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 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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

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 -

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

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 -