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....

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.

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?

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

On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:
snip
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....


LOL!!!


snip
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?


I get a kick out of some of these discussions. Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

Go figure.










----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
.com:


Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

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....



LOL!!!


snip

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?



I get a kick out of some of these discussions. Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car on a 4 hour drive
with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time. I used to keep
me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but after the second hour
of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them. Turns out
they did not know where the water came from or went to, and didn't know
why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order
not to drown. Even my more serious questions were troublesome for them,
especially since they were engineers. They really hated my thoughts on
how if they were correct about the young universe and Earth were fact,
some of the "facts" that they tried to use to disprove Evolution, such
as dating anomalies, could not be true because the basic nuclear decay
rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

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....

LOL!!!

snip

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?

I get a kick out of some of these discussions. Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car on a 4 hour drive
with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time. I used to keep
me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but after the second hour
of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them.

Does your soul need saving?

Turns out
they did not know where the water came from or went to, and didn't know
why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order
not to drown.

Do you refer to a flood? There's one in New Orleans right now. Do you
know where the water came from? Do you know how it's going to be let
out? Are the zoo animals swimming for Cairo?

Even my more serious questions were troublesome for them,
especially since they were engineers. They really hated my thoughts on
how if they were correct about the young universe and Earth were fact,
some of the "facts" that they tried to use to disprove Evolution, such
as dating anomalies, could not be true because the basic nuclear decay
rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with.

- Mike KB3EIA -

It's "nuclear." And they should be dating much younger women if decay
is going to be a problem.

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:

On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
ups.com:


Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

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....

LOL!!!

snip

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?

I get a kick out of some of these discussions. Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car on a 4 hour drive
with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time. I used to keep
me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but after the second hour
of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them.


Does your soul need saving?

They think so!

Turns out

they did not know where the water came from or went to, and didn't know
why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order
not to drown.


Do you refer to a flood? There's one in New Orleans right now. Do you
know where the water came from? Do you know how it's going to be let
out? Are the zoo animals swimming for Cairo?

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. The world
covering biblical flood is quite a different matter. A huge amount of
water that doesn't exist here toady would have to had existed at that
time. 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.

Another interesting question:

During the rain and flood period, the ocean levels would have to raise
by many 10's of thousands of feet. What effect would this have on the
rotational velocity of the earth? Same thing when the water receded.

Since the water came from rain, and therefore fresh, there should be a
distinct record of the Oceans salinity dropping drastically at that time.

Even my more serious questions were troublesome for them,

especially since they were engineers. They really hated my thoughts on
how if they were correct about the young universe and Earth were fact,
some of the "facts" that they tried to use to disprove Evolution, such
as dating anomalies, could not be true because the basic nuclear decay
rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with.

- Mike KB3EIA -


It's "nuclear." And they should be dating much younger women if decay
is going to be a problem.

I had dated a few anomalies myself in my younger days. Some were fun,
and others.....

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
ups.com:
Mike Coslo wrote:
snip

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....

LOL!!!

snip

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?

I get a kick out of some of these discussions. Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car on a 4 hour drive
with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time. I used to keep
me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but after the second hour
of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them.


Does your soul need saving?

They think so!

Would you be offended if they prayed for your soul?

Turns out

they did not know where the water came from or went to, and didn't know
why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order
not to drown.

Do you refer to a flood? There's one in New Orleans right now. Do you
know where the water came from? Do you know how it's going to be let
out? Are the zoo animals swimming for Cairo?

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?

Another interesting question:

During the rain and flood period, the ocean levels would have to raise
by many 10's of thousands of feet. What effect would this have on the
rotational velocity of the earth? Same thing when the water receded.

Probably rotate faster as a water covered earth should have far less
frictional drag than a rough land/mountain covered earth. If you
discount the atmosphere.

Since the water came from rain, and therefore fresh, there should be a
distinct record of the Oceans salinity dropping drastically at that time.

You should have asked Noah if he could float an egg in the water or
not.

Even my more serious questions were troublesome for them,

especially since they were engineers. They really hated my thoughts on
how if they were correct about the young universe and Earth were fact,
some of the "facts" that they tried to use to disprove Evolution, such
as dating anomalies, could not be true because the basic nuclear decay
rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with.

- Mike KB3EIA -

It's "nuclear." And they should be dating much younger women if decay
is going to be a problem.

I had dated a few anomalies myself in my younger days. Some were fun,
and others.....

Too many cultures have a tradition of a great flood for it to be a
fairy tale.

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?


Another interesting question:

During the rain and flood period, the ocean levels would have to raise
by many 10's of thousands of feet. What effect would this have on the
rotational velocity of the earth? Same thing when the water receded.


Probably rotate faster as a water covered earth should have far less
frictional drag than a rough land/mountain covered earth. If you
discount the atmosphere.

Assuming that the mass of the Earth was neither increased nor decreased
during the event, the rotation would slow down as the flood progressed,
ant then sped up as the water evaporated.

But given that no amount of water that could cover the entire earth can
be found today, the earth would speed up in rotation as the water went
to wherever it went. Like the skater who spins with he arms stretched
out, then pulls them in and speeds up. Should work that was AFAIK.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

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....

LOL!!!

That's from Time Bandits as well.

snip

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?

I get a kick out of some of these discussions.

I find them somewhat interesting and somewhat dismaying.
The dismaying part is that the deeper meanings of the
Bible stories are missed because folks are too busy
taking them literally.

For example, take the two contradictory creation
stories in Genesis. First off, you find that relatively
few have actually read them well enough to see the
contradictions.

But those contradictions only exist if the interpretation
is literal. If you see the stories as parables, the contradictions
don't matter.

Or take the part about all of us being punished because
of Adam eating the apple. Doesn't make any sense at first - you
don't send a son to jail because his father robbed a bank!

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?!)

Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly
trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted
to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of
God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car
on a 4 hour drive
with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time.
I used to keep
me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but
after the second hour
of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them.

When did logic and reason become "the dogs"?

Turns out
they did not know where the water came from or went to, and
didn't know
why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order not to drown.

Oh yes, the deluge. Lots of good stuff in there. Here's some mo

The Book tells us how big the ark was and how many of each
animal were taken aboard.

Now since evolution supposedly doesn't happen, all of the land mammals
and birds we see must have been on the ark, since otherwise they'd
drown. The Book specifically mentions Noah
sending out a bird, too.

Not just the animals and birds themselves were on the ark but food and
water for them.

Look around for all the different species of land animals and birds
around today. Then figure out how much space they'd all take up.

Unless the ark was actually a tardis, it wasn't near big enough for all
the different types of deer, bison, antelope, giraffe, elephant,
cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goat, emu, ostrich, eland, moose, horse,
zebra, bear, lion, tiger, panther, caribou, etc., etc., etc.

Even my more serious questions were troublesome
for them,
especially since they were engineers. They really hated my
thoughts on
how if they were correct about the young universe
and Earth were fact,
some of the "facts" that they tried to use to
disprove Evolution, such
as dating anomalies, could not be true because
the basic nuclear decay
rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with.

The basic explanation they use for all that is that it
was made that way. Even down to the light from the stars more
distant than 6000 light years. Just popped into being.

Of course if someone accepts that "popped into being"
explanation, the universe could only be an hour old...

I think the real attraction of the "young universe" idea
is that it's comforting and reduces people's
environmental responsibility. Global warming? Resource
depletion? Species extinction? No problems, because
the Earth isn't old enough for there to be enough data.

But if the Earth is billions of years old, the situation is very
different.

If someone wants to believe the Earth is a bit more than 6000
years old, that's fine with me. Just as if they want to believe
that pi is equal to 3, that the earth is flat or the moon is
made of cheese.

Just don't try to pass off those beliefs as "science", because
they simply don't stand up to the scientific method.

When people insist that their religious beliefs be considered
"scientific" even though they fall apart under scientific
scrutiny, what they're really trying to do is destroy the
scientific method.

Not a new thing. Look at what happened to Galileo. How many years did
it take for the Vatican to admit they were wrong?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

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....

LOL!!!

That's from Time Bandits as well.

Great! "Time Bandits" is used to critize someone else's faith.

snip

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?

I get a kick out of some of these discussions.

I find them somewhat interesting and somewhat dismaying.
The dismaying part is that the deeper meanings of the
Bible stories are missed because folks are too busy
taking them literally.

For example, take the two contradictory creation
stories in Genesis. First off, you find that relatively
few have actually read them well enough to see the
contradictions.

But those contradictions only exist if the interpretation
is literal. If you see the stories as parables, the contradictions
don't matter.

Or take the part about all of us being punished because
of Adam eating the apple. Doesn't make any sense at first - you
don't send a son to jail because his father robbed a bank!

OTOH, the mistakes of one generation (like pollution) *can*
affect following generations.

Retention of the Morse Code exam.

(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?!)

Because it was fantastic for the mode of transportation available at
the time. Then it had momentum which brought us to the present point.
Are you suggesting the New Orleans be rebuilt at a different location,
or not be rebuilt at all?

Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly
trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted
to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of
God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car
on a 4 hour drive
with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time.
I used to keep
me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but
after the second hour
of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them.

When did logic and reason become "the dogs"?

When you insisted that the government retain an arbitrary and
unnecessary exam.

Turns out
they did not know where the water came from or went to, and
didn't know
why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order not to drown.

Oh yes, the deluge. Lots of good stuff in there. Here's some mo

The Book tells us how big the ark was and how many of each
animal were taken aboard.

Now since evolution supposedly doesn't happen, all of the land mammals
and birds we see must have been on the ark, since otherwise they'd
drown. The Book specifically mentions Noah
sending out a bird, too.

Not just the animals and birds themselves were on the ark but food and
water for them.

Look around for all the different species of land animals and birds
around today. Then figure out how much space they'd all take up.

Unless the ark was actually a tardis, it wasn't near big enough for all
the different types of deer, bison, antelope, giraffe, elephant,
cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goat, emu, ostrich, eland, moose, horse,
zebra, bear, lion, tiger, panther, caribou, etc., etc., etc.

You get too excited about the details.

Even my more serious questions were troublesome
for them,
especially since they were engineers. They really hated my
thoughts on
how if they were correct about the young universe
and Earth were fact,
some of the "facts" that they tried to use to
disprove Evolution, such
as dating anomalies, could not be true because
the basic nuclear decay
rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with.

The basic explanation they use for all that is that it
was made that way. Even down to the light from the stars more
distant than 6000 light years. Just popped into being.

Of course if someone accepts that "popped into being"
explanation, the universe could only be an hour old...

I think the real attraction of the "young universe" idea
is that it's comforting and reduces people's
environmental responsibility. Global warming? Resource
depletion? Species extinction? No problems, because
the Earth isn't old enough for there to be enough data.

But if the Earth is billions of years old, the situation is very
different.

Yep. Most of the pollution and extinctions occurred prior to man.
Comforting.

If someone wants to believe the Earth is a bit more than 6000
years old, that's fine with me. Just as if they want to believe
that pi is equal to 3, that the earth is flat or the moon is
made of cheese.

Obviously it's not fine with you. You make fun of them and their
faith. Yet I don't hear any making fun of strapping on a bomb for
one's faith. You've too much respect for that religion because GW Bush
isn't a Moslem.

Just don't try to pass off those beliefs as "science", because
they simply don't stand up to the scientific method.

They are two different things.

When people insist that their religious beliefs be considered
"scientific" even though they fall apart under scientific
scrutiny, what they're really trying to do is destroy the
scientific method.

Oh, is that it?

Not a new thing. Look at what happened to Galileo. How many years did
it take for the Vatican to admit they were wrong?

73 de Jim, N2EY

How many years will it take for Miccolis to admit that he was wrong?

wrote


How many years will it take for Miccolis to admit that he was wrong?


I was wrong only once. That was the time I thought I was wrong but it turned
out that I wasn't.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB