[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

"Gestapo" Müller - Hunting Hitler's Secret Police Chief How Michelle Obama Could Become Democrats' Nominee after Biden's Terrible Debate, with Steve Bannon Was This Lethal Spitfire Ace Killed by His Own Tactics? Welsh Police Pay Home Visit To Man For Displaying Reform UK Political Sign Liz Harrington Drops a BOMBSHELL on How Georgia Was Stolen Trudeau govt to make all bathrooms in Parliament buildings GENDER NEUTRAL French official admits censorship is needed for government to control public opinion Bill Maher Predicts Trump Victory: The Left Is Aggressively Anti-Common Sense Google is suppressing Blaze Media. Heres how you can help. Large-scale prisons being secretly erected in all 50 states will they be used to house illegals or force Americans into concentration camps? Hezbollah is ready to confront Israels military, with Jon Elmer Balloons Land in Southern Lebanon, Warning Locals the Land Belongs to Jews German Politician Hit With Hate Crime Investigation For Demanding Migrant Criminals Be Deported DNC Caught Funneling Millions to Law Firms Involved in Unprecedented Lawfare Campaign Against Trump Here Are The 20 Biggest Whoppers Biden Told During His Debate With Trump NYC to ban cellphones in public schools. New York Times Columnists Turn On Biden After Disastrous Debate Performance 8 Armed Men With Venezuelan Accents Violently Rob Denver Jewelry Store Uvalde Police School Chief Indicted, Arrested Over Response To 2022 Shooting Greetings from the Horse Tonight confirmed every Democrats worst fear. Five Women Soon To Die In 1928 How Trump Can Lose The Debate Tucker Carlson Savagely Dismantles ‘Dumb’ and ‘Stupid’ Far-Left Reporter at Australian Freedom Conference James Clapper, Mr. October Surprise: How Obama's Intel Czar Rigged 2016 And 2020 Debates Against Trump Biden Campaign Balks Wont Commit to Drug Test S-500 Prometheus: Designed To Kill Stealth Jets, ICBMs The US military chases shiny new things and the ranks suffer USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Now in the Med, USS Theodore Roosevelt Heads to the Middle East Lefties losing it: Rita Panahi mocks Democrat judge acting like a ‘confused simpleton’

Activism
See other Activism Articles

Title: One More Hate Letter
Source: Davidduke.com
URL Source: http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=309#more-309
Published: Jun 16, 2005
Author: David Duke
Post Date: 2005-06-16 12:43:15 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Letter, More, Hate
Views: 2449
Comments: 129

6/14/2005 One More Hate Letter Posted under: General— @ 8:51 am

Hate Letters Department

The following is an excerpt from another Hate Letter from one of my obviously not-so-enamored admirers. I thought you might enjoy my response so I will share it with you.

Dear Mr. Duke:

I commend to you the article by Paul Johnson, the prominent historian, in the June issue of Commentary magazine concerning Anti-Semitism being a persistent mental disease. This confirms what I wrote you several years ago, concerning getting help from a psychiatrist.

Incidentally,while you are in the Ukraine, I suggest you visit Babi Yar.

I am sure you are making a lot of money from your skinhead and anti-semitic followers, but you evidently do not believe in the fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of men. How sad.

R. Ginson

Your letter is typical of the absolute blind sightedness of the Jewish supremacism mental illness that YOU are infected with. Why do you mention Babi Yar in Ukraine, why no mention of the 7 million men, women and children murdered by the Jewish Bolshevik Kaganovich and his other Bolshevik henchmen. You obviously only value Jewish lives. To you only the Jews who died at Babi Yar are even worth mentioning, the 7 million Gentiles are just goyim to you!

Don’t tell me about supremacism and racial hatred, go tell that to the NPR and Likud Party and the mass murderer Ariel Sharon and all of you damned Jewish supremacist accessories to his and Israel’s ethnic cleansing, torture and murder. If anti-Semitism is a disease, then what is anti-Gentilism, what is the Chosen People (master race) genocide boasted about in the Torah and Talmud? ( “and they killed every man, women, child, and spared not a thing that breathes")

In fact the three main holidays are about genocide of Jewish enemies. Passover, the Passing of the evil spirit over the Jewish homes and striking down the first born of all Egyptians; Purim, the slaughter of Haman and 75,000 persians; and Hannakuk, the bloody massacre of the Greeks and the capture of the temple in Jerusalem. It seems your whole favored religion is rooted in genocide while Christianity is based on love and forgiveness. Not to even understand this tells me that you may well be the sick one, and you are the one who needs some help.

Give your canned “Brotherhood of Man” speech to Jewish supremacists that you dare not oppose.

I believe all people deserve respect and all people have a right to exist and have societies based on their own values and heritage. But, I really don’t take kindly to Jewish supremacists and their defenders who are trying to destroy my own heritage and freedom as well as every other people on the planet.

If you want an example of the “Brotherhood of Man” launched by those wonderful supremacists such as Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Crystal and Wurmser take a look at our 1700 dead American patriots in Iraq, and 20,000 maimed Americans there as well as the 100,000 Iraqis who died and the hundreds of thousands who have been maimed and hurt in this bloody, insane war for Israel. Are you so stupid as not to know that this was a war created by the Jewish supremacists for Israel’s benefit?

As for your suggestion about me making money opposing the Jewish extremists. Nothing is more costly and hard than going against the Jewish supremacist powers. As one Jewish observer said, “There is no business like Shoah business!” Holocaust mania and praising the Jewish supremacists can land you the media appearances and publishing contracts and the really big bucks. Opposing them causes a constant struggle to financially survive.

As for going to a psychiatrist, remember that the father of psychiatry, Freud himself, was a vicious hater of Gentiles who wrote of his desire to destroy Europeans (see the quotations of Freud cited and fully footnoted in my book).

I am sure a Jewish psychiatrist will pronounce anyone who opposes Jewish hatred to be mentally ill. Maybe you should go see your Jewish psychiatrist, pay him a few shekels and I am sure he will tell how you how loving and wonderful you are to worship the Jewish supremacists and blind your eyes to the oceans of blood found in their wake.

Sincerely,

David Duke

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

#6. To: Zoroaster, christine, RickyJ, Robin, Zipporah, Fatidic, Diana, Barak (#0)

then what is anti-Gentilism,

Just another fabricated straw man argument. There is no anti-Gentilism. Arrogance, disdain, and conceit amongst Jewish leaders, probably. Hostility towards sworn enemies, most definitely. But no agenda to hate, destroy or subject all Gentiles.

what is the Chosen People (master race) genocide boasted about in the Torah and Talmud? ( "and they killed every man, women, child, and spared not a thing that breathes")

God "chose" the descendants of Jacob (Israel) to be God's people to fulfill God's purpose. God chose Israel. God's purpose was that Israel be a living testimony to God and also bear the Messiah. Israel did not choose God or decide why God chose them. Further, God's choosing was not to establish a master race (Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;) nor for genocide (the killing of any particular race).

The quote seems to be a misquote of Deut 20:16. Here it is correct and in context:

Deu 20:16-18 (NASB)
"Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. (17) "But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, (18) so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God.

Now, you may argue God is "harsh" or "genocidal", but take that up with God - He was giving the orders for His reasons in His omnipotence and sovereignty. The Israelites were being instructed by God to obey Him. They didn't decide on their own to kill indiscriminatly.

In fact the three main holidays are about genocide of Jewish enemies. Passover, the Passing of the evil spirit over the Jewish homes and striking down the first born of all Egyptians; Purim, the slaughter of Haman and 75,000 persians; and Hannakuk, the bloody massacre of the Greeks and the capture of the temple in Jerusalem.

Passover is the Jewish celebration of when God's angel of death (who was punishing Egypt for Egypts slavery of Israel and defiance of God's instructions to free them) "passed over" Jewish homes who so marked themselves as "covered under" the blood of the paschel lamb. The Israelites didn't cause the deaths, God did.

Purim is a minor festival (not a main holiday - but David Duke already knew that) celebrating, not the death of Hamaan who was trying to have all Jews killed:

Est 3:5-6 (NASB) (5) When Haman saw that Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage to him, Haman was filled with rage. (6) But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him who the people of Mordecai were; therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus.

Hannakuk (actually Hanukkah or Chanukkah) is the Festival of Lights, another minor (not major) festival and celebrates the rededication of the Jewish Temple (recently desecrated by Antiochus IV) when it and Jerusalem and Judea were freed by the Maccabean revolt from the Greek occupying forces subsequent to Alexander the Great's invasion and occupation in 332 BC. Yes Greeks were massacred, but then they were Greek military occupying a land not their own. Occupation forces that desecrate a locals religious temples tend to get bloodied, do they not?

It seems your whole favored religion is rooted in genocide while Christianity is based on love and forgiveness.

And just where precisely is this Christian love and forgiveness David Duke exhorts when he was compelled to distort as many facts as required to target the man/country he hates?

If David Duke were to adhere to his Christian teachings, he would hate what Ariel Sharon and others do but love the man himself as well as stop hating everyone who merely has a genetic or geographic affiliation with Sharon. And where is Duke's Christian love in hating Jews because they're Jewish and distorting the bible and history?

Hate Ariel Sharon for his own behavior if you like. Hate Israel for their politics if you like. But don't paint God and all Israelites as if they are to blame.

Judge the fruit, such as it is, for yourselves, but hopefully with open eyes.

Starwind  posted on  2005-06-16   14:58:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

God "chose" the descendants of Jacob (Israel) to be God's people to fulfill God's purpose. God chose Israel. God's purpose was that Israel be a living testimony to God and also bear the Messiah. Israel did not choose God or decide why God chose them. Further, God's choosing was not to establish a master race (Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;) nor for genocide (the killing of any particular race).

Actually, way back when, a tribe from the Desert wastes decided to concoct an explanation of their place in the cosmos, they made themselves the universal center and the big sky deity's favorite children. Imagine that.

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-06-16   15:15:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

they made themselves the universal center and the big sky deity's favorite children

lol - then they sure botched it because their 'self-chosen fabrication by a fabricated deity' gameplan doesn't match what their 'fabricated deity' actually says in their 'fabricated' playbook.

How can they be in control of all the fabrication parts and still get their own complete fabrication all wrong?

Starwind  posted on  2005-06-16   15:27:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

How can they be in control of all the fabrication parts and still get their own complete fabrication all wrong?

They planted the seeds of fabrication and thousands of permutations have since sprouted by opportunists that wish to wield a moral Damacles sword.

You seem to be well versed in the scripture, if you'll allow me to digress a moment then maybe you can solve a question that's been nagging me lately. The tower of Babel was destroyed because man was building too high and thus encroaching on God's Kingdom, correct? God's Kingdom is eternal, timeless and immovable, correct? Then how come mankind is now able to traverse God's kingdom in Aircraft at will? Or launch satellites, capsules and people into space? Has he become much more lenient since the Old Testament and doesn't mind airplane noise interfering with the fanfare of his angle's chorus. There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right?

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-06-16   21:06:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right?

You have to actually understand the bible (even if you don't agree with it) to know what it intended as history, as doctrine, as spiritual, as physical, as literal, or symbolic. There are differing views among theologians regarding interpretive systems, and they would disagree in their personal interpretive views, but they would agree on the need for correctly interpreting the different kinds of passages.

To be fair in any question or criticism you might care to raise, you must first be 'in the right ballpark' insofar as knowing what God intended to be conveyed. For example, just because the bible records slaughter in historical accounts does mean the bible "teaches" God expects one to go out and likewise slaughter.

Genesis 1 is one of those "biblical stories" as you put it, that is literal and physical and even supported by modern science. Consider The Age of the Universe by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, in which he describes a possible reconciliation of the scientifically measured age of the universe (some 15B years) with the Genesis account of six days. Not "farcical" but a trustworthy physical literal account that can be disected and studied and aligned with what science measures and understands (albeit imperfectly as yet). If the article at all interests you, I further recommend Dr. Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" for an intriguing elucidation of how the original Hebrew text conveyed to the ancient sages what cosmologists are now begining to understand about how the universe began.

The tower of Babel was destroyed because man was building too high and thus encroaching on God's Kingdom, correct?

Not quite.

The builders were essentially guilty of pride and a desire to obtain or reach God's domain on their own effort or merit, by their own hand. Human hubris being what it is, anything they imagined they could achieve they assumed they would in fact achieve - that is overreaching ego, not confidence. God destroyed it not because God was threatened by their civil engineering skill, but to put an end to their collective pride.

God's Kingdom is eternal, timeless and immovable, correct? Then how come mankind is now able to traverse God's kingdom in Aircraft at will?

A false premise. God's kingdom is also infinite. Where has man been able to traverse God's Kingdom? If by Kingdom you mean "heaven", clearly no aircraft has traversed it (well, outside of the Bermuda triangle anyway - lol). If by "kingdom" you really meant "creation", well then man has traversed the earth, moon and nearby planets, not nearly so much as the infinite extent of God's entire creation, no?

A kingdom is also the domain of a King - where the King reigns or lives. Jesus would live and reign in our hearts, spiritually, and likewise no aircraft has traversed our "hearts" either. And most often in the bible "heart" does not mean the blood pumping organ, but the place from which love, feeling and belief emanate - clearly more a mental concept but not purely intellectual either as feeling and instinct are involved as well.

The key to understanding the bible is properly interpreting it and such rules of interpretation are known as a "hermeneutic", the benefit of a consistently applied hermeneutic is to always correctly differentiate between what is history, doctrine, spiritual, physical, literal, or symbolic. A few more examples:

• The "lampstands" of Rev 1 are symbolic - the text of Rev 1:20 in fact tells us what the meaning (the symbology) is.
  
• The chain, abyss and Satan of Rev 20:1-3 are literal (real, not symbolic) but also spiritual (not physical). Satan is really bound in an abyss but Satan is spirit and is bound with spiritual "chains".

Before you presume the bible is farcical, ask yourself, if it were true, if God is real and wanted to prepare His creation for an eternal life in His presence or outside of His presence, what does God accomplish by nuturing and cultivating humanity as He did and thus writing the bible the way it is? Or asked another way, assume it is correct and then seek to understand and verify it, reserving your own judgement to dismiss it after you've 'mastered' it all. And bring your brain. God delights in sincere questions and sincere truth seekers.

(ping to others who may have an interest)

Starwind  posted on  2005-06-16   22:22:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

what does God accomplish by nuturing and cultivating humanity as He did and thus writing the bible the way it is?

Ah, He wrote it? With a word processor?

And bring your brain.

That's the problem. I do. And the scripture doesn't reconcile with the natural world. Animals don't talk for instance. People can't live in the belly of a whale. Weather patterns are not such that they can encompass the entire world in a flood. And the one remaining family, biologically speaking cannot replenish the whole population.

We know from the fossil record, there were bipedal hominids, which were never accounted for in the creation story (that I'm aware of). We are told Man was made in God's image, but what about Homo Erectus? We have in our bodies remenants of an evolutionary past. The human tailbone, the now-useless appendix (God had extra parts lying around, or what?). Wisdom teeth often grow in impacted because the jawbone used to be longer.

An entire molecular world which science didn't know about is now unmitigated fact. And nothing about this essential universe was alluded to in the scripture. Dihygrogen Oxide molecules, for instance, must function a certain way and the reality is they cannot stray from their nature even if Jesus walks on a mess of them. Why would God go to the painstaking effort of creating such balance only to make a mockery of it to amaze us with miracles?

God delights in sincere questions and sincere truth seekers.

He might, but his dogma doesn't seem to.

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-06-17   1:22:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

And the scripture doesn't reconcile with the natural world.

Did you even try to read and understand the one link I provided? Did you actually bring your brain as you claim or did you just bring presumption and attitude?

An entire molecular world which science didn't know about is now unmitigated fact. And nothing about this essential universe was alluded to in the scripture.

And why should it? The bible is the story of what God did and why. God has left it to us (using the brains He gave us) to figure out how He did it. Your complaint is that the bible isn't believable, and your argument is because in spite it's having provided the accurate cosmological answer, 3000 years before science even knew there was a question, it is silent (not wrong, just merely silent) on the subject of molecular physics.

Instead of investigating for accuracy what the bible does say, you have dismissed it because of something it did not say. Is that the standard of truth you would want applied to what you write in your posts? Would you want to be judged not on the accuracy of what you did write, but your failure to include mention of every topic in which every lurker has some interest?

To be believable the bible merely has to be truthful on everything it does say. And neither archeology nor science have sufficiently advanced to have full grasp of every subject the bible does cover.

Dihygrogen Oxide molecules, for instance, must function a certain way and the reality is they cannot stray from their nature even if Jesus walks on a mess of them.

That is precisely the 'Tower of Babel' kind of hubris that God detests. To presume that you know all that can be known not only about water, its phases, surface tension, molecular forces, gravity, bouyancy, etc but also whether Jesus was supported by water tension, bouyancy, null-gravity field, tractor beams, or whatever, and to further presume that God is limited to the same extent as your understanding, ie, that God can only do what you understand is possible, is unscientific. Even science allows for what it doesn't yet understand, but not you?

Why would God go to the painstaking effort of creating such balance only to make a mockery of it to amaze us with miracles?

Because we need the balance for our physical survival and existance , and the miraclulous is provided as demonstrable evidence that God does not. That God is in fact beyond it all and in control of it all. God is not a prisoner of His creation and the miracluous reveals to us (well, to anyone with eyes to see) that He is in fact "God".

Starwind  posted on  2005-06-17   10:30:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Instead of investigating for accuracy what the bible does say, you have dismissed it because of something it did not say.

I did. It says animals used to talk and people used to live to be several hundred years old. Along with many other stretches of the imagination that the faithful gloss over or claim those can't be read literally.

did you just bring presumption and attitude?

I'm not grilling anyone or trying to be an asshole. I'm on a search for faith too, but I insist on a docrtine that jibes with the world as it presents itself. Not a compendium of Asiatic fairy tales.

And neither archeology nor science have sufficiently advanced to have full grasp of every subject the bible does cover.

Because they're at odds. For God to have made the Earth and humanity his special project, it used to be believed that we were at the very center of the universe. As we've learned that's not remotely the case, we've dragged religion with us kicking and screaming. When it comes to critical questions abour creation, Religion is inflexible. It insists on not being questioned (and this excercise seems to irritate you - not my intention) because the answers show it in a bad light or make it look downright ridiculous. Science thrives on "heresy" towards it's subjects. More questions and more doubts lead it's students further toward real truths about our structural makeup. Others are always stuck on ancient and irrelevant "Begats, begets and begones".

I notice you glossed over my sentence about "We have in our bodies remenants of an evolutionary past. The human tailbone, the now-useless appendix (God had extra parts lying around, or what?). Wisdom teeth often grow in impacted because the jawbone used to be longer." We have (or had ;) tails for crying out loud, like animals. So it God a comedian? I would buy that explanation.

Dihygrogen Oxide molecules, for instance, must function a certain way and the reality is they cannot stray from their nature even if Jesus walks on a mess of them. That is precisely the 'Tower of Babel' kind of hubris that God detests.

Right, the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts. They don't like explaining why the Earth is strewn with the fossils of creatures never mentioned in the creation account. Our how the immortal soul can be captured and tortured relentlessly when the central nervous system, a necessity for feeling pain remains here on terra firma to rot after death. Or how human beings, with a physical makeup we know a lot about can live to be 700 years old. Joints, cartilage, eyesight, the respiratory and circulatory systems; these things give out after 70 years or so on average. How did they used to last hundreds as repeatedly stated in the Bible? Did God at some point start making budget humans?

Yeah, I know what you're going to say. That I should take it on faith that every mind boggling impossibility happened and it's our science that is lacking here. Bullfeathers!

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-06-17   14:55:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Yeah, I know what you're going to say. That I should take it on faith that every mind boggling impossibility happened and it's our science that is lacking here. Bullfeathers!

And yet, I did not ask you to take on faith the earth is 6 days old, did I.

No, in fact I actually offered you a scientific article based on relativity and an expanding universe which establishes an agreement between the biblical account and modern cosmology:

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years.

The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years.

The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

I'm on a search for faith too, but I insist on a docrtine that jibes with the world as it presents itself.

Actually, you were offered one above, but what you have insisted on is ignoring it and shifting to new targets. And should you be offered answers to those too, will you ignore them as well and shift yet again to other targets?

Religion is inflexible. It insists on not being questioned (and this excercise seems to irritate you - not my intention) because the answers show it in a bad light or make it look downright ridiculous.

You're the one that seems so inflexibile as to be incapable of acknowledging answers and questions posed back to you. But what is irritating about this exchange is your hypocrisy in ignoring those answers and questions while complaining that a couple questions were "glossed over" out of the dozen that were in fact answered with detail and clarity - enough so that you ducked them.

And incidently, I do in fact believe it is your intention to provoke and irritate. Your first post to me alluded to the "big sky deity" and deliberate fraud in the biblical account, and every post since has been strewn with sarcasm and derision, but oddly, no acknowledgements or response to answers given.

I notice you glossed over my sentence about "We have in our bodies remenants of an evolutionary past. The human tailbone, the now-useless appendix (God had extra parts lying around, or what?). Wisdom teeth often grow in impacted because the jawbone used to be longer." We have (or had ;) tails for crying out loud, like animals. So it God a comedian? I would buy that explanation.

I didn't gloss over it. It didn't even exist in your first question to me about the 'Tower of babel' which I did answer fully. Here then is your post #24 to me in it's entirety:

They planted the seeds of fabrication and thousands of permutations have since sprouted by opportunists that wish to wield a moral Damacles sword.

You seem to be well versed in the scripture, if you'll allow me to digress a moment then maybe you can solve a question that's been nagging me lately. The tower of Babel was destroyed because man was building too high and thus encroaching on God's Kingdom, correct? God's Kingdom is eternal, timeless and immovable, correct? Then how come mankind is now able to traverse God's kingdom in Aircraft at will? Or launch satellites, capsules and people into space? Has he become much more lenient since the Old Testament and doesn't mind airplane noise interfering with the fanfare of his angle's chorus. There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right?

And here in your post #35 you (not I) "glossed over" every answer I gave you, and instead shifted targets and asked about the human tailbone, wisdom teeth, the bible being silent on molecular physics, and God's ability and purpose in the miraculous.

In response, in my post #36, I asked if you had read the link I provided and pointed out the illogic in criticising the bible for being silent on molecular physics and explained why God does miracles.

Did you acknowledge or respond to any of that? No. You instead have shifted targets yet again and complain I glossed over one of your questions, when you have glossed over every answer you have been previously given.

But I didn't gloss over it so much as I didn't address it at all, wasting my time (apparently) instead on a what I thought you'd appreciate was a bigger biblical/cosmological issue.

While I reserve judgement on your premise that an "evolutionary past" is the only explanation for a "human tailbone", I don't have an explanation. [BTW, that's what honesty looks like.] And if on the basis of one person not having one explanation you wish to declare victory, then by all means do so.

Likewise, if your "trump card" is always going to be the bible didn't discuss every scientific topic you imagined, then declare victory and walk away.

Right, the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts.

Question all you like, but at least have the common intellectual courtesy to respond to the answers you are given. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you clearly understood that the answer you were given exposed a false presumption that Jesus' weight had to be supported by molecular surface tension and that science understands perfectly all the physics involved, and all required information and data is known and there are and never will be any other mechanism, thus the only conclusion is that God can not walk on water.

You clearly understood that science has no explanation for the miraculous (as yet anyway). But rather, for the sake of your argument, you instead take the position that science is at present sufficiently all-knowing to declare any not-understood biblical account as false.

There was a time (about 40 years ago) when science "knew" the universe had no beginning that it always was, and the Genesis account of a universe created from nothing was patently absurd. Well, the biblical account hasn't changed, but science matured to the point it now understands something it did not understand previously. That maturation will continue. Perhaps likewise there will be a day when science will understand how God might be able to walk on water.

But for you to pretend you weren't offered a solid explanation showing alignment between the world as it presents itself (15 3/4 Billion years old) and the biblical account (6 days old) is simply dishonest.

Perhaps when you acknowledge and respond to the points made in the answers you have been given, we can move on to whatever you believe to have been glossed over. Otherwise we're just sucking up bandwidth without communicating, with no chance to intelligently agree or disagree.

Starwind  posted on  2005-06-17   18:07:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Perhaps when you acknowledge and respond to the points made in the answers you have been given

The answers you've given are basically "nothing is impossible if God wills it". That's conjecture and frankly an insult to my intelligence. God hasn't willed anything for the entire world's amazement in a very long time (2 millenia maybe?), barring the occasional appearance of the savior's countenance in various potato chips. He altogether stopped communicating through burning bushes which don't get consumed by the fire (as SCIENCE WOULD DICTATE!), nor does he seem to revel in the pleasant odor of a bull burned on the altar of sacrifice (Lev. 1:9). He's relaxed now man, to the point of almost complete withdrawl compared to his persona way back when. No more fanfare these days. That's uncharacteristic of a tribal Deity addicted to worship and acknowledgement. Wouldn't you say?

What's happening here is common. When you subscribe in totality to a doctrine as 100% truth, you're left defending it tooth and nail no matter how opposed it is to the natural world.

For instance, if the scriptures had stated that verily Moses broke a mighty wind and thereby filled a passenger balloon with its contents and yea he flew his people to safety in the first ever trans-sea balloon flight, the faithful wouldn't bat an eye. Religious scholars would be calculating the trajetory of his flight path, artists would paint their renditions and the faithful would be making pilgramages and attempting recreations. The rest of us would be shaking our heads in incredulity. But that's what is happening.

I like you SW. You punked Badeye on LP like I've never seen done on a forum. And I don't want for us to have a sour acquaintance here.

Again, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but I understand your defensive posturing. But you're right, nothing is getting done. If presented with sincere questions such as how Noah's Arc could hold a pair of every animal in existence, millions of species including those native to far away regions which none of the biblical authors even knew about or how people used to live to be several hundred years old or snakes and donkeys used to talk with human voices, you would casually brush it off as a matter of faith or link to god-knows-what. That doesn't go very far for legitimacy or the burden of proof, which is on you, not me. Arguing religion is one of the most futile things possible because faith preempts common sense, so I'll likely leave it at this and whatever last words you want to say.

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-06-17   22:01:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The answers you've given are basically "nothing is impossible if God wills it".

You're still evading the first answer I gave you, and you know it.

Arguing religion is one of the most futile things possible because faith preempts common sense, so I'll likely leave it at this and whatever last words you want to say.

So, show me some of that common sense and critique Schroeder's explanation.

I like you SW.

I'm not big on people smiling in my face while they evade my question. As do you, I don't appreciate when they're glossed over.

But, unlike you, I did answer your question(s) didn't I, and since you've still not answered mine (as you're very much aware), kindly go back and read The Age of the Universe and if you disagee that Schroeder provided an explanation that reconciles the cosmological age of the universe of 15 3/4 Billion years with the biblical account of 6 days, then please explain what Schroeder got wrong.

Otherwise, if you do agree it is a plausible reconciliation, at least then have the intellectual honesty to say so.

Starwind  posted on  2005-06-17   22:43:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Age of the Universe and if you disagee that Schroeder provided an explanation that reconciles the cosmological age of the universe of 15 3/4 Billion years with the biblical account of 6 days, then please explain what Schroeder got wrong.

Just to get something straight. I'm talking about the age of the Earth. The creation story doesn't mention that hundreds of millions of other individual suns exist and God's pet project is dedicated to a microcosmic area in the Universe. The creation story centers around Earth. So don't throw the Earth vs. Universe obfuscation into this.

That article is dated 1/30/2005. So Mr.Schroeder has the benefit of knowing, courtesy of science, how old the Earth is. From there, he can break that number down six ways. That's not so impressive. But you keep pointing to it, saying "see there I gave you an answer, didn't I?"

The article starts out with

"The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators' description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option."

In other words abstract bullshit. But he has to keep it abstract, that way you won't get pinned down with embarrasing evidence.

I'm not big on people smiling in my face while they evade my question. As do you, I don't appreciate when they're glossed over.

Forget you then, I'm trying to be reasonable. You're getting hot under the collar and turning this around. You've evaded every point. Why does our physical structure resemble animals? What does the fossil record mean relative to the creation story? What aren't the times of other hominids accounted for? Why doesn't God talk through burning bushes anymore? How could Homo Sapiens live for hundreds of years each? How could animals talk? How could a massive flood encompass the whole world and then mysteriously disappear? How was every species in creation saved (do you even understand what this would entail?) How did one family replenish the entire planet?

Your responses: "God can do it, and here's an article for you to read". And you have the audacity to say that I should bring my brain?????

It doesn't matter what you are presented with, because you're on a divine mission and completely oblivious to fact. Who is weak minded, the questioners or believers?

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-06-17   23:34:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Just to get something straight. I'm talking about the age of the Earth.

(sigh) I'm painfully aware that you are.

The creation story doesn't mention that hundreds of millions of other individual suns exist and God's pet project is dedicated to a microcosmic area in the Universe. The creation story centers around Earth.

The first 8 verses of Genesis describes the creation of the heavens and earth (space-time and matter) and light separating from darkness (matter condenses out and order proceeds from chaos) and then subsequent verses discuss the (planet) earth, seas, birds, fish, animals etc. The creation story doesn't " center" on anything except man, but the preponderance of the time elapsed during creation prior to and including man, covers the creation of the universe - just as science has observed.

Further, "hundreds of millions of other individual suns" are in fact part of that creation account - the heavens. I never said the " six days" of creation accommodated the earth only. That seems to be your presupposition. I in fact gave you an article which explains how, enough time elapsed during the "six days" of creation for the formation of the entire universe as well as those stars and the earth.

So don't throw the Earth vs. Universe obfuscation into this.

LOL! That "obfuscation" as you call it has been included since my first post #29 to you. You had stated:

There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right?

And so I gave you an answer that, no, there are some biblical stories which are to be interpreted literally and not farcically in the face of modern science. I gave as an example the fact that what the Bible states was six days of creation can be reconciled with the cosmological age of the universe of 15 3/4 Billion years. I wrote exactly:

Genesis 1 is one of those "biblical stories" as you put it, that is literal and physical and even supported by modern science. Consider The Age of the Universe by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, in which he describes a possible reconciliation of the scientifically measured age of the universe (some 15B years) with the Genesis account of six days. Not " farcical" but a trustworthy physical literal account that can be disected and studied and aligned with what science measures and understands (albeit imperfectly as yet). If the article at all interests you, I further recommend Dr. Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" for an intriguing elucidation of how the original Hebrew text conveyed to the ancient sages what cosmologists are now begining to understand about how the universe began.

Somehow wherever I wrote "age of the universe" you instead read "earth". I can't do much about that except try to highlight where the disconnects are.

The point of all this is that depending on what relativistic time frame is used to observe the creation, it can be observed as six days or 15 3/4 billion years. The article I linked elaborates for you on relativistic time dilation and reference frames and how, given the expansion of the universe, 6 days in one reference frame can equate to 15 3/4 billion years in another.

Consequently, there is no conflict between the cosmological age of the universe and the biblical age of the creation. Consequently there is ample time for the development of the geologically and biologically old specimens that we observe on the earth. Do I agree we (humans) evolved from apes, no. But I do agree speciation took place over millions of years. Do I agree we (humans) are as old as Neanderthals and other hominids (Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesensis)? No. But science hasn't yet proven that we are their genetic evolutionary descendants, either.

But the point I've been making is the billions of years required for all that is not irreconcilable. Science and the bible can be reconciled on the age of the universe (which obviously includes stars and the earth). So this obfuscation as you call it of my introducing the age of universe has been at the core of my answers to you since my first post and I did it then to demonstrate an example of science reconciling with a literal "bible story".

How did you miss that?

The article starts out with

"The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators' description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option."

In other words abstract bullshit. But he has to keep it abstract, that way you won't get pinned down with embarrasing evidence.

That demonstrates to me, you still haven't read it, and are probably assuming what you think it says. Rather than post the entire article, I have below excerpted portions. Please explain how they are "abstract bullshit":

We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.

Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? Because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis.

The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? There is a purpose for the sun appearing only on Day Four, so that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" -- but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet -- the root of "erev" -- is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" -- "boker" -- is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly. Order always degrades to chaos unless the environment recognizes the order and locks it in to preserve it. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation.

Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos Bo zman" -- from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence -- that's when the Biblical clock of the six days starts.

Science has shown that there's only one "substance-less substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold.

Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there were six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, How old is the universe? Six Days. We'll just take time up until Adam. Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is approximately 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in on earth. That's Einstein's view of relativity. But what would those billions of years be as perceived from near the beginning looking forward?

The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time.

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So the two light pulses are separated by 300 million meters at the beginning. Now they travel through space for billions of years, and they're going to reach the Earth billions of years later. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. That's the cosmology of the universe. And that does not mean it's expanding into an empty space outside the universe. There's only the universe. There is no space outside the universe. The universe expands by its own space stretching. So as these pulses go through billions of years of traveling, the universe and space are stretching. As space is stretching, what's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart.

Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years.

The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years.

The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

[now back to your points]

Forget you then, I'm trying to be reasonable. You're getting hot under the collar and turning this around. You've evaded every point.

Sincerely, reasonable would be for you to have acknowledged the article and my point (even if you disagreed with it) back in your first response to my posting of the article. But you didn't. Reasonable would be to have acknowledged that I originated the topic of reconciling the age of the universe between cosmology and the bible (it wasn't a recent "obfuscation" - it has been there all along). But you didn't. Reasonable would have been to at least once have explained what you believe Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement. But you didn't.

Evaded every point? Every? LOL! Go back and count how many of your questions I painstakingly already answered. My refusal at this point to play more " bible-story whack-a-mole" with you is not evasion. I offered to resume and address every one if you would first explain what Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement.

But instead you dismissed it based on the 2nd paragraph as "abstract bullshit".

Your responses: "God can do it, and here's an article for you to read". And you have the audacity to say that I should bring my brain?? ???

And your brain has been ... where? I first offered a cosmologist's scientific reconciliation of the six days of creation with the 15B year age of the universe in my first response to you. I answered your questions about the Tower of Babel and then also explained further what biblical hermeneutics were. Then you asked about tail bones, wisdom teeth and Jesus walking on water and why did God create balance and then do miracles. I explained the illogic of criticizing the bible (or your posts for that matter) on what they did not say and then - only then - in answer to your question about miracles did I state the obvious - that God can do miracles - and why He would do them.

But from that you distort my typical responses as "God can do it, and here's an article for you to read". You've conveniently overlooked everything underlined in the above paragraph and reversed the order and then misapplied it to every response I've given you. Any casual examination of my responses shows I've addressed the substance of your questions every time, in far more detail and accuracy than you have yet to extend me the same intellectual courtesy.

Picking up now with your post #52:

Mr. Schroeder is making an assumption that the Earth was created at the same time as the universe which has zero basis in FACT, which you've implied this nonesense is.

You really haven't read or understood Dr. Schroeder's article, have you? Here is an excerpt:

Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. The speck is all there was. Anything else was God. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nachmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" -- very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance -- so thin that it has no essence -- turned into matter as we know it.

Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos Bo zman" -- from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence -- that's when the Biblical clock of the six days starts.

I trust you recognize the obvious? Schroeder does not assume the earth was created at the same time as the universe. Schroeder describes Nachmanides realization that the physical universe started as a 'big bang' from a singularity (size of a mustard seed), space-time expanded and matter coalesced, then the six days starts, not completes, but starts.

Schroeder is an MIT PhD cosmologist and physicist and he is merely aligning standard big bang theory with Nachmanides commentaries. Schroeder knows (and the above demonstrates) the earth did not form until billions of years after the big bang. The whole point of his article is that the billions of years theorized for formation of the earth via stellar, galactic and planetary formation processes fits within the estimated 15 3/4 billion year age of the universe, which in turn reconciles (from a different relativistic time frame) with the six day biblical creation account.

So, the question yet remains: please explain what you believe Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement.

Starwind  posted on  2005-06-18   3:00:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

please explain what you believe Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement.

It's simple.

Science has not, and at this point cannot determine the age of the Universe. The Earth yes, because there is substantial material to test. But not the universe. Not even remotely.

So when Mr. Schroeder pulls a number out of his ass, it can't be corroborated with anything. That blows the entire articles premise away.

It amounts to navel gazing and nothing more. But here you are hopping up and down pointing to his profoundly unscientific "work" and thinking it signifys something.

I've answered your question without hesitation, and to your satisfaction unless you are completely unreasonable. Now please answer how humans used to live 500+ years old and where Cro-Magnons, Homo-Erectus, Neanderthal, et all fit in the to the biblical creation story without any more of your background noise, thanks.

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-06-18   13:46:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Science has not, and at this point cannot determine the age of the Universe. The Earth yes, because there is substantial material to test. But not the universe. Not even remotely.

Below are several excerpts from cosmological papers dealing with measuring the age of the universe, published between 1999-2003. There are several ways cosmologists measure the age of the Universe (discussed below in the links), the most common being the inverse of the Hubble expansion constant, while others are based on various dating techniques of white dwarfs and globular clusters. Essentially, they establish the most widely accepted age of the universe being about 15 billion years, with a range of at least 11 billion to not likely more than 17 billion.

So when Mr. Schroeder pulls a number out of his ass, it can't be corroborated with anything. That blows the entire articles premise away.

Except, Dr. Schroeder didn't "pull a number out of his ass", but rather he has used the accepted, peer-reviewed research of world cosmologists and physicists. However, you may be right in so far as perhaps they all have pulled numbers out of their asses, and so I have provided you with links to their papers so that you may contact them and correct their stupidity:

COSMOLOGY: RECENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Introduction: Precision Cosmology
Our knowledge of the cosmological parameters has made tremendous strides in the last two years. [...snip...] The Hubble parameter H0 = 70 km/sec/ Mpc, to an accuracy of about 10%, and the age of the Universe t0 = 14 Gyr, within about 8%. [...snip...] In the last few years, the uncertainty in these parameters has dropped from the neighborhood of 50-100% to 10-20%. Moreover, the prospects for improving the precision of the measurement of many of these parameters in the near future are excellent. Equally important, we now have confidence that these determinations are robust, because they derive from independent measurements using different techniques, each with their own systematic errors. This is a relatively new phenomenon in cosmology.

3 ways that the age of the Universe can be estimated

13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. based on cosmological model based on Hubble constant

11.5-17.5 Gyr based on radioactive decay estimation of chemical elements

15.6 +/- 4.6 Gyr based on radioactive dating of old stars - based on two stars: CS 22892-052 and HD 115444.

14.1 +/- 2.5 Gyr based on radioactive dating of old stars - based on star CS 31082-001

14.6 +/- 1.7 Gyr based on age of globular clusters - Chaboyer

8.5 - 13.3 Gyr with 12.1 being most likely based on age of globular clusters - Gratton et al

11 - 13 Gyr based on mean age of the oldest globular clusters - Reid

11.5 +/- 1.3 Gyr based on mean age of the oldest globular clusters - Chaboyer et al.

12.8 +/- 1.1 Gyr based on ages of white dwarfs in the globular cluster M4 - Hansen et al.

Age Estimates of Globular Clusters in the Milky Way: Constraints on Cosmology

we find, on the basis of main sequence turnoff estimates of the age of the oldest globular clusters in our galaxy, a 95% confidence level lower limit on the age of the Universe of 11.2 Ga, and a best fit age of 13.4 Ga.

COSMOLOGY - LECTURES 6 AND 7:

The expansion age of the Universe is approximately the inverse of the Hubble constant (1/Ho ~ 1.3 x 10¹⁰ yrs).

Dr. Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish Israeli Physicist and a Kabbalist.

Apparently you are now reading the article. Yes, he is not Christian, he does not believe Jesus Christ was Messiah. Does that diminish or enhance his scientific credentials in your view? I don't believe (I'm uncertain) he is a Kabbalist. He does however study the commentary of Nachmanides who is Kabbalist: Schroeder explained his reasoning up front in the article:

So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists.

How is that for credibility?

I think it's excellent. Who better to comment on the meaning of ancient Torah text (with its intricacies of spelling, grammar, letter shapes, cadence, parallelism, etc) than ancient Hebrew sages. Why not study their commentary? Or, do you think it somehow clouded Dr. Schroeder's mind and caused him to commit a math error somewhere in his article?

I've answered your question without hesitation, and to your satisfaction unless you are completely unreasonable.

Well, not quite. Now, Dr. Schroeder hasn't written "abstract bullshit"; he didn't assume the earth and universe were created at the same time; and he didn't pull "numbers out of his ass" either. Perhaps your teachers gave you credit for incorrect answers, but I don't. Or is that unreasonable of me?

So, unless you're busy correcting all the above cosmologists on the foolishness of their estimates, perhaps you can again turn your attention to actual errors Dr. Schroeder has made, or maybe you'd care to explain any errors made by Rashi, Maimonides, and Nachmanides in their commentaries? (BTW, I have copies of Nachmanides "Commentray on the Torah (5 volumes) and Maimonides "Guide of the Perplexed" (2 volumes) so don't worry, I'll be able to follow you right along).

Starwind  posted on  2005-06-18   17:05:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Below are several excerpts from cosmological papers dealing with measuring the age of the universe, published between 1999-2003. There are several ways cosmologists measure the age of the Universe (discussed below in the links), the most common being the inverse of the Hubble expansion constant, while others are based on various dating techniques of white dwarfs and globular clusters.

That's the beauty of science. It allows for theories which can be adjusted, debated, pondered, etc. Religion, OTH demands a rigorous orthodoxy which insists on not questioning our invisible friend in the sky.

As far as I know, these studies you posted are still just that: theory. Unless you can link to where this aging method has been accepted as cosmological law (you know, that "fact" thing you keep sqwaking about) then I will accept the point.

Essentially, they establish the most widely accepted age of the universe being about 15 billion years, with a range of at least 11 billion to not likely more than 17 billion.

There were many theories on the age of the Earth. To quote Bill Bryson "Human beings would split the atom and invent television, nylon, and instant coffee before they could figure out the age of their own planet." And these were debated, pondered, studied and adjusted since minds first began questioning things (they were heretics worthy of death in the eyes of your school, btw). How many adjustments to their calculations had to be made before we knew the truth?

And you think the age of the Universe has been definitively pinpointed in the small amount of time that transpired? Hell, it was once accepted that Earth was only thousands of years old. And scholars could prove it.

Okay, so there is a theory on the age of the Universe. Great. Now what is so spectacular about a medicine man dividing that number by 6 and adjusting the offsets a little?

And where do our bipedal ancestors and cousins play into the Creation story?

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-06-18   17:31:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That's the beauty of science. It allows for theories which can be adjusted, debated, pondered, etc. Religion, OTH demands a rigorous orthodoxy which insists on not questioning our invisible friend in the sky.

As far as I know, these studies you posted are still just that: theory. Unless you can link to where this aging method has been accepted as cosmological law (you know, that "fact" thing you keep sqwaking about) then I will accept the point.

I never said science had all the answers, nor did I say the bible answered every scientific question. I said there were some biblical accounts that could be interpreted literally to which scientific observation could also be reconciled and I gave the age of the universe and the "six days" of creation as an example.

You now seem to not like questioning by scientific facts and it seems you are the one arguing the limitations of science, aren't you. It does seem now that it is science that is lacking here, isn't it.

I suggest if you are all that serious about pursuing the truth, then you go study cosmology and how the age of the universe is measured and upon which laws of physics such measurements depend and what are the limits of precision and resolution of the instruments used to make those measurements. Let us all know what you find. I certainly wouldn't want you to take it on faith from me.

And you think the age of the Universe has been definitively pinpointed in the small amount of time that transpired?

You continue, blatantly, to impute viewpoints to me I never made. I listed a range for the age of the universe. My exact words, again, were " Essentially, they establish the most widely accepted age of the universe being about 15 billion years, with a range of at least 11 billion to not likely more than 17 billion. " No where did I imply it had "been definitively pinpointed". But you needed something to argue about and so you fabricated yet another strawman, didn't you.

Hell, it was once accepted that Earth was only thousands of years old. And scholars could prove it.

And flat as well. So what?

Okay, so there is a theory on the age of the Universe. Great. Now what is so spectacular about a medicine man dividing that number by 6 and adjusting the offsets a little?

Ok, I'll accept that as a grudging "no contest plea" that the six days of creation can be reconciled to the measured age of the universe.

And where do our bipedal ancestors and cousins play into the Creation story?

I don't know. I don't agree they are our ancestors and cousins, nor has science proven otherwise. While the fossil record does in fact demonstrate their existence, strikingly absent from the fossil record (after nearly 100 years of futile searching) is any proof that we are their genetic evolutionary descendants. Why do we and they have "tail bones" I don't know. Just another of sciences' limitations to determine why, so far. Where do they fit in the Creation story? Somewhere in Gen 1:20-25. There was ample time for their existance as well as their demise at the hands of whatever befell them.

Related to that, you asked earlier:

The bigger problem for you is during those billions of years, things happened that the biblical authors weren't wise to. Giant animals were the undisputed stewards of the land, not man as the bible states. After their extinction simple hominids came to being, then intermediate hominids, then advanced hominids. Which one's were created in God's image? The Neanderthal? The Erectus? The Sapiens? If the latter represent God's image, what were the former? Beta tests?

The biblical authors don't concern themselves with what they are "wise to" (or ignorant of for that matter). They merely write what God inspires them to write. The bible teaches it is all inspired by God, what is to have been recorded and revealed. Some guy didn't sit on a rock somewhere and think, "Hmm.... now what bit of paleontological information ought I record for posterity?". Regardless, what little the bible does tells us about 'dinosaurs' is again, the six day creation allows time for their existance and demise, but further in the case of dinosaurs, Job 41 hints at their existance when God (speaking to Job) alludes to "Leviathan". What species that actually was, I don't know. Perhaps a dinosaur, but it also has aspects of a mythical dragon and Psalm 104:26 makes it sound like a sea serpent or whale. There isn't enough information (at least for me) to reach any conclusion.

You also asked earlier:

If presented with sincere questions such as how Noah's Arc could hold a pair of every animal in existence, millions of species including those native to far away regions which none of the biblical authors even knew about or how people used to live to be several hundred years old or snakes and donkeys used to talk with human voices, you would casually brush it off as a matter of faith or link to god-knows-what.

I too have wondered about how Noah's ark could hold all the genera let alone species that would seem to have re-populated the earth after the flood. I don't know.

I would like to see an expedition get up Mt. Ararat to see what remants of an ark if any are actually there. I'd also like to see the Shroud of Turin tested again for a DNA sample if possible. And I'd like to see the various archeological digs around the world proceed unmolested.

Do I brush these questions off as a matter of faith? Not hardly. I have sought and continue to seek real answers. I just don't always have an intelligent one yet. Does that make me believe the bible is false? Of course not. Unknowns are not the same as falsehoods. Perhaps some day the answers to these questions will fall in place. Just like with the cosmological age of the universe being reconciled with a "six day" creation. Intelligent answers can be had when enough information is collected.

What I do find personally highly faith affirming is the transformation in my life as a believer in Jesus Christ. A transformation only people who know me see, but a transformation that is so unmistakable to me (on the inside) that it can't be denied or excused away. A transformation that happens pretty much as the bible says it would. For me the rest is details. Interesting to be sure, and I strive to be accurate in my search for confirmation of biblical authenticity whenever possible, but nonetheless mere details relative to my knowing Jesus.

As I said at the beginning of this exchange, some biblical accounts are to be interpreted literally, and some of those can be subjected to verification. When possible, I do.

Right, the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts.

What this thread amply demonstrates is that the answers given by the faithful rarely satisfy the questioner, whose motive all too often is merely to ridicule the faith. Look back and note that whether my answer was scientific, biblical, historical, pure faith, or don't know, you took pains to dismiss or ridicule it.

It isn't that the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts, rather it is that scientific questioners don't like the faithful.

Starwind  posted on  2005-06-18   21:43:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I too have wondered about how Noah's ark could hold all the genera let alone species that would seem to have re-populated the earth after the flood. I don't know.

Think out of the box, and I bet you could figure it out pretty fast/ ;)

tom007  posted on  2005-06-18   23:43:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 73.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]