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

K=D8HB wrote:
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 tu=
rned
out that I wasn't.
=20
Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Lighten up, Hans.

wrote

Lighten up, Hans.

My doctor said my weight is (172#) is ideal for my height.

Beep beep!
de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Lighten up, Hans.

My doctor said my weight is (172#) is ideal for my height.

Beep beep!
de Hans, K0HB

Got a photo of that in a flight suit? Hi!

wrote:
wrote:

snip

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.

It was a good place to build a city. At that time we did not know that
tectonic forces were causing a thinning of the plate that New Orleans
and much of the east was sitting on was causing the subsidence of the
city. 3 feet every 100 years in fact, not a happy number when you are a
sea level port city. Coupled with the receding of the delta due to
natural and man made changes, and the raising of the sea level due to
global warming or whatever, you have a disaster waiting to happen. And
it happened.

More below.


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?

It is not a good idea to rebuild the city of New Orleans in it's
present position. While New Orleans is sinking, the rest of the area is
sinking also. The Mississippi will almost certainly change its course
soon. It "wants" to start entering the Gulf of Mexico to the west of
where it does now, and it will probably do so through the Atchafalaya
river. SO we could rebuild the city, and it might not matter.

- Mike KB3EIA

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!!!


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.

Just about 1 blue whale should do it.

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.

Don't forget the "variable light speed" theory. Or is that fact? ;^)
Light can magically slow down and speed up in order to account for a
literal Genesis interpretation.

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.

Ostrich heads in the sand....

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.

Of course. Yaknow, my trump card in the whole science/fundamental
religion debate is that I have a lot of the fundies literature, courtesy
of my maternal grandparents, who were indeed fundies.

I have literature that proclaims that education is dangerous, due to
the likelihood of sinful ideas such as evolution being imprinted on the
student. I even have statements that education may lead the educated to
question things. Questioning things is bad.



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

Not in time for his pension, I dare say!

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

snip

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.

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.

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.

More on that in my reply to Brian upcoming.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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