Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I think Jesus was one cool dude, and has a lot to
tell us about how to live.

Yup - and how *not* to live.

That being said, I think that many people who are proclaiming
themselves as "Christians" these days are not. The so-called
conservative Christians who loudly proclaim their ascendancy
these days
don't really seem to have much to do with Jesus at all.

Nothing new about that. Constantine, Cyril, the Crusades, and
of course the Spanish Inquisition.

"If Jesus came back, and saw what's going on in His name,
He'd never stop throwing up." --Frederick, in Woody Allen's "Hannah and
Her Sisters"


The closest thing that they are is a modern day version
of the Pharisees. Their trends are much more old
testament - therefore not sharing in the new
covenant proclaimed by Jesus. They push public prayer,
also proscribed
against by Jesus, they push religious domination of
government - same deal.


They've had plenty of company in the past 2000 years...

While demanding that the first books of *their* bible


Except it's not really "theirs" - particularly the first
five books...


(KJV) be taken as
absolutely literal, despite two different versions of creation, they
totally ignore the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus delivers direct
orders in as plain language as you will find in the bible.
What's up with that?


It's a mystery, Mike. You just have to take it on faith.

I find it interesting that the dietary and other laws of the "old"
testament are ignored when inconvenient - just like
the inconvenient teachings of Jesus.

Fun fact: Which states do you think have the highest and lowest
divorce rates - "conservative" red states or "liberal" blue states?

"what God has joined together, let no man put asunder"...


What is up with that is the modern
fundamentalist Christians are
falling for one of the oldest tricks
in the book - the false prophets.

That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that
the world was *not*
created in seven days starting on Sunday, the 23rd of October
in 4004 BC
as determined by Ussher - and put in print in one of my bibles at home.


Actually, Genesis says it took six days - because the Creator
rested on the seventh day.

Rush job, too. Left a lot of holes....

void, without form

There is no doubt in my mind that the present
day universe *was*
created billions of years ago, probably in an
event we call "the Big
Bang.


There should always be doubt, Mike. The Big Bang
cosmology is simply the best explanation we
have now that fits all the scientific data. New
data might require a new cosmology.

That's one big difference between real and fake
science. Real science is always open to new
data and new explanations.

Whereas the "science" practiced by these
fake practitioners is in looking for evidence that
supports their proposition-and only their proposition.

Which isn't science at all.

When it gets fun is when they try to explain the
biblical flood as a verbatim event. The have yet to answer
two simple questions.

Where did the water come from?
Where did the water go?

I haven't found one yet that can answer the question, How much water
would it take to cover the earth from sea level to 1 foot over the top
of Mount Everest? And What effects would this extra mass have
on the
Earth?

Well, if you melted the polar ice caps, the oceans would rise some, but
not nearly enough. Precipitate out all the atmospheric water and the
oceans would rise some more.

But to flood the entire earth requires much more water than that.

The flood story may have its origin in reality.

There is some evidence that the Black Sea was once a fresh water lake -
and a lot smaller than it is today. This would require that the strait
near Constantinople/Istanbul was an isthmus back then.

The evidence says that when the oceans rose at the end of the last
ice age, water from the Mediterranean rose to the point where it
overflowed the isthmus and flowed into what is now the Black Sea -
raising its level and flooding any low=ying lakeside communities.
Which have been well below sea level ever since.

(sound familiar)

Such a catastrophe would have been remembered a long time.

I highly doubt that it was created by
a supreme being.

Why? Couldn't the Supreme Being have set it all
in motion, and the Bang was just the method?

Why is not my concern, Jim. A supreme being may have created everything
yesterday, including all of our memories to the contrary.

Like I quoted about the supernatural explaining nothing...

But I doubt it. Seems a incredibly roundabout way of doing things. 4.5
billion years to have people start thinking of "him" around 4000 years
ago. Not to mention all the times they got it wrong before this one came
along....


For what
happened before then, it becomes quite complex, and I enjoy
speculation on that.


You can explain anything by using the 'supernatural'. Which means the
'supernatural' explains nothing.

73 de Jim, N2EY

you this a radio Newsgroup right?

last time I loked the Book of Genisis was a religous text with very
little to do the ARS

there are btter places for such content surely
Dee Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The water came from two sources. One was fresh water and the other salt
water from a storm surge. Water that was once some place else came to be
deposited in New Orleans and the world has suffered no increase or
decrease in the amount of water that exists in the world.
cut

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:


OTOH, the mistakes of one generation (like pollution) *can*
affect following generations. (Why the heck did anyone
ever decide to build a major city on ground that is *below*
sea level and right next to three major bodies of water? And
in a hurricane zone?!)


It must be remembered that New Orleans has been sinking
at the rate of
3 feet per century. This has been accelerated due to the
deterioration of the Mississippi Delta.


Agreed!


When the city was founded, it was a low lying
coastal city, just like
most coastal cities. At that time, there was plenty of Delta,
and it
looked like a fine place to build a port city.


Sure - but that was centuries ago.


Over the years, as the geology changed, it was not at
such as fast rate
that relocation seemed necessary. Then as we learned
more, we found out
that essentially the city was doomed.


But how long has the sinking been known? How long ago did NO
go below sea level?

I think it was in the mid 1800's that there started to be a concern.
Quite a while back.

It's been known for years - decades - that if a big enough
storm came ashore in the right place, NO would be in big
trouble. A little more than a week ago it looked like
Katrina would hit NO dead-on with full Category 5 force.
Had that happened - and it was a real possibility - things
would probably be even worse there than today.

hard to imagine, but I'll grant you that.

Yet even with all that warning, the levee system was only good
for a Category 3 storm. People kept building there. even as the ground
kept sinking. Why?

People have a great capacity for self deception. People build in
California along the fault lines, People live in "Tornado Alley". People
build on the sides of active volcanoes, and don't move even when they
are about to erupt. Building in a place that WILL eventually be
underwater is just about par for the course.

Most of all, why wasn't everyone evacuated *before* the storm?
I know some refused to go, but many more simply did not have
the means to go. Why wasn't there a better plan in place beforehand?
Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico aren't a new or
unusual thing.

There should have been buses brought in to evacuate people. There was
ample notice of the magnitude of the storm.

Or is that sort of thing too "liberal" for this era?


Yes, the idea of the Federal gvt helping people is too liberal. I hear
a lot of grousing already about this not being the Federal Government's
responsibility.


Meanwhile, Americans keep building big expensive homes and
buildings in lowlying coastal areas. And in places where the
ground shakes every so often. Why?

See above. Of course, the real answer is stupidity.

btw, it was just about 105 years ago that the big hurricane hit
Galveston, Texas - with no advance warning. Look that one up....

Well, it's not exactly that they didn't have any warning....



"Wasn't That A Mighty Storm" (with kudos to Tom Rush)

T'would appear so!

- Mike KB3EIA -

an_old_friend wrote:

you this a radio Newsgroup right?

last time I loked the Book of Genisis was a religous text with very
little to do the ARS

there are btter places for such content surely
Dee Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

The water came from two sources. One was fresh water and the other salt
water from a storm surge. Water that was once some place else came to be
deposited in New Orleans and the world has suffered no increase or
decrease in the amount of water that exists in the world.


Is this group a good place for your fighting with Steve? Seems like
there might be better places for that.

Lets make a deal, Mark.

I'll quit posting off topic messages about religion, and you quit
posting your off topic bar brawl with K4YZ.

Is it a deal?


- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


I think Jesus was one cool dude, and has a lot to
tell us about how to live.


Yup - and how *not* to live.


That being said, I think that many people who are proclaiming
themselves as "Christians" these days are not. The so-called
conservative Christians who loudly proclaim their ascendancy
these days
don't really seem to have much to do with Jesus at all.


Nothing new about that. Constantine, Cyril, the Crusades, and
of course the Spanish Inquisition.


"If Jesus came back, and saw what's going on in His name,
He'd never stop throwing up." --Frederick, in Woody Allen's "Hannah and
Her Sisters"



The closest thing that they are is a modern day version
of the Pharisees. Their trends are much more old
testament - therefore not sharing in the new
covenant proclaimed by Jesus. They push public prayer,
also proscribed
against by Jesus, they push religious domination of
government - same deal.


They've had plenty of company in the past 2000 years...


While demanding that the first books of *their* bible


Except it's not really "theirs" - particularly the first
five books...



(KJV) be taken as
absolutely literal, despite two different versions of creation, they
totally ignore the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus delivers direct
orders in as plain language as you will find in the bible.
What's up with that?


It's a mystery, Mike. You just have to take it on faith.

I find it interesting that the dietary and other laws of the "old"
testament are ignored when inconvenient - just like
the inconvenient teachings of Jesus.

Fun fact: Which states do you think have the highest and lowest
divorce rates - "conservative" red states or "liberal" blue states?

"what God has joined together, let no man put asunder"...

Some of these good folks have figured out that they can receive
forgiveness for any of their sins, so they feel a lot better now about
sinning!




What is up with that is the modern
fundamentalist Christians are
falling for one of the oldest tricks
in the book - the false prophets.

That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that
the world was *not*
created in seven days starting on Sunday, the 23rd of October
in 4004 BC
as determined by Ussher - and put in print in one of my bibles at home.


Actually, Genesis says it took six days - because the Creator
rested on the seventh day.

Rush job, too. Left a lot of holes....

void, without form


There is no doubt in my mind that the present
day universe *was*
created billions of years ago, probably in an
event we call "the Big
Bang.


There should always be doubt, Mike. The Big Bang
cosmology is simply the best explanation we
have now that fits all the scientific data. New
data might require a new cosmology.

That's one big difference between real and fake
science. Real science is always open to new
data and new explanations.

Whereas the "science" practiced by these
fake practitioners is in looking for evidence that
supports their proposition-and only their proposition.


Which isn't science at all.

When it gets fun is when they try to explain the
biblical flood as a verbatim event. The have yet to answer
two simple questions.

Where did the water come from?
Where did the water go?

I haven't found one yet that can answer the question, How much water
would it take to cover the earth from sea level to 1 foot over the top
of Mount Everest? And What effects would this extra mass have
on the
Earth?


Well, if you melted the polar ice caps, the oceans would rise some, but
not nearly enough. Precipitate out all the atmospheric water and the
oceans would rise some more.

But to flood the entire earth requires much more water than that.

The flood story may have its origin in reality.


I don't doubt that a bit.

There is some evidence that the Black Sea was once a fresh water lake -
and a lot smaller than it is today. This would require that the strait
near Constantinople/Istanbul was an isthmus back then.

The evidence says that when the oceans rose at the end of the last
ice age, water from the Mediterranean rose to the point where it
overflowed the isthmus and flowed into what is now the Black Sea -
raising its level and flooding any low=ying lakeside communities.
Which have been well below sea level ever since.

(sound familiar)

Such a catastrophe would have been remembered a long time.

Yup. I am certain that some event in the past left a big impression on
our ancestors.

From their point of view, the entire earth was covered with water. I'd
bet that some survivalist by the name of Noah put his family on a boat,
and may have brought along some livestock. They rode the flood out, and
built a new homestead when it was over.

The oral traditions of the time probably enhanced the story with each
retelling. Then it gets written down, accepted as a good story over the
ages.

Now along comes fundamentalism, telling us we have to accept the entire
thing literal and verbatim.


I highly doubt that it was created by
a supreme being.


Why? Couldn't the Supreme Being have set it all
in motion, and the Bang was just the method?

Why is not my concern, Jim. A supreme being may have created everything
yesterday, including all of our memories to the contrary.


Like I quoted about the supernatural explaining nothing...

Keerect.


But I doubt it. Seems a incredibly roundabout way of doing things. 4.5
billion years to have people start thinking of "him" around 4000 years
ago. Not to mention all the times they got it wrong before this one came
along....


For what
happened before then, it becomes quite complex, and I enjoy
speculation on that.


You can explain anything by using the 'supernatural'. Which means the
'supernatural' explains nothing.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

The water came from two sources. One was fresh water and the other salt
water from a storm surge. Water that was once some place else came to be
deposited in New Orleans and the world has suffered no increase or
decrease in the amount of water that exists in the world.


Do you know this from first-hand experience, or what?

The world


covering biblical flood is quite a different matter.


The known world in the biblical flood...

A huge amount of water that doesn't exist here toady would have to had
existed at that
time.


Why?



It would have had to be someplace else before the flood, and then
after the flood, it would have had to go some place else.


Much like the water in New Orleans. It wasn't there two weeks ago.
Three months from now it will be somewhere else. Will you be able to
account for all of the water then?

Hang on a second, Brian. The amount of water needed to raise the level of
water coverage to 29,035 feet above sea level does not simply come and go
like the water that flooded New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama. How
much water do you figure that is?



Actually Mike, I've always figured that the Biblical flood was something
like the catastrophe we've seen in New Orleans that grew in magnitude as the
story tellers passed it down by word of mouth and wove in the religious
aspects for many generations before it became a written document. Afterall,
there weren't policemen around so the perceived "wrath of God" would have
been a reasonable tool to convince people to behave in society.

And that makes tremendous sense to me!

- Mike KB3EIA -

nobodys_old_friend wrote:
you this a radio Newsgroup right?

Was that a sentence?

last time I loked the Book of Genisis was a religous text with very
little to do the ARS

"looked" "Genesis" "religious"

there are btter places for such content surely

"better"

What better place than in a forum of persons supposedly dedicated
to "communicating"...?!?!

What's that matter? Make you nervous?

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote:


See him? No, he keeps a very low profile. He lives in constant fear.

Hiding behind the curtains.

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

John Smith wrote:

K0HB:

Yes, I have read a couple of books on the subject--most
of the authors
strike me as being rather weak in math and especially
in the area of
probability and statistics--quite possibly
lotus-blossom-eaters.

For some it is easier to attack the thinker than
to disprove the idea....


It certainly is a lot easier to say "God makes it so, so it is"

The hard part is defining what is meant by "God"...

Not for those who want the easy answer. There are plenty enough people
who are just slap happy to tell us that!

Mike, are you an atheist? Or are you just playing at one because
President Bush is a Christian?

You tell me, Brian! I think Jesus was one cool dude, and has a lot to
tell us about how to live


One cool dude?

Why yes, one cool dude. Seems like an irreverent thing to say, eh? I
wonder what Jesus' opinion of me calling him a cool dude would be?

I wonder?

That being said, I think that many people who are proclaiming
themselves as "Christians" these days are not. The so-called
conservative Christians who loudly proclaim their ascendancy these days
don't really seem to have much to do with Jesus at all. The closest
thing that they are is a modern day version of the Pharisees. Their
trends are much more old testament - therefore not sharing in the new
covenant proclaimed by Jesus. They push public prayer, also proscribed
against by Jesus, They push religious domination of government - same deal.

While demanding that the first books of *their* bible (KJV) be taken as
absolutely literal, despite two different versions of creation, they
totally ignore the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus delivers direct
orders in as plain language as you will find in the bible. What's up
with that?

What is up with that is the modern fundamentalist Christians are
falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book - the false prophets.

That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that the world was *not*
created in seven days starting on Sunday, the 23rd of October in 4004 BC
as determined by Ussher - and put in print in one of my bibles at home.

There is no doubt in my mind that the present day universe *was*
created billions of years ago, probably in an event we call "the Big
Bang. I highly doubt that it was created by a supreme being. For what
happened before then, it becomes quite complex, and I enjoy speculation
on that.

- Mike KB3EIA -


There! I knew you had a lot more to say than mere nide remarks about
God. I hope you feel better.

If you look deeply enough, the snide remarks are not really about God.
They are about the people who would form God in their own image.

Problem is, that is an awful lot of people. Most, in fact.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Their faith says that they are made in God's image. And as you make
fun of them, you make redicule their faith.

Aren't you supposed to be an educated man?

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

OTOH, the mistakes of one generation (like pollution) *can*
affect following generations. (Why the heck did anyone
ever decide to build a major city on ground that is *below*
sea level and right next to three major bodies of water? And
in a hurricane zone?!)

It must be remembered that New Orleans has been sinking
at the rate of
3 feet per century. This has been accelerated due to the
deterioration of the Mississippi Delta.

Agreed!

When the city was founded, it was a low lying
coastal city, just like
most coastal cities. At that time, there was plenty of Delta,
and it
looked like a fine place to build a port city.

Sure - but that was centuries ago.

Over the years, as the geology changed, it was not at
such as fast rate
that relocation seemed necessary. Then as we learned
more, we found out
that essentially the city was doomed.

But how long has the sinking been known? How long ago did NO
go below sea level?

I think it was in the mid 1800's that there
started to be a concern.
Quite a while back.

Yet the expansion was to *lower* ground.

It's been known for years - decades - that if a big enough
storm came ashore in the right place, NO would be in big
trouble. A little more than a week ago it looked like
Katrina would hit NO dead-on with full Category 5 force.
Had that happened - and it was a real possibility - things
would probably be even worse there than today.

hard to imagine, but I'll grant you that.

I posted a link to the warnings of 8 days ago. There would
have been fewer left to save...

Yet even with all that warning, the levee system was only good
for a Category 3 storm. People kept building there. even as
the ground kept sinking. Why?

People have a great capacity for self deception. People
build in
California along the fault lines, People live in "Tornado
Alley". People
build on the sides of active volcanoes, and don't move even
when they
are about to erupt. Building in a place that WILL eventually be
underwater is just about par for the course.

There are building and fire codes to protect people from their
own and other's ignorance. That concept needs to expand.

Most of all, why wasn't everyone evacuated *before* the storm?
I know some refused to go, but many more simply did not have
the means to go. Why wasn't there a better plan in place
beforehand?
Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico aren't a new or
unusual thing.

There should have been buses brought in to evacuate people.
There was
ample notice of the magnitude of the storm.

Or is that sort of thing too "liberal" for this era?

Yes, the idea of the Federal gvt helping people is too
liberal.

I kinda expected...

I hear
a lot of grousing already about this not being the Federal
Government's responsibility.

?? From whom?

It seems to me that once the Administration got a clue, they
began devoting serious resources. Why it took so long for
them to get a clue is another issue. But I don't see anyone
saying it's not the Fed's job.

What I see as an issue that will be ignored is why there are
so many resources after the fact, but not before.

Meanwhile, Americans keep building big expensive homes and
buildings in lowlying coastal areas. And in places where the
ground shakes every so often. Why?

See above. Of course, the real answer is stupidity.

Or ignorance.

btw, it was just about 105 years ago

September 8, 1900.

that the big hurricane
hit
Galveston, Texas - with no advance warning. Look that one
up....

Well, it's not exactly that they didn't have any warning....

In 1900 they had none. 2005 was different...

"Wasn't That A Mighty Storm" (with kudos to Tom Rush)

T'would appear so!

73 de Jim, N2EY