted the book of Revelation. Their Bible contains several books not in the Roman canon. The Westminster Assembly in 1647 approved the list of sixty-six books composing the authorized version, the one most used in America. Our Bible, therefore, is less than 300 years old.

--------------------
CONCLUSION
The Christian faith is based on the belief that the Bible is indeed the word of god. If the Bible cannot be shown to be inspired, then the Christian faith could be said to be false and no more than a farce. If the Bible cannot be shown to be inspired, then Christianity can be said to be the same as any other religion that has been devised and practiced by man.

The Bible story of Jesus is a contradictory and confusing account. The Bible shows that this Jesus fellow spoke and taught many absurd and foolish things, and often believed he was having a conversation with devils. If one will read the entire Bible, one will find tales of ignorance, murder, sexual perversions, mass insanity, idiotic laws, and even cannibalism and human sacrifice. It staggers the imagination how anyone in his right mind could read the Bible and believe that it was written by a wise, just, and loving god. Christians have found biblical scriptures telling them to burn people at the stake, to justify slavery, to oppress and persecute others, and to kill and commit war in the name of their god. Unfortunately, there are some even today who would have us return to the teachings and laws found in the Bible.

We are taught in our culture that Jesus is the divine hero, but other cultures have different saviors. Religious beliefs are a function of the culture in which one lives. If we had been reared in a different culture, we would have heard the story of a different savior, instead of the Jesus story. Upon comparing the stories of the different saviors, one finds that the similarities are so striking, it is beyond a doubt that they are more than just a coincidence.

Jesus is a myth just like all the other saviors and gods of old. Atheism is the clear and rational alternative to the confusion, fear, and superstition that are offered by religion. Atheism encourages freedom of thought and inquiry, while religion by its very nature has to encourage unquestioning obedience and blind faith in doctrines. Belief in god myths has brought misery, suppression of thought and inquiry, fear, and has promoted ignorance. The human race no longer needs these myths of old. Just as little children grow up and learn the truth about the existence of the tooth fairy, the human race needs to mature and learn the truth about the existence of god.

old_cross_bound
16th Jul 2001, 23:08
Professor TailSpin

Millions of people claim that they belong to the Christian religion, but few of them know anything about the alleged life of the founder of their religion, a mythological fellow named Jesus. Why is this so? Since secular history is silent on the historical actuality of the alleged life and teachings of Jesus, our only source of information on him is the Bible. The Bible is claimed to be the very word of god, but few Christians have ever read the Bible to see what it says. If they would read the Bible, most of them would probably be surprised and shocked as to what it says. With that in mind, let's examine the Bible to see what it says about this alleged Jesus and what he was supposed to have said and taught.
--------------------


***Jesus Christ, the incarnation of God. 100% God and 100% man. Discribed as the son of man and the son of God.


THE TRUTHFUL WITNESS
"If I [Jesus] bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (John 5:31)

***Son of ?

"I [Jesus] am one that bear witness of myself..." (John 8:18)

***Son of ?

According to these scriptures, Jesus was a false witness.

***Incorrect! True a the sky is blue!

--------------------
THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary...." (Matthew 1:16)

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being ... the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."(Luke 3:23)


***Luke followed the linage of Mary since he was a physician who was interested in the virgin birth. The rest followed the linage of Joseph, sorry!

--------------------
WHO JESUS SAID WAS GOD
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

According to this scripture, Jesus thought that the Jewish law (i.e., the Old Testament) reported that he said the Jews were gods.


***Yes, sons of God are Gods no problem. Gods in the sense of imputed righteousness given through grace. Until death however just servants just like Jesus was.

--------------------
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh...." (Romans 1:3)

***Flesh linage was physical (seed) but the father was God.

--------------------
THE SO-CALLED SON OF GOD'S COURAGE
"And I [Jesus] say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." (Luke 12:4)

"Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple..." (John 8:59)

***Implied fear, heresay only. He had a mission to complete.

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because Jews sought to kill him." (John 7:1)

A case of do as I say, not as I do!


***Wrong! a mission to do the will of God.

--------------------
THE PRINCE OF PEACE
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I [Jesus] tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." (Luke 12:51-2)

***Our present circumstances for the past 2000 years verify this to be true.

"Think not that I [Jesus] have come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

***The truth like what I do here.

"...for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

***Different sword, aphysical sword.

"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

***Physical or the bible which is the sword of truth?

And to think that these ravings are supposed to be the sayings of one some call the prince of peace.

***Exactly! this is the introduction of the peace covenant. Peace will come when God says so just after he eliminates all of Jesus enemies. Like it or not.

--------------------
WHOLESOME FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"For I [Jesus] am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-6)

***Repeat of previous!

"If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

***Exactly, first commandment!

"Honour thy father and thy mother..." (Matthew 19:19)

"And call no man your father upon earth..." (Mathew 23:9)


***Right we have no spiritual father other than God.
--------------------
HIS FOLLOWERS
"All that ever came before me [Jesus] are thieves and robbers..." (John 10:8)


***False profits

--------------------
THE HOUR OF THE CRUCIFIXION
"And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." (Mark 15:25)

(John 19:12-18) clearly shows that he was not crucified until after the sixth hour.


***wrong, when did he die?


to be cont. ocb :)

GeneralAviation
17th Jul 2001, 05:01
Ohhh dear ocb - have you ever heard the term 'when in a hole stop digging' :D


.......the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."(Luke 3:23)

but in

Mt1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary,

now is it Heli or Jacob

did Jesus have 28 or 43 generations back to David


So if God was the father - then Jesus wasn't the descendent of David


You were asked which hour he was crucified - not if he died.

Try to keep up ocb, you're beginning to come apart at the seams


Incidentally Vinegar Strokes is quite right :D

Professor TailSpin
17th Jul 2001, 21:10
OCB,

Maybe my last post wasn't clear enough for you, as you seem incapable of explaining the inconsistances that I noted.

Perhaps you are a politician...if not you should consider it as you have a talent for avoiding questions and debatable points.

Each of those sections show an inconsistancy in the writings of the bible. I did not ask you to explain each point. Can you perhaps answer the question of inconsistancy? Probably not, looking back at your previous posts.

I wait with eager anticipation...

RW-1
17th Jul 2001, 21:28
&gt;&gt;Please,
Excluding PTT, could the posters please not post to this thread. I'm trying to finish up a discussion with PTT and would appreciate your cooperation. I have no interest in getting off topic with anyone but to simply finish a discussion with him here.

Thanks for your cooperation!
&lt;&lt;

One word: Prick.

Unbelievable that you would dream up that request, yet ignore repeated pleas that YOU leave PPRUNE all together. Are the other posters botering you? Tough.

old_cross_bound
18th Jul 2001, 00:44
This heating up a little! Very good guys! If you think you have me in a corner watch out. That's when God starts parting the red sea.

If you really think you have something legit to debate please restate it and we'll have a go at it, Ta,

ocb

old_cross_bound
18th Jul 2001, 01:17
Angel Gabrielle

OCB, you're snarling and snapping like a cornered beast. What are you so afraid of facing?

***LOL! In your dreams!

Whichever version of the Bible you read - it states specifically that the mountains of the earth were covered. The depth above is irrelevant. Unless you contend that 4000 years ago there were no mountains - and you can't because the Bible says there were - then you have to accept that the waters covered the earth to a depth of several thousand feet.

***How big were those mountains? You can't say can you? The bible says exactly how deep if you read it carefully and know what a cubit is.

I note you have ignored all the other questions raised by Noah and his ark - conveniently producing an unreferenced and unverified comment about a possible (hoax) find in a coal seam which may or may not be the age you claim.

***Likewise, no ground to give on this one I guess.

I assume, therefore, that you are unable to refute any of the claims sensibly. You deny what is patently written in the Bible because you can't explain it.

***One of us talking nonsense, you are right. You can't deny the gaps in evolution or the circular argument geologist have with biologist either concerning evolution. Why ar some earlier known species found above later know species in these deposits. Sounds like a flood may have done this to me.

Come back when we can have a reasoned debate about any subject including the Bible, which I have studied and you so clearly have not.

***You search the scriptures for eternal life but cannot find it there? Why don't you get to know the author of the book?

As for coal, this was first laid down 300 million years ago and took millions of years to compress to form seams. It is formed from plant material, which gradually compressed into the seams which are mined. Coal was still being formed 70 million years ago during the cretaceous period. You can sneer, deny and refuse to accept reality, but it doesn't make it any less fact.

***I have no problem with the evidence but rather the dating is ridiculous. It's a way for scientist to fill in the blank and they know this. Why not say, 4,000,000,000,000 years ago instead? The earth isn't that old. If it were the sediment which falls to earth and the moon would be thousands of feet deep and the fact is, it isn't.

Let me know if you wish to find out how other fossil fuels were formed over millions of years. Yes, that's right fossil fuels, that which you think is pagan nonsense (but which you are quite happy to receive benefits from). The one-cell organisms you were referring to existed some 3billion years ago.

***So God couldn't have created fossil fuel now? Get real. you hold to the uniformity theory of thinking about the physical Universe because you can reasonably deal with that. You just can't image a God speaking the Universe into being can you? God spoke and it was so, all the planets and stars and all that we know was created instantaneously and the light from the stars was shining on the earth at that point in time and it didn't take millions of years for it to get here.



I know this is difficult for you to understand, but stick with it ocb, you may yet learn something if you pay attention in class.

***I'll try to, I'll try. That's why we have two ears and one mouth so we listen twice as much as we talk. Thanks for the advice, son.

ocb :)

Legalapproach
18th Jul 2001, 01:18
I see from some of the above that the Bible is a historic document and it also sets out God's law. I wonder if some of you theological Ppruners could give me some advice regarding specific laws and how to follow them

1 When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim that the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the Welsh but, despite the channel tunnel not the French. Can you clarify? Why can't I own the French?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shelfish is an abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality (Lev. 18:22). I disagree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. What is the position on wearing contact lenses? Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there some room for negotiation?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.

How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play rugby if I wear gloves?

10. My brother in law has a farm. He violates Lev&gt; 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different types of thread (polyester/cotton blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I am sure that some of you will have studied these things extensively and can put my mind at rest

old_cross_bound
18th Jul 2001, 01:24
GeneralAviation

Ohhh dear ocb - have you ever heard the term 'when in a hole stop digging'

.......the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."(Luke 3:23)

but in

Mt1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary,

now is it Heli or Jacob

did Jesus have 28 or 43 generations back to David

***Where did you find that concordance? this should be fun!


So if God was the father - then Jesus wasn't the descendent of David

***Where did the seed come from?

You were asked which hour he was crucified - not if he died.

***Is that your final answer?

Try to keep up ocb, you're beginning to come apart at the seams

***Oh I'm here. I've been waiting for the mental assent you are now attempting in your journey to Gods thrown. It gets real slippery going this way. Are you sure you don't want to address your will and your heart and save the brain?


Incidentally Vinegar Strokes is quite right

***You think!

***Mind if I get another opinion?

ocb

old_cross_bound
18th Jul 2001, 01:34
Professor TailSpin

OCB,
Maybe my last post wasn't clear enough for you, as you seem incapable of explaining the inconsistances that I noted.

Maybe my questions to you were not very clear. Why didn't you answer them? After careful review I'll stand with my more than adequate responses, thanks! Care to make this a two way discussion?


Perhaps you are a politician...if not you should consider it as you have a talent for avoiding questions and debatable points.


***Not a chance, I'm a Christian, a servant for the Lord and all man-made titles are just vanity. Rather stand with God against man then with man against God, sorry.

Each of those sections show an inconsistancy in the writings of the bible. I did not ask you to explain each point. Can you perhaps answer the question of inconsistancy?

***Thats stupid! You want an explaination but you don't want it explained? How do you communicate with others? How do you even think?

I wait with eager anticipation...

***Me too.............

ocb :)

GeneralAviation
18th Jul 2001, 02:05
ocb quote
did Jesus have 28 or 43 generations back to David

***Where did you find that concordance? this should be fun!

From the Bible ocb - don't you read it.

Matthew 1:17 28 generations
Luke 3:23 43 generations


Dont think you mentioned who you think is the father of Joseph. Does God have seed?


Next time read the bible before you make foolish observations.

A lie is a lie is a lie, even it is thousands of years old and written in your holy book. Why would I want to be associated with a God of Lies and a myth.

Especially, why on earth would I want to be involved with anything to do with you - eternity in hell would be paradise compared to one hour in heaven with you and people like you.

[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: GeneralAviation ]

Nil nos tremefacit
18th Jul 2001, 03:50
GA

I made the point that I'd rather spend an eternity in hell than any time in OCB's paradise. You owe me 2 pints of best bitter for your plagiarism.....

old_cross_bound
18th Jul 2001, 03:53
Matthews geneology was from Joseph and Lukes was from Mary. Do you agree? Luke was a doctor who looked into the virgin birth.
Now then, how does that work out?

I'm out of here!

Isaiah 60:2
For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

It's true I have been booted off so you can all rest easy from now on, God Bless

ocb

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

Doctor Cruces
18th Jul 2001, 06:33
Look, OCB, if you want to fill up a forum with this sort of rubbish, why don't you do us all a favour and buzz off and find a religion one, or do thay not want you either?

Doc C.

old_cross_bound
22nd Jul 2001, 11:48
PTT,

After a few minor inconveniences, I'm back. Now where were we.

ocb :)

Nil nos tremefacit
22nd Jul 2001, 13:51
Luke was a 'doctor', but not qualified to today's standards. He may have looked into the 'virgin' birth, but he would have had a number of problems. Firstly Jesus had already 'ascended' to heaven and, secondly, Mary was dead. Mary died in Ephesus I believe and Luke lived in modern day Israel. Luke would not have had access to Mary's remains, although I gather there are several full sets residing in reliquaries around Europe (indeed her house was carried by angels from Ephesus to italy and is built into a church)!

So Luke, a not particularly well qualified or educated doctor by today's standards, without access to either living or dead tissue samples nor the scientific research facilities necessary to study them, made an investigation into the 'virgin' birth. Modern day scientists would not be able to make a clear deduction from the 'evidence' that Luke had.

As Luke was a Greek speaker he would have known that the word (I think it's spelt poicio) for 'virgin' could also be interpreted as 'slave girl'. Like in English 'maiden' can mean virgin (hence maidenhead for virginity) or any young unmarried woman. Luke may well have meant slave girl when he wrote his version of events collected from apocryphal stories. It was not until about the fifth century that the translation of the word was decided on as 'virgin'. Again Latin 'virgo' is the same as English 'maiden' in having 2 possible meanings.

The problem the early church would have had is that if they proclaimed Christ as divine, but said that he was the illegitimate son of a 12 year old slave girl taken in by a much older man when she was alrady pregnant they might have lost credibility in the battle for hearts and minds. Especially as some of the earlier Egyptian religions rated divinity by reference to virgin birth.

It might try your mind to think about the Magnificat. Mary was an illiterate, 12 year old slave girl. She lived with a man who may have been moderately literate if he was the sort of carpenter who built house frames. Luke, who never met Mary or Joseph, has faithfully recorded word for word a piece of outstanding poetry that Mary uttered once in her life and proably not in the hearing of anyone who could have written it down. It is possible that if someone heard it recited formally they would have memorised it in a society based on oral tradition and memory skills, but it is difficult to accept that Mary, in passing, came up with this work and that it was passed down from thence onwards, especially since the Magnificat is not in Matthew (the other gospel that covers Christ's birth), nor either of Mark or John which begin 30 years later.

Indeed, Luke is a book full of brilliant accounts that nobody would have recorded at the time and which he picked up from stories years later. The Benedictus is another outstanding work of poetry that has been handed down verbatim.

Incidentally, why did Matthew have wise men and no shepherds, Luke have shepherds, an inn, manger etc that Matthew missed and both of them record 'details' of a birth that Mark and John seemed not to think worthy of recording at all?

PTT
23rd Jul 2001, 05:42
OCB

I see you are back. I can now reply to your post - particularly now that you have edited it such that it makes a semblance of sense. :)

"***Did you figure in the life of Issac and Jacob, Joseph etc...?"

-- I went from Noah to Jacob, just like you said. Sorry, no exponential decay curve.

"***Why would the decay curve be anywhere close to the decrease in the longetivity of life as recorded in the bible?"

-- I assume that this is an answer to my question of "why a flood?"
If so, your answer is not in any way sensible. There IS a decay curve, but it is NOT exponential as you claimed.
In fact, for there to have been EXPONENTIAL decay, Noah would have ad to live for over 4,000 years, whilst Jacob would have died in his first year. I can e-mail you the excel file if you like.

"***Sure it is. That's silly. So someone who could be proven to use todays science 4000 years ago would be iirelevant to you. Is this right? Am I understanding you correctly?"

-- If he had then that would have been great. He didn't, so your argument is irrelevant.

"***And me you. The bible is a historical document as well ; the Jews have confirmed the life of Jesus as well as the Greeks in their history.
Didn't you know that?
What do you have to fall back on for your argument, seriously?"

-- And "War and Peace" confirms the fact that Russia was at war in 1812. Napoleon lived, too. What is your point? Can you not see the difference between period drama and history?
What I have to fall back on is a healthy scepticism. Question everything. Perhaps you should try it - it might give you a new lease of life...

"***Do any of the above, other than believers, have a four thousand year old book verifying anything, much less the personal, born again experience, an encounter with the God who created the Universe? Btw, which today has produced millions of witnesses to this supernatural conversion of the heart.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved. Just believe PTT. When you are alone and it's quiet, believe him."

Appeal to belief, appeal to tradition, appeal to emotion, anecdotal evidence, appeal to the consequences of a belief, appeal to popularity... There are so many logical fallacies in this statement alone that it wasn't worth writing.

"***I want to believe in something that is real which is God. What isn't real is mans interpretation of the Universe. It's always changing and 200 years from now people will think that what you believe to be true right now is just ignorance and nonsense."

-- Man interperets the bible, does he not? Therefore your interpretation of the bible is not "real" (whatever that is).
The very flexibilty of science is it's strength. The fact that it changes to describe events and does not try to change events to fit in with its ideas is what makes it more objective than belief in God. Who knows, some day you may be proved right. Unlikely, though.

"***Not without adding dimensions. It's been proven in math but not practice. This also shows the limits of logic as we understand it."

-- What's wrong with adding dimensions? It works mathematically, and mathematics works in the real world.

"***I'm not saying to reject them at all. They just don't disprove my faith at all and they are a tool for deception if misused. If it's a religion for you as it is for many, there is no hope in it at all, nothing redeemable whatsoever and the elements are here today and tomorrow thrown into the fire according to the scriptures."

-- Science is not a religion. Science does disprove your faith in the literal truth of the bible.

"***That true and its a very good point. "I don't know" _ is something one says in honesty. When I say I Know God. I too say that in honesty as a witness to the truth. You have a choice you can choose to make or choose not to make. It's a choice that knocks at the door to your counscience all the time. God is real; he is personally reconciling each one of us, one at a time, to him, on a personal level. God is Love."

-- You say that in honesty because you BELIEVE it to be true. That does not MAKE it true. The rest of your paragraph is another appeal to emotion and the consequences of a belief.

Ta muchly

PTT

JudyTTexas
23rd Jul 2001, 06:42
PTT, you really can't prove that it's not true. As in ref: "He who Believes"
Open mind, open heart. Quite simple really, "faith" and "trust".

Mark 4
9 Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

...and it won't make you into a "[email protected]". ;)

PTT
23rd Jul 2001, 06:51
Judy

I know that I can't prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Can you prove that dragons don't exist? What about the tooth fairy? Santa Claus?

What we CAN say is that there is no evidence for the existence of God (and please don't try the design argument with me - I've been over that so many times...). So, presented with no evidence for his existence I am forced to not believe that God exists.
Some believers will state that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is true, and whilst a lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence, it DOES very strongly suggest non-existence. That's why we don't believe in dragons.

PTT