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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish' Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow? Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest Death Certificates Reveal FBI 'Revised' Murder Stats Still Bogus A $110B bubble on $500M earnings. History warns: Bubbles always burst. Joy Behar says people like their show because they tell the truth, unlike "dragon believer" Joe Rogan. Male Passenger Disappointed After Another Flight Ends Without A Stewardess Frantically Asking If Anyone Can Land The Plane Could the Rapid Growth of AI Boost Gold Demand? LOOK AT MY ASS!

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
Source: Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
Published: Feb 5, 2009
Author: Jason Lisle
Post Date: 2009-02-05 15:38:06 by Old Friend
Keywords: None
Views: 3499
Comments: 305

Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.

Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old.

The distant starlight question has caused some people to question cosmic distances. “Do we really know that galaxies are so far away? Perhaps they are much closer, so the light really doesn’t travel very far.”1 However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past. Moreover, they are a part of observational science (as opposed to historical/origins science); they are testable and repeatable in the present. You could repeat the experiment to determine the distance to a star or galaxy, and you would get approximately the same answer. So we have good reason to believe that space really is very big. In fact, the amazing size of the universe brings glory to God (Psalm 19:1).

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. Let me suggest that the answer to distant starlight lies in some of the unstated assumptions that secular astronomers make. The Assumptions of Light Travel-time Arguments

Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable—any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let’s examine a few of these assumptions. The Constancy of the Speed of Light

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.2 At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary” parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.3 Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different.

This is a legitimate concern. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known. Some creation scientists are actively researching questions relating to the speed of light. Other creation scientists feel that the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light is probably reasonable and that the solution to distant starlight lies elsewhere. The Assumption of Rigidity of Time

Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.

It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. Assumptions of Synchronization

Another way in which the relativity of time is important concerns the topic of synchronization: how clocks are set so that they read the same time at the same time.4 Relativity has shown that synchronization is not absolute. In other words, if one person measures two clocks to be synchronized, another person (moving at a different speed) would not necessarily measure those two clocks to be synchronized. As with time-dilation, this effect is counterintuitive because it is too small to measure in most of our everyday experience. Since there is no method by which two clocks (separated by a distance) can be synchronized in an absolute sense, such that all observers would agree regardless of motion, it follows that there is some flexibility in how we choose what constitutes synchronized clocks. The following analogy may be helpful.

Imagine that a plane leaves a certain city at 4:00 p.m. for a two-hour flight. However, when the plane lands, the time is still 4:00. Since the plane arrived at the same time it left, we might call this an instantaneous trip. How is this possible? The answer has to do with time zones. If the plane left Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. local time, it would arrive in Colorado at 4:00 p.m. local time. Of course, an observer on the plane would experience two hours of travel. So, the trip takes two hours as measured by universal time. However, as long as the plane is traveling west (and providing it travels fast enough), it will always naturally arrive at the same time it left as measured in local time.

There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.5 The Assumption of Naturalism

One of the most overlooked assumptions in most arguments against the Bible is the assumption of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nature is “all that there is.” Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law.

This would certainly have been the case during Creation Week. God created the universe supernaturally. He created it from nothing, not from previous material (Hebrews 11:3). Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars or new kinds of creatures. This is because God ended His work of creation by the seventh day. Today, God sustains the universe in a different way than how He created it. However, the naturalist erroneously assumes that the universe was created by the same processes by which it operates today. Of course it would be absurd to apply this assumption to most other things. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument

Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This serious difficulty for the big bang is called the “horizon problem.” 6 The following are the details. Figure 1 & 2

The Horizon Problem

In the big bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different locations (Figure 1). Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded (Figure 2), and points A and B are now widely separated.

However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance— beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today. We know this because we see electromagnetic radiation coming from all directions in space in the form of microwaves. This is called the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB). The frequencies of radiation have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K (-455°F) and are extremely uniform in all directions. The temperature deviates by only one part in 105.

The problem is this: How did points A and B come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy. Likewise, point A can give energy to point B in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light), which is the fastest way to transfer energy since nothing can travel faster than light. However, using the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. After all, A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today, and so must have exchanged light multiple times.

Big bang supporters have proposed a number of conjectures which attempt to solve the big bang’s light travel-time problem. One of the most popular is called “inflation.” In “inflationary” models, the universe has two expansion rates: a normal rate and a fast inflation rate. The universe begins with the normal rate, which is actually quite rapid, but is slow by comparison to the next phase. Then it briefly enters the inflation phase, where the universe expands much more rapidly. At a later time, the universe goes back to the normal rate. This all happens early on, long before stars and galaxies form.

The inflation model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the first normal expansion) and to then be pushed apart during the inflation phase to the enormous distances at which they are located today. But the inflation model amounts to nothing more than storytelling with no supporting evidence at all. It is merely speculation designed to align the big bang to conflicting observations. Moreover, inflation adds an additional set of problems and difficulties to the big bang model, such as the cause of such inflation and a graceful way to turn it off. An increasing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting inflation for these reasons and others. Clearly, the horizon problem remains a serious light travel-time problem for the big bang.

The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light travel-time problem—distant starlight. But such an argument is not rational since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the same problem in essence7, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang. Conclusions

So, we’ve seen that the critics of creation must use a number of assumptions in order to use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. And many of these assumptions are questionable. Do we know that light has always propagated at today’s speed? Perhaps this is reasonable, but can we be absolutely certain, particularly during Creation Week when God was acting in a supernatural way? Can we be certain that the Bible is using “cosmic universal time,” rather than the more common “cosmic local time” in which light reaches earth instantly?

We know that the rate at which time flows is not rigid. And although secular astronomers are well aware that time is relative, they assume that this effect is (and has always been) negligible, but can we be certain that this is so? And since stars were made during Creation Week when God was supernaturally creating, how do we know for certain that distant starlight has arrived on earth by entirely natural means? Furthermore, when big bang supporters use distant starlight to argue against biblical creation, they are using a self-refuting argument since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.

As creation scientists research possible solutions to the distant starlight problem, we should also remember the body of evidence that is consistent with the youth of the universe. We see rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last multiple billions of years because they would be twisted-up beyond recognition. We see multitudes of hot blue stars, which even secular astronomers would agree cannot last billions of years.8 In our own solar system we see disintegrating comets and decaying magnetic fields that cannot last billions of years; and there is evidence that other solar systems have these things as well. Of course, such arguments also involve assumptions about the past. That is why, ultimately, the only way to know about the past for certain is to have a reliable historic record written by an eyewitness. That is exactly what we have in the Bible.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: Old Friend (#0)

In a very real sense, the past is as uncertain as the future; more than one previous state of affairs could have led to the present.

The Ptolemaic system wasn't wrong, exactly, in its time. Neither was Newtonian physics. Big Bang proponents would do well to remember that.

When they do, they sound less like priests protecting their cash cows.

Erectus Walks Amongst Us

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2009-02-05   15:47:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

People like you can teach this in your church basements if you'd like, but don't try to push this stuff on school children.

This is sort of like the work of those who tried to disprove Galieo, insisting that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Sun, Planets, and stars revolved around it...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   15:47:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Big Bang proponents would do well to remember that.

The Big Bang DOES prove the existance of God, as the Universe materialized out of an unknown and undefined state of existance or non-existance, and why it happened can't be explained. It pretty much infers that it was CREATED out of nothing.

That the way it happened doesn't match word for word with the mistranslated words of an ancient people who had no concept of modern science shouldn't mean that it is conflict with the belief in a Creator. It simply means that you don't know everything there is to know, nor will you EVER know much of anything if you refuse to open your eyes and accept the mystery of God as He is, rather than what YOU want God to be...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   15:53:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

Some creation scientists believe.... Believe?

A creation scientist has an agenda, simply by calling themselves creation scientists.

The universe, as measured, is about 13.5 billion years old. Now in order to get that number down to 6000 years, a whole lot of shenanigans has to be worked regarding the speed of light and the passage of time. "Believing" that these numbers aren't what they were in the past does not help them in their case of proving anything. It makes them look like idiots.

Then he has the gall to say, and I quote, "So, we’ve seen that the critics of creation must use a number of assumptions in order to use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. "

-------> LOOK AT THE ASSUMPTIONS HE IS MAKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <-----------

And, I AM NOT A "CRITIC OF CREATION"!!! I believe in creation, I just dont buy this idiots nonsense!

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   15:55:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sophistry - noun: a method of reasoning or argumentation that is intended to be subtly deceptive and/or misleading.

See, here's the problem with the whole 'god' thing: If you accept it as a premise, then everything can be answered by stating "it's how 'god' made it" or "it's how 'god' intended" or "it's 'god's' will". No need for any further inquiry is necessary, no need for logic, or reason, or theory or experiment or rational thought or discussion. Easy as pie. Just say "It's what 'god' wants" and you're all set.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei, who was forced by the Catholic church to recant his belief in heliocentrism (the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around) and who spent the remainder of his life under house arrest on orders of the Roman Inquisition. Tried and condemned in 1633. Pardoned in 1992, 359 years later.

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

Elliott Jackalope  posted on  2009-02-05   16:00:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the mystery of God as He is

Oh but I do. For example, He made blacks less intelligent than all other races.

Erectus Walks Amongst Us

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2009-02-05   16:00:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Does distant starlight prove an old universe?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:07:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're exactly right. But there is "logic, or reason, or theory or experiment or rational thought or discussion. " and worldly "christians" are not honestly capable of doing it. This is so typical, and there is no reason for any of it.

It drives me nuts. It's as if somehow Gods' existence will somehow be scientifically disproven, and they're worried, so they give science a bad name. A preemptive strike, if you will.

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   16:11:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In the big bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different locations (Figure 1). Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded (Figure 2), and points A and B are now widely separated.

Actually, it is said that space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang. The expansion is actually the expansion of space within the big bang singularity, where the universe could be seen as a ballon, and space is the air inside it, simply speaking anyways...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   16:11:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Does distant starling prove an old universe?

Starling?

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   16:12:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

He made blacks less intelligent than all other races.

Is that what you believe?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   16:13:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I fixed it.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:14:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Does distant starlight prove an old universe?

Yes, if you mean anything older than 6000 years, considering the age is in billions of year, not thousands, not millions, but billions...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   16:17:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Actually, it is said that space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang. The expansion is actually the expansion of space within the big bang singularity, where the universe could be seen as a ballon, and space is the air inside it, simply speaking anyways...

The big bang theory is outdated. You should keep up.

On the Silliness of the Big Bang Hypothesis

Miriam English

Look out into deep space and you'll see objects whose light left them a long time ago ago. In 1929 Edwin Hubble published his finding of redshifts in the light of distant objects. The more distant an object was, the greater its redshift. It seemed natural to many to assume that this redshift is the result of those objects speeding away from us. This always struck me as simplistic.

The reasoning goes this way: If all these things are speeding away from each other, then in the past they must have been closer together. Extrapolating backwards, so the thinking goes, you should reach some point of origin -- the source of the universe!

This seems incredibly naïve, and doesn't actually explain anything. It uses an unproven assumption (that redshift is attributable solely to velocity) and some unknown mechanism to create all of the universe in a split second. You might as well believe in some grey-haired old man in the sky who did it all like in Genesis!!

According to the Big Bang hypothesis there should be a limit to how far "back in time" we can look when viewing distant objects. If objects can be seen "further back" than that limit, would it disprove the Big Bang? No. The Big Bang is not science, because there is no clear way to disprove it. In that respect it is like a religion. Finding older objects out there simply revises the "age" of the universe. This has happened before, when we got better telescopes that could see more distant objects, and it will happen again, each time we can see further.

One thing proponents of the Big Bang like to say is that space itself is expanding. But if space inflated like a balloon we would notice no change as we would be inflating with all the other space around and within us. Dimension is only good for measuring things against other things. If everything has expanded then nothing has changed! Of course, these people generally shift gear at this point and say they don't mean that space itself expands (even though it is actually what they say), they mean that the distance between objects has expanded, but that objects themselves are held together by gravity and electromagnetic forces. If that's so then they're guilty of using a spooky way of saying something mundane in order to give it a mystical gloss. An unexpected aspect is that if space really was expanding then it seems to me that this might actually prevent the redshift occurring in the first place! If space expands, but the things in it remain the same size, then would light waves remain the same size too? If space is expanding then is there even any doppler effect? Because now the objects aren't moving through space at all.

Probably the most abhorrent of all is the reintroduction of a single center for the universe. Aristotle strikes again! After Europe was the center of the world, we found out oops, Earth is round; there is no center. So then the Earth was the center of the universe, but oops! No, we orbit the sun. So our sun is the center of the universe. But oops again, we find that the stars out there are billions of other suns just like ours. So then our galaxy must be the center of the universe, but oops! we find that there are countless other galaxies out there. Each time we set a center we are forced to to rethink. Quite frankly, the idea that there could be any center in time or space seems to me totally absurd! I really don't understand people's difficulty with infinity.

The Big Bang people have learned to be incredibly slippery, and many will protest that there is no central point in the universe that it all came from, that all this is the center, because it all came from the same event. But this is just playing with words. You can ask them how big the universe supposed is to be now, and they'll come up with a number (about 12 billion light years across). Then you can ask them how big it was 6 billion years ago, and they'll come up with a smaller number. You can ask them how big it was 11 billion years ago and they'll give you an even smaller number. You can ask them how big the universe was when it was a billionth of a second old, and they'll give you a very small number. Yet they hate being pinned down to saying that the universe has a center.

O.K. So getting back to the redshift, how else can we explain it?

Well, space is not empty; there is lots of gas and dust, and gravitational and magnetic fields out there. I find it difficult to believe that light would travel millions, or billions of years through all that without losing some energy. Light waves, unlike sound waves, can't dissipate energy by losing intensity so they would have to fall in frequency. We would see this as, surprise, surprise, a redshift.

There is another possible cause of light losing energy over those immense distances. Low frequency electromagnetic waves spread out as they travel. The higher the frequency, the less this spread is and the tighter the beam. Might not the waves that are individual visible light photons spread very slightly over the cosmic distances they travel? And as they spread, they lose energy. As pointed out earlier, a quantum of light can't lose energy in intensity so the only way for it to dissipate energy is to drop in frequency. Redshift.

I am not saying that all redshift is due to energy loss from these sources and none is due to doppler. But I do think that jumping to a conclusion that creates the entire universe in an instant from some unknowable magic is a bit hard to swallow!

To believe that redshift results solely from velocities would appear to lead us to either the Big Bang or Steady State. While I find the Steady State more appealing (and it has been by no means disproved, contrary to what the prevailing dogma would have you believe) it too invokes spontaneous creation of matter. And I have seen no evidence of this happening either gradually (Steady State) or suddenly (Big Bang). If the redshift is simply light losing energy on its way through space then there is no need for either.

What of the microwave background radiation? Leave aside the fact that it is not a vindication of the Big Bang (in fact was considered a disproof of it when it was found to be "lumpy" but theories were tweaked and the Big Bang bent to fit). If light is dropping in frequency over vast distances I expect it would reach microwave frequncies. Does this explain it? I don't know, but I find the idea of "fossil radiation" still hanging around from the point of creation to be a bit dumb. Isn't this supposed to be travelling at the speed of light? And we have been travelling outward at less than the speed of light. That means the wavefront is racing ahead of us doesn't it? Some people will say that the waves curve around back to us. But that doesn't make sense. We continue to escape the gravity well and fly outward, but for some reason the microwave radiation which has been travelling just as long as we have, can't?? Anyway that's a circular argument (no pun intended); it relies on the matter in the universe occupying a limited volume, as if it expanded out from a central point. You can't use it to "prove" itself.

After all that, please understand that I'm not saying that there definitely was no big bang to create the local or observable universe. I'm just saying that the evidence is too thin to conclude that it did. The information we have could point in a number of different directions, if we let it. The Steady State is one such possibility. To jump to conclusions and simply believe that there was a big bang is a big mistake.

There are too many things which don't sound right.

* The entire universe created in an instant by magic (what would you call an unknown and possibly unknowable event?). * All this energy and matter escaping an incredible gravity well. * The illogical idea that space itself is expanding. * The reintroduction of a singular central point in time and space for the start of the universe. * The microwave background radiation somehow hanging around from the big event instead of speeding off away from us.

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and smells like a duck... I think it smells like a very dead one.

Note: You may have noticed that I referred to the Big Bang as a hypothesis, not a theory. This is because a theory is a statement or proposition that is proved by logical reasoning from given facts and justifiable assumptions. That's like the theory of evolution, which is clearly a fact because we see it in action every day and can prove it logically any number of ways. In contrast a hypothesis is merely a supposition put forward in explanation of observed facts. Until we can logically prove the creation of everything from it, the Big Bang must remain a hypothesis.

(The two definitions above came from the Penguin Dictionary of Science, by E.B. Uvarov and Alan Isaacs, 7th Edition.)

http://miriam-english.org/articles/sillyBigBang.html

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:19:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Does distant starlight prove an old universe?

Yes,

How so. Scientifically prove it.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:20:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This is over your head. But here

One thing proponents of the Big Bang like to say is that space itself is expanding. But if space inflated like a balloon we would notice no change as we would be inflating with all the other space around and within us. Dimension is only good for measuring things against other things. If everything has expanded then nothing has changed! Of course, these people generally shift gear at this point and say they don't mean that space itself expands (even though it is actually what they say), they mean that the distance between objects has expanded, but that objects themselves are held together by gravity and electromagnetic forces. If that's so then they're guilty of using a spooky way of saying something mundane in order to give it a mystical gloss. An unexpected aspect is that if space really was expanding then it seems to me that this might actually prevent the redshift occurring in the first place! If space expands, but the things in it remain the same size, then would light waves remain the same size too? If space is expanding then is there even any doppler effect? Because now the objects aren't moving through space at all.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:23:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Does distant starlight prove an old universe?

Yes. And prove it? You want me to reinvent the wheel? It's already been proven by people a lot smarter about it than I am.

To ask anyone to prove it all over again is silly, IMO.

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   16:24:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So your answer is someone smarter then you told you so and you believe it. Well that proves absolutely nothing. I guess from now on we should all just cut and paste our opinions.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:26:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'll believe the physicists who study and research these things rather than a blogger without a clue of what she's talking about...

I found this interesting BTW;

There are too many things which don't sound right.

* The entire universe created in an instant by magic

Well gee whiz Old Friend, isn't that what you believe? The argument here isn't IF it happened, it's WHEN and HOW...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   16:29:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So your answer is someone smarter then you told you so and you believe it. Well that proves absolutely nothing. I guess from now on we should all just cut and paste our opinions.

OK, I await your check in the amount of, oh, lets say $100,000. That will get me started in college. But be very prepared to write more checks. VERY prepared.

Then, I will await another check for, say, 1.5 million dollars for the necessary equipment. But again, that is an estimate. Keep that checkbook handy.

Then there's rental time on an observatory that you need to pay for. I hear that's not cheap either. That = even more checks.

I hope you have deep pockets.

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   16:32:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The argument here isn't IF it happened, it's WHEN and HOW...

I'll believe the physicists who study and research these things

The argument is the authority of Gods word.

You also just admitted that you don't know what you are talking about and just believe it because he is a "physicist who study and research these things"

You take it on faith.

Distant starlight is not proof of an old universe. You have failed to make your case. That would mean that I win by default.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:34:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

OK, I await your check in the amount of, oh, lets say $100,000. That will get me started in college. But be very prepared to write more checks. VERY prepared.

Then, I will await another check for, say, 1.5 million dollars for the necessary equipment. But again, that is an estimate. Keep that checkbook handy.

Then there's rental time on an observatory that you need to pay for. I hear that's not cheap either. That = even more checks.

I hope you have deep pockets.

You really think that you have to do all that in order to prove that distant light proves an old universe?

It is not that complicated.

God could very well have created the universe in working order. Couldn't he have done that? If you say he couldn't have done that I would like to know why. If you admit the truth, that he very well could have, then that would mean that distant starlight doesn't prove squat.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:38:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Is that what you believe?

Don't ask me why He did so. It's kind of inconvenient for everybody.

Erectus Walks Amongst Us

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2009-02-05   16:38:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You really think that you have to do all that in order to prove that distant light proves an old universe?

Yes. You asked me to prove it all over again. That is what it would take to prove it all over again.

Tell me, what level of "proof" would suffice? Keeping in mind that there are no eyewitnesses. All we have are scientific laws that God set up to teach us about His creation. He conceals it, we find it.

Like I said in your other post, it's not a science vs God fight.

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   16:45:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Like I said in your other post, it's not a science vs God fight.

It is not possilbe to disprove a young earth using the basis that we see light from stars that are light years away. You have to make assumptions to come to that conclusion. You have to assume that universe wasn't completed in working order.

It don't take anything more then your mind to determine that FACT.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:47:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Like I said in your other post, it's not a science vs God fight.

Oh yes it is. When you accept evolution as fact you are saying Gods word isn't true and reliable.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to prove Gods word is truly is his word. It just means that evolution and this millions of years crap is just that junk science crap. Not science at all.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   16:50:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is not possilbe to disprove a young earth using the basis that we see light from stars that are light years away.

Yes it is. But that level of proof will not be good enough for you. Which is why I asked you what kind of proof you would accept.

YOU have to make assumptions to come to any other conclusion. YOU have to assume the speed of light changed, gravity changed, etc. Or YOU have to assume God created it all without regard to scientific laws HE created in the first place.

I dont have to assume any such thing.

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   16:54:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Evolution is a different topic. I don't buy the evolution argument either. THings adapt and change, but you dont get 1 kind of animal from another kind of animal much less any kind of creature from some kind of ooze being hit by lightning..

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   16:57:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

How so. Scientifically prove it.

Do you think every astrophysicist in the world is a moron? Look, light travels 186,000 miles per second. So that means it travels 5,865,696,000,000 (5.8 trillion) miles in a year. The sun is 93 million miles away from Earth.

So the sun is 1/63,000 of a light year away from Earth, or 1 astronomical unit (AU).

Likewise, light travels 63,000 AU in one year. Incidently, the furthest known solar planet is Pluto, which is at its most distant 49 AU away.

Thus, in your theory, the entire universe could only have a diameter of 2 * 6000 * 63,000 AU, or 252 million AU. With all of the planets, stars, and galaxies that we can see, the gravitational attraction between them would be so great if they were to fit into this little ball of space your theory postulates, then the universe would collapse upon itself. It certainly wouldn't be expanding.

As it is, it is not so small, where the furthest galaxies can be seen out to about 12 billion light years away, or 756 trillion AU, meaning the observable universe is at least 1512 TRILLION AU in radius, about 6 million times larger than your theory allows for.

For information on how the distance of stars and galaxies are determined, read this...

Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   16:58:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Evolution is a different topic.

It is different to a degree. But these junk sciences all lean on each other. This junk science starlight hypothosis gives credence to billions of years. Then some other "scientist" bases his theories on it. And so on.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:12:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yes it is. But that level of proof will not be good enough for you.

Proof would be certainty. Like 1 + 1 = 2.

Can't be done. Admit it.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:13:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So you can determine distance. No one disagrees with that. Doesn't prove the universe is old.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:15:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity

Whoever wrote this doesn't understand relativity at all. If we could move a clock at the speed of light, it would still tick at a "normal" speed provided we moved with the clock. It would only slow down from the point of view of a reference observing it. The same is true for a clock in a gravitational field - if you are in the same field, the clock acts as if there is no gravity at all.

And when he talks about the colors and distances of stars, it's clear that the loon has never heard of redshift.

These guys should stick to thumping their Bibles and stop embarassing themselves with rhetoric that wouldn't impress anyone with a high school science education.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-05   17:21:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So you can determine distance. No one disagrees with that. Doesn't prove the universe is old.

Read the link I provided. If you can't understand it, or refuse to even read what it says, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it all to you.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:21:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is different to a degree. But these junk sciences all lean on each other. This junk science starlight hypothosis gives credence to billions of years. Then some other "scientist" bases his theories on it. And so on.

In other words -

Astronomers are all wrong. Geologists are all wrong. Physicists are all wrong. Chemists are all wrong. Biologists are all wrong. They're either all ignorant, or there's a grand conspiracy to cover up the truth - aka the myths of 2 millenium BC Jewish goat herders and Old Friend's Church of Zion.

Sorry, but things that we can actually measure (isotope content, wavelengths of light) will trump fairy tales for most reasonable people.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-05   17:23:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

These guys should stick to thumping their Bibles and stop embarassing themselves with rhetoric that wouldn't impress anyone with a high school science education.

I know he's just phd and has written and published several books. He doesn't know squat compared to you.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:26:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The best example of sophistry is this:

That is why, ultimately, the only way to know about the past for certain is to have a reliable historic record written by an eyewitness. That is exactly what we have in the Bible

So then, I guess I should go looking for Cyclopses off the coast of Greece. Homer's ODYSSEY says so, a historical record of people WHO WERE THERE. That's the logic of Biblical literalists, pure and simple.

I suppose it also means that we can never convict criminals based on physical evidence. If we can't use redshift or isotope decay to say things about the history of the universe and the earth, we can't use blood, DNA, or fingerprint evidence in criminal courts either. Why. Because "the only way to know about the past is from eyewitnesses."

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-05   17:26:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

He doesn't know squat compared to you.

He makes mistakes when discussing light spectra and relativity that an average high school kid wouldn't make. Let me guess - his PhD is from the Creation "Science" institute.

Right up there with mail order diplomas.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-05   17:27:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In other words -

Astronomers are all wrong. Geologists are all wrong. Physicists are all wrong. Chemists are all wrong. Biologists are all wrong. They're either all ignorant, or there's a grand conspiracy to cover up the truth - aka the myths of 2 millenium BC Jewish goat herders and Old Friend's Church of Zion.

No in other words you are wrong. The author of this piece is an astronomer. As for the other fields opinion is varied there too.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:27:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So you can determine distance. No one disagrees with that. Doesn't prove the universe is old.

If the distance is correct, then how do you think light from a star further away than 6000 light years gets here? If that object is measured to be 6 MILLION light years away, how do you explain it's light at all? The fact is, the earth didn't start to revolve around the sun when men started sending satellites into space, just as the stars didn't start emitting light from 14 BILLION light years away 6000 years ago.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:29:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That is why, ultimately, the only way to know about the past for certain is to have a reliable historic record written by an eyewitness. That is exactly what we have in the Bible

Who is the eyewitness who wrote Genesis I wonder? Are they trying to say a man lived back then to see it all happen, and wrote it down in a book?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:31:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If the distance is correct, then how do you think light from a star further away than 6000 light years gets here?

It travels here at the speed of light. Big deal.

Now tell me why God couldn't have created his world complete. Meaning the starlight was already visible to the people here. To use for seasons etc.

Why are you limiting what God can do? Why is that impossible?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:32:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Who is the eyewitness who wrote Genesis I wonder? Are they trying to say a man lived back then to see it all happen, and wrote it down in a book?

Various people carried it orally and possibly written too. Until someone like Moses put it together for the people. That is my take. Could be wrong.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:34:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Who is the eyewitness who wrote Genesis I wonder? Are they trying to say a man lived back then to see it all happen, and wrote it down in a book?

I what way is the Book of Genesis any more an eye witness account than Homer's Odyssey or the Thousand and One Nights? Only a lunatic would use ancient Greek myths or Arab/Persian fairy tales as a serious source on science or history. How are Jewish myths and fairy tales any different?

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-05   17:35:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?

No! Who gives a shit anyway. It just proves that the batteries are run down and that they should have used the copper topped battery.

LACUMO  posted on  2009-02-05   17:35:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?

No!

Damn boy. You have some sense after all. Starlight doesn't prove a young or an old universe. They don't get that it isn't proveable.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:37:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Who gives a shit anyway.

Well you should. Since some of your beliefs ahem evolution are partially based on that junk science. Maybe you should take another look at some of those beliefs.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:38:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

That is absolute horse manure. The person who wrote this apparently doesn't realize that just because light travels at the speed it does doesn't mean it takes less time to reach it's destination, it means a PARTICLE traveling at the speed of light would not experience time.

However, light STILL takes as long as it does to reach its destination. If such weren't true, we wouldn't be able to bounce a laser off a distant object and measure it's distance by the amount of time it takes for it to be reflected, as it would take no time at all for the light to travel. In fact, it'd be instananeous.

Einstein's theories state that time dilation occurs as an OBJECT consisting of matter approaches the speed of light, NOT light itself.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:38:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I what way is the Book of Genesis any more an eye witness account than Homer's Odyssey or the Thousand and One Nights?

I think you got me wrong. I was asking WHO the eyewitness was...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:40:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That is absolute horse manure

Read it more carefully next time. He is saying that it takes longer for pluto to orbit the sun then say Earth. So it would be more years on earth to equal one year on pluto.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:40:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I think you got me wrong. I was asking WHO the eyewitness was...

God himself.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:41:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You also just admitted that you don't know what you are talking about and just believe it because he is a "physicist who study and research these things"

You take it on faith.

It isn't faith if you know the math that allows you to follow the argument.

Regardless of the true age of the Universe the distance/time problem is one which is amenable to a mathematical solution.

One does not have to perform the calculation from scratch to follow the mathematics and attendant reasoning. The age of the known universe has been produced and honed on multiple occasions. One does not have to reinvent the wheel to know that wheels roll. Corollary: One does not have to recreate in every minute detail an argument which has been demonstrated in mathematics. One is free to examine it and confirm for one's self that the argument is sound, but there is no need to do it again from scratch. However, that is not what the "Young Earth" crowd does. No, they declare it invalid by authority and then assert their own unproved belief as dictated by their misinterpretations as the only valid conclusion. (Excuse me a moment while I let my stomach muscles relax.)

Oh, by the way, how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin?

As FL pointed out the argument is not was there a creation moment but when and how?

The "Young Earth" Hypothesis (to digify it as a hypothesis) is sorely lacking in evidence. It is all built on supposition, faith (belief in the face of contradictory evidence), and an obstinate unwillingness to allow the known and verifiable facts tell their own story. The only way the "Young Earth Hypothesis" can be sustained is by denying all contradictory evidence and then asserting an argument based solely upon supposition and authority.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-05   17:43:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Various people carried it orally and possibly written too.

Where does the Old Testament explain how the Sumerian civilization come about?

Why doesn't Sumerian history mention anything about Adam and Eve? Oh BTW, how do you explain that the English version of Genesis is wrong, where Adam is not a single man in the original text of the Old Testament, the word means MANKIND (plural of HUMAN).

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:43:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As FL pointed out the argument is not was there a creation moment but when and how?

That's the problem with fanatics, they aren't satisfied with the fact science may very well agree with the idea of Creation, they insist that it has to agree with what they THINK the Old Testament says, where it doesn't even say what they THINK it does.. As I pointed out to OF several times, A-dam in Hebrew means HUMAN(s), and is not the name of a person.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:48:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Proof would be certainty. Like 1 + 1 = 2.

In binary math, 1 + 1 = 10

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:51:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The "Young Earth" Hypothesis (to digify it as a hypothesis) is sorely lacking in evidence. It is all built on supposition, faith (belief in the face of contradictory evidence), and an obstinate unwillingness to allow the known and verifiable facts tell their own story. The only way the "Young Earth Hypothesis" can be sustained is by denying all contradictory evidence and then asserting an argument based solely upon supposition and authority.

Not true. It is evolution that is sorely lacking in evicence. It is built on supposition such as how long starlight takes to get to the earth. You have to take it on faith that God didn't create a working world. It is built on supposition, faith (belief in the face of contradictory evidence such as the helium problem mentioned earlier or what comes first the fuck or the kid.) and an obstinate unwillingness to allow the known and verifiable facts to tell their own story (for example the circular reasoning used to date the earth at billions of years) The only way Evilutionists cultists can be sustained is by denying all contradictory evidence. Such as no intermediary transitional fossils of any kind. Then asserting an argument based solely upon supposition and authority such as "I'll believe the physicists who study and research these things rather than .... It is ridiculous

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:53:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Where does the Old Testament explain how the Sumerian civilization come about?

Why must it explain that to be Gods word?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:54:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Proof would be certainty. Like 1 + 1 = 2.

In hexadecimal math, 8 + 8 = 10

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:55:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I know that I serve a very big God. ;-)

4um Traitor
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-02-05   17:55:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why doesn't Sumerian history mention anything about Adam and Eve?

Because they didn't hand the story down I suppose. How does that invalidate the Bible though?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:56:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why must it explain that to be Gods word?

Because apparently they didn't descend from Adam and Eve, as they aren't mentioned. So then, who made THEM???

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   17:56:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Because apparently they didn't descend from Adam and Eve,

Lots of people don't know where they came from. Big deal. Your grasping as straws to try to disprove the Bible. Why do you hate Gods word?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   17:59:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Proof would be certainty. Like 1 + 1 = 2.

In binary math, 1 + 1 = 10

Axiom: Absolutes are unobtainable in the real world.

Science does not deal in absolutes which is what drives authoritarian thinkers (more) wacky. This applies to Theologians and to Academicians who treat science as an absolute (it also includes the Septical Inquirer crowd who are neither skeptics nor enquirers).

Science says: "Based on the currently available evidence, subject to revision or rewrite upon the presentation of additional evidence, we believe that "X" is the way it is.

To the mind that thinks in absolutes that is not an acceptable answer though it be an honest answer. Fanatics think and act upon "absolutes".

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-05   18:00:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Science does not deal in absolutes which is what drives authoritarian thinkers (more) wacky. This applies to Theologians and to Academicians who treat science as an absolute (it also includes the Septical Inquirer crowd who are neither skeptics nor enquirers).

Science says: "Based on the currently available evidence, subject to revision or rewrite upon the presentation of additional evidence, we believe that "X" is the way it is.

Now here is what the dictionary says and it aint what you said.

Science Definition

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   18:02:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is built on supposition such as how long starlight takes to get to the earth. You have to take it on faith that God didn't create a working world. It is built on supposition, faith

You are the master of hypocricy. You rely on religious superstition and junk "science" to make your case, then label people who study science as superstitious.

A) The speed of light can easily be measured. It can also be determined simply using various calculations. But it CAN be measured.

B) You concede that there are stars that are BILLIONS of light years away.

C) If they are BILLIONS of light years away, then it took BILLIONS of years for the light to get from there to here.

The site I linked had a LOT of information that I doubt you'd bother yourself with, as you are a fanatic that doesn't wish to learn anything, you just want to get on a soapbox and thump your Bible.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   18:03:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Read it more carefully next time. He is saying that it takes longer for pluto to orbit the sun then say Earth. So it would be more years on earth to equal one year on pluto.

Then 1 "day" could represent our solar system revolving around the core of the galaxy. Or some such.

But, I'm done

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   18:05:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

C) If they are BILLIONS of light years away, then it took BILLIONS of years for the light to get from there to here.

Wrong.

Are you saying it would be IMPOSSIBLE for God to make the starlight already visible on earth at the moment of creation since he wanted us to use them for the seasons?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   18:08:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Then 1 "day" could represent our solar system revolving around the core of the galaxy. Or some such.

no it couldn't. It was written to us here on earth.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   18:09:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Proof would be certainty. Like 1 + 1 = 2.

In your own limited way, what you are trying to grasp is the idea of physical evidence. Proof is a result of mathematical logic, not physics or forensic sciences. Physics and forensic sciences are demonstratably superior in sorting facts over fiction versus a bunch of shamanists reading old jewish comic books.

You should be thankful that US courts generally use forensic science versus shamanism to determine truth, or else you would already be resident in the county lock-up for the bad karma you ooze around normal people.

In regard to demonstratable evidence, there is virtually no archeological evidence for any OT biblical myths, especially any biblical claims that involve supernatural phenomena.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....so pony it up or shaddup.

The evidence of a young earth is completly refuted by radiometric dating.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad iometric_dating

I know this information is a complete waste of time with you, but it may stimulate normal people that don't suffer from a pathological case of cranial- rectal inversion.

Googolplex  posted on  2009-02-05   18:16:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Now here is what the dictionary says and it aint what you said.

Science Definition

Scientific truth is open to change as determined by new discoveries.

Fundamentalists have already decided what the "truth" is, so do NOT accept any new discovery unless shoved down their throats hard enough they can't spit it back out, such as the fact the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   18:16:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Fundamentalists have already decided what the "truth" is, so do NOT accept any new discovery unless shoved down their throats hard enough they can't spit it back out, such as the fact the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around

There probably still are some Bible thumpers who think the sun goes around the Earth, but they know it's a losing issue. So they focus on their other pet peeves of science contradicting Middle Eastern fairy tales.

In fact it seems that all but the craziest fundamentalists have dropped "young Earth creationism" as a lost cause for pretty much the same reason (creationists now talk about "intelligent design" in the context of an old Earth and universe). Almost every creationist I've talked to admits that the Earth and the Universe are billions of years old - they've dropped the young Earth as a lost cause and now focus only on evolution as their pet peeve. People like Old Friend will soon seem just as strange and quaint as anti- Copernicans.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-05   18:22:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There are people who actually believe in the "big bang" despite the fact that the "big bang" theory leads to disorder, not order. Macro evolution required progressive order, not disorder. Yet there are people who say they believe in both. This is similar to a person saying they believe the Earth is round then worrying about walking off the edge of it. Total insanity.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2009-02-05   18:30:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you saying it would be IMPOSSIBLE for God to make the starlight already visible on earth at the moment of creation since he wanted us to use them for the seasons?

For the seasons????

Anyways, for that to be possible, then light from a galaxy 12 billion light years away would have needed to have reached us instantly, thus light would not travel at 186,000 miles per second, it would travel instantly EVERYWHERE. So then, what happens after the first day, when light begins to travel at its normal speed?

ANSWER:

It GOES AWAY because the light coming from that distant object no longer reaches us.

Thus we would not see anything from that far away today, as the light will not have reached us yet. If the universe was created 6000 years ago, another 11,999,4000 years would have to go by before we'd ever see that distant galaxy.

In fact, the furthest stars we would see would only be 6000 light years away, as anything further than that would not have reached us yet.

The Milky Way galaxy (the one we live in) is in fact 100,000 light years in diameter. That we can see this means that the universe is at least that old.

But we can see much more than just the Milky Way galaxy. We can see OTHER galaxies that are MILLIONS and BILLIONS of light years away. That is how we can know that the universe is at least that old.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   18:33:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There are people who actually believe in the "big bang" despite the fact that the "big bang" theory leads to disorder, not order.

You have no clue as to what you're talking about.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   18:34:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Read it more carefully next time. He is saying that it takes longer for pluto to orbit the sun then say Earth. So it would be more years on earth to equal one year on pluto.

That is NOT what he's saying. Are you blind? I even copied the part I was commenting on, do you want me to copy it, bold it out, and mark it up in red?

He was refering to light coming from distant stars, saying that time dilates at the speed of light so it takes a shorter time for light to travel than the speed of light, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   18:38:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

God himself.

Prove it. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   18:40:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There are people who actually believe in the "big bang" despite the fact that the "big bang" theory leads to disorder, not order.

You have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Yes you are one of those people.

You believe that order came from disorder because "enough" time passed. Which is similar to believing Santa Clause flies around the world every Christmas and goes down people's chimney's giving them presents.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2009-02-05   18:40:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Lots of people don't know where they came from. Big deal.

But wait a minute. You and your pals "calculate" the age of the universe by adding up the number of years descendents of Adam and Eve lived, ignoring the possibility of some serious gaps in the lineage.

Hebrews were Egyptian slaves, we know that much. But where did they come from before that? Being that Egypt came to be after the Sumerian age, whereas Assyria and Babylon existed between the end of the Sumerian Era up through the Egyptian Era, where do you think those Hebrews came from?

They had to have come from Sumer, as Sumer IS the first KNOWN civilization. In fact, Abraham of the Old Testament is said to have lived in the Sumerian city of Ur.

Now where's all that history? And how do you tie Adam and Eve to Sumer? I want you to tell me this since you appear to consider yourself quite the expert.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   18:55:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You believe that order came from disorder because "enough" time passed.

Explain to me what you think happened during the Big Bang (as stated by theory) . I want you to explain your concept of "disorder"...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   18:56:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You believe that order came from disorder because "enough" time passed. Which is similar to believing Santa Clause flies around the world every Christmas and goes down people's chimney's giving them presents.

Oh, so you think if a system is disturbed, such as a pool of water when a large object is thrown into it, it will never return back to order?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   18:58:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Which is similar to believing Santa Clause flies around the world every Christmas and goes down people's chimney's giving them presents

Ironic, because it's the Bible thumpers whose idea of a scientific explanation is "big Daddy in the sky waved a magic wand, and it was all here."

Which is a lot like believing in the Easter Bunny, as far as I can see.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-05   19:26:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't you love it when Fundies who probably never made it past elementary school science classes start arguing points like "Entropy increases, so evolution is impossible!"

The concept of open vs. closed systems is completely lost on them - local decrease in entropy is possible as long as it increases globally. Nothing deep there - just 10th grade chemistry class stuff. They may as well say "Entropy increases, therefore crystals can't grow, and fertilized eggs can't possible develop into adult people!"

Reading religious nuts talk science is embarassing. I wish they'd open up a grade school text on physical or life science before they posted comments.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-05   19:29:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The only way the "Young Earth Hypothesis" can be sustained is by denying all contradictory evidence and then asserting an argument based solely upon supposition and authority.

And there you go. It's all about being willing to kneel before "authority". If you are willing to kneel before their chosen "authority", then you are peachy keen in their book. If you are not willing to kneel before their chosen "authority", then you are going to suffer infinite torment forever, according to them.

Someday the human race will truly be free. It will happen about five minutes after the last "authority" is strangled with the guts of the last priest...

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

Elliott Jackalope  posted on  2009-02-05   19:30:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You confuse Science and the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is a means of gaining knowledge. It is trial and error; hypothesis and theory.

Science may well be knowledge but Scientific Theories, and there is a distinction between theories and hypotheses and the general term "science", are not absolutes. They are the best explanation of the currently available evidence. The advent of new information can, and often has in the history of science, result in a theory having to be re-written or discarded based upon new evidence. For nearly 2000 years the doctrine of Galen was regarded as the final word - until Harvey, applying the Scientific Method to human physiology, upset the Apple Cart by producing contradictory evidence which resulted in Galen being supplanted.

Tell me - do you think if you sail far enough you will fall off the flat Earth?

Science is knowledge, but it is only as good as the underlying observations and experience. When that changes everything changes.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-05   19:36:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And it's not enough to say God DID create the Universe by way of an event similar to the Big Bang theory, oh no. It has to be "He did it in one day" or they reject it...

It's like kids watching Barney and telling their science teacher that there really are singing purple dinosaurs alive today, they saw it on TV, so dinosaurs CAN'T be extinct...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   19:37:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I wish they'd open up a grade school text on physical or life science before they posted comments.

Thing is, they pick out a few buzz words or phrases, toss them together into a sentence, then try to "prove" something with their mishmash of words...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05   19:41:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Now here is what the dictionary says and it aint what you said.

Science Definition

Scientific truth is open to change as determined by new discoveries.

Fundamentalists have already decided what the "truth" is, so do NOT accept any new discovery unless shoved down their throats hard enough they can't spit it back out, such as the fact the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around...

And because he did not want to be burned at the stake a Catholic Priest by the name of Nicolai Copernicus would not allow his work on planetary motion to be published while he was still living.

One of the problem with absolutists is that they are willing to kill to maintain their absolutes and hence their certainty. New knowledge frightens them to death and is thus discarded or forbidden where they have sway. Look at the mess of the Middle East - much of Islam is still mired in the 7th Century. Heaven forbid that the new knowledge should throw into question matters they, absolutists of all stripes, believe settled.

Brother Gregor Mendel's work languished for a century after his death because the Scientific Community thought it ridiculous. Brother Mendel was vindicated by history and is now regarded as the father of modern genetics.

My problem with Biblicists is that they will not look at history and accept the fact that the Christian Bible has been selectively edited through the centuries. We do not even know what language the Old Testament was first written in. The Talmudists with their ethnophobic pronouncements, and the Levites desiring temporal power at the expense of truth, have perpetrated a great fraud upon the Hebrew People and frequently made of them pariahs among those with whom they live.

All new knowledge is to some degree revolutionary and hence those who wish to fix conditions as they are at some moment in time decry it. In reality that is what the "Young Earth" theorists are attempting to do - to revert back to a world view they find more comfortable and which they would enforce on everyone else. The Taliban is a perfect example of this mindset.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-05   20:26:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just answer the damned question. I've asked twice now.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:40:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sumerian city of Ur.

It doesn't say Sumerian.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:42:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The big bang has already been disproven. The universe isn't only moving outward. Things are moving in all kinds of directions. You need to keep up.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It will happen about five minutes after the last "authority" is strangled with the guts of the last priest...

Do you support killing priests?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:44:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And it's not enough to say God DID create the Universe by way of an event similar to the Big Bang theory, oh no. It has to be "He did it in one day" or they reject it...

God told us how he did it. You are not smarter then God. You are not even smarter then my cat.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:45:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I already said evolution was at one time probably a valid THEORY. That time has long since past. It has been thoroughly discredited.

This dating by light years is also junk science. Since no one can verify the start and how things were created.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:47:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And because he did not want to be burned at the stake a Catholic Priest by the name of Nicolai Copernicus would not allow his work on planetary motion to be published while he was still living.

The catholics are a cult. Not real christians.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:48:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

My problem with Biblicists is that they will not look at history and accept the fact that the Christian Bible has been selectively edited through the centuries.

The catholics tried to keep the book of revelation out of the Bible. They weren't powerful enough to accomplish that though. ALthough many have tried. God has preserved his word. You would have it that God can't set a standard for his people. That he is weak.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:50:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The catholics are a cult. Not real christians.

They're the ones that rewrote the gospels, called them authentic, and slapped them in with some rough translations of the Old Testament from Aramic and Hebrew to Greek and Latin.

They are the ones that gave you "God's word"...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:09:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

God told us how he did it.

No, he did not. Desert dwellers wrote a fanciful tale that you believe, that is all.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:10:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just answer the damned question. I've asked twice now

I did, and you only asked it ONCE. Besides, I could answer it a million times and a million different ways, you still wouldn't understand it.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:12:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The big bang has already been disproven.

You're wrong.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:12:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I already said evolution was at one time probably a valid THEORY. That time has long since past. It has been thoroughly discredited.

Another lie.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:13:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This dating by light years is also junk science

I bet you think radio waves are magic, don't you. If our knowledge of electromagnetism wasn't what it is today, you wouldn't be posting on 4um or anywhere else, as we'd still be using manual typewriters or pen and paper.

It all revolves around an understanding of the nature of light, and a huge part of it has to do with its speed.

You take quack science and call it "good", and reject sound science that results in actual working technology as "junk".

Put it to you this way. If I know a car is travelling at a constant 65 mph and it travels for one hour, I know it's traveled 65 miles. In your mind, that's junk science. But I'll try to take you through this step by step anyways in case there are others that are curious.

I know that light travels at 186,000 mph. I know that it travels a certain distance in a year, and it's called a light year. I know that if a star is 10 light years away, it took 10 years for the light from that star to get here. If it exploded 10 years ago, we'd just be seeing that explosion today.

I know that if a distant galaxy is determined to be 1 million light years away, that light took 1 million years to reach Earth. There are galaxies that are observed to be up to 12 billion light years away, so light from those galaxies took 12 billion years to get here.

Thus, the universe is AT LEAST 12 billion years old, as that is how old that light is, so those galaxies had to have existed for at least that long.

Sorry if you can't understand that, but those are the facts.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:29:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It doesn't say Sumerian.

Yet Ur was a Sumerian city.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:30:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

A fourth time.

Is it possible that God created the earth with starlight already reaching the earth?

Yes or No.

quit the bullshit.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-06   0:31:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It doesn't say Sumerian.

BTW, you haven't answered MY question. Where does the history of Sumer fit in with the Hebrew tribes, and where did the people of Sumer come from in terms of lineage from Adam?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:33:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Is it possible that God created the earth with starlight already reaching the earth?

I've already answered it idiot and I said it didn't matter, as even if he did, the light from those distant stars and galaxies would have gone out immediately after the laws of the universe became normal, ie. what they are today.

AND, for the universe to behave normally, it would have to have behaved that way immediately.

Many things revolve around the speed of light, such as radiation, electric fields, magnetic fields, and many other things that you wouldn't understand.

For example, the amount of energy (in joules) that a piece of matter can release is equal to the mass of that matter (in kilograms) times the speed of light squared (in meters per second). Thus, if the laws of the universe weren't what they are today, where the speed of light was infinite (instantaneous travel to infinity as you suggest), then even the smallest speck of dust would release more energy than the entire universe could ever produce, as it would release infinite energy. Thus, the universe would turn into infinite energy.

This is from the familiar equation, E=mc²,

where E = energy, m = mass, and c = speed of light

I doubt you understood any of that, but that is the definitive proof.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:47:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Here's the math...

If E=mc², and c (speed of light) is infinite, then;

m (kilograms) * infinite (meters per second) * infinite (meters per second) = infinite E (joules)

Infinity times any non-zero value, or even itself, is still infinity.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I already said evolution was at one time probably a valid THEORY. That time has long since past. It has been thoroughly discredited.

Have I defended Darwinian Evolution on this thread?

No.

My only passing reference to it was less than complimentary and was certainly no defense. You are engaging in disinformation tactics and trying to avoid the points I have made.

This dating by light years is also junk science. Since no one can verify the start and how things were created.

Sophistry. The observations are made on the available, and observable, evidence. It is you that is making an unsupportable assertion - asserting an unproved and unprovable mythology that somehow God created the universe 6,000 years ago with the light beams streaming in. Of course you cannot prove this nor can you provide a reason for God do do such a thing. Ultimately your argument rests upon unsupported suppositions that are ludicrous on their face.

It is like the old Elephant Joke:

Q. Why do Elephants have red eyes?

A. So they can hide in Cherry Trees.

Q. Have you ever seen an elephant in a Cherry Tree?

A. No.

Response: See, it works.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-06   1:42:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

asserting an unproved and unprovable mythology that somehow God created the universe 6,000 years ago with the light beams streaming in

And like I told him, the universe would turn into pure energy if the speed of light was instantaneous due to the fact that E=mc², where c is the speed of light. If c was infinite, then instead of the sun only releasing the energy that it does, it (and every other star) would release infinite energy as the nuclei of the sun's hydrogen fuse into helium, since the energy released from that reaction would be infinite.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   2:14:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yes or no or bozo.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-06   9:31:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The answer is that it doesn't matter, because the light from the stars would STILL have to be traveling at the speed of light for the universe to exist. If the laws of the universe were different in the first few seconds, so what? It wouldn't affect what we see today, nor would it have affected what people saw thousands, or even millions of years ago, since the age of the universe is uniform, and life has been on this planet for a tiny fraction of the age of the universe, which is about 14 billion years.

That's the answer, if you don't like it, tough.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   10:17:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

bozo

If anyone's a bozo here, it's you, jackass.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   10:18:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, did that simple math baffle you?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   10:18:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Science and macro evolution are not compatible.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2009-02-06   21:42:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Ironic, because it's the Bible thumpers whose idea of a scientific explanation is "big Daddy in the sky waved a magic wand, and it was all here."

No, God spoke and it happened.

You can choose to believe it was all random chance, but you do so based on faith only, not science.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2009-02-06   21:45:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sophistry. The observations are made on the available, and observable, evidence. It is you that is making an unsupportable assertion - asserting an unproved and unprovable mythology that somehow God created the universe 6,000 years ago with the light beams streaming in. Of course you cannot prove this nor can you provide a reason for God do do such a thing. Ultimately your argument rests upon unsupported suppositions that are ludicrous on their face.

I never said this proves creationism. I am saying that it is not a valid method to date the age of the universe. We simply cannot scientifically prove that. We can't prove it young or old. Can you agree with that?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-06   21:54:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'd rather be a Bible Thumper then a Satan Humper like pukin

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-06   22:06:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Answer the question above. Yes or no

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-18   23:25:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

s it possible that God created the earth with starlight already reaching the earth?

Yes or No.

Of course.

If you believe in magic.

And then all things are possible.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-18   23:32:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Answer the question above. Yes or no

Go back and read my earlier answers. God created the Laws of the Universe, and according to those laws, the light coming from those distant stars took as many years to get here as they are far away in light years. Since the most distant galaxies we can see are billions of light years away, then the Universe is at least billions of years old.

As I said, sure, God MIGHT have created the Universe with a different set of rules in the first few seconds of its existance, but once the rules we have now were in place, the Universe as we know it today could only exist with the rules as they currently are.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   11:25:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Go back and read my earlier answers. God created the Laws of the Universe, and according to those laws, the light coming from those distant stars took as many years to get here as they are far away in light years. Since the most distant galaxies we can see are billions of light years away, then the Universe is at least billions of years old.

So you are saying it would be impossible for God to create the world the way he CLEARLY says in the Bible?

You also believe that he couldn't have created the universe with light already reaching the earth so that we could see the stars and not wait billions of years?

Tell me why God couldn't have done it that way. Who are you to place limits on what God can do?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   11:28:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

. Who are you to place limits on what God can do?

If you believe in magic.

And then all things are possible.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   13:59:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So you are saying it would be impossible for God to create the world the way he CLEARLY says in the Bible?

He didn't say it. YOU and a bunch of old Popes and Roman emperors are the ones saying it or who have said it in the past. The descendents of the Jews who WROTE the Old Testament admit that the story is an allegory, not literal truth.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   14:10:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You also believe that he couldn't have created the universe with light already reaching the earth so that we could see the stars and not wait billions of years?

As I said, even IF the light reached the earth immediately from galaxies BILLIONS of light years away, their WOULD be no distant galaxies as the universe would be nothing but infinite energy since the laws of physics require that to be true if light had infinite speed.

Since it is NOT pure infinite energy, and the laws of physics are as they are, then the light from galaxies billions of light years away DOES take BILLIONS OF YEARS to get here. Whether it did or not before matter existed is irrelevent, as the universe as we know it today could NOT exist if light had infinite speed.

Besides, why would God trick humans that way? And what about all the other worlds with life on them, would they be tricked too?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   14:14:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As I said, even IF the light reached the earth immediately from galaxies BILLIONS of light years away, their WOULD be no distant galaxies as the universe would be nothing but infinite energy since the laws of physics require that to be true if light had infinite speed.

So with God all things are not possible. According to your anti christ views.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   15:14:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If anyone's a bozo here, it's you, jackass.

Author, author. Encore.

Cynicom  posted on  2009-02-19   15:18:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So with God all things are not possible.

I'm saying that God doesn't need to have created the universe the way YOU demand him to have created it just to satisfy you and make your fairy tale become true. That YOU deny the laws of the universe doesn't make them invalid, it just means you're stupid. If God HAD made them different, then they would be different, but they aren't.

I could very well ask you if God would have allowed idiots to falsely spew nonsense about him in order for intelligent people to know who the idiots are.

According to your anti christ views.

So because I don't believe an old fool I must have anti-christ views, eh? Where did Jesus say how long the Earth has been here? I want you to quote me something from the New Testament that tells us how many years ago the Earth was created.

And BTW, your pining for the death and destruction of innocent people indicates that YOU are the true anti-christ here, as Jesus taught love and peace.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   15:31:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Fortun ately, There is a BOZO filter and mine is being put to good use.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition


"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx

You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace

ALAS, BABYLON

IndieTX  posted on  2009-02-19   15:36:52 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

We can't prove it young or old. Can you agree with that?

I can.

Erectus Walks Amongst Us
I will not go to Auschwitz. I have ordered the book. Da-do-run-run-run Da-do-run-run.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2009-02-19   15:47:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Let me ask you something. Why do YOU believe that the Bible is the word of God? Because your pastor told you so?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   15:47:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I can.

Go ahead and try. Former Lurker is a dimwith who thinks he knows something.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   15:51:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Former Lurker is a dimwith who thinks he knows something.

You can't even spell old fool. Do you think purple dinosaurs really exist because there's one on TV called Barney?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   15:57:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, where in the Bible does it explain where the Chinese civilization came from? Are they all space aliens since the Bible doesn't mention their origin, or maybe they don't really exist, it's just God playing his tricks again, eh?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   15:59:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Let me ask you something. Why do YOU believe that the Bible is the word of God? Because your pastor told you so?

While conditioning this carefully - I do believe the Christian Bible and Old Testament to be valid as works of religious writing and philosophy.

However, NO ONE can reliably date the Old Testament from an independent source. The best we can surmise, from what I have read, is that the Hebrews used texts, cobbled together, that were extant in the libraries of Egypt at the time of the Exodus. That does not tell us though when the texts were originally penned nor does it date the story of Genesis - which is an allegorical story. There is NOTHING which proves it to be the word of "God" whatever that entity may truly be. It is accepted and propounded purely on "faith" which, as defined by the late Robert Heinlein is "belief in the presence of contradictory evidence".

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-19   16:09:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So do you think that lurking fool is correct. That God couldn't have created the earth with starlight shining on it from the beginning?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   16:40:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do you think purple dinosaurs really exist because there's one on TV called Barney?

Prove to me that dinosaurs are millions of years old. What do you base that on? You don't even know.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   16:41:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

which, as defined by the late Robert Heinlein is "belief in the presence of contradictory evidence".

What an idiot Heinlein was. I bet he wishes he could take it back now.

Anyway. How about showing some of this contradictory evidence.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   16:42:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You are a fool to think that because light travels very fast that it would be impossible for the earth to be young. You have offered no proof of your delusional beliefs yet.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   16:45:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I meant I can agree with that, that it can't be proved.

Former Lurker is a...

And I can agree with that too. ;)

Erectus Walks Amongst Us
I will not go to Auschwitz. I have ordered the book. Da-do-run-run-run Da-do-run-run.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2009-02-19   17:01:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I bet he wishes he could take it back now.

Why?

LOL! How many people do you want to go to your fabled "hell"?

You're "something else".

If you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old, OK. It is certainly your right.

But trying to convince anyone else of that is like pissing into the wind. You'll just get splattered.

Bishop James Ussher Sets the Date for Creation

...The date forever tied to Bishop Ussher appears in the first paragraph of the first page of The Annals. Ussher wrote: “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth, which beginning of time, according to this chronology, occurred at the beginning of the night which preceded the 23rd of October in the year 710 of the Julian period.” In the right margin of the page, Ussher computes the date in “Christian” time as 4004 B.C. ...

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/...trials/scopes/ussher.html

God didn't "say" it, man did. He "computed" it.

Surreal World Blog

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-19   17:11:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You are a fool to think that because light travels very fast that it would be impossible for the earth to be young. You have offered no proof of your delusional beliefs yet.

Are you acting ignorant and stupid because you really ARE ignorant and stupid, or do you NEED to feign ignorance and stupidity in order for your beliefs to have any credence with yourself?

I have explained it to you at least 5 or 6 times, offered mathematical proof, and given the basic physics behind it several different ways.

That it takes billions of years for light to reach us from distant galaxies doesn't register in your feeble mind. You're problem, not mine.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   18:28:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Former Lurker is a...

And I can agree with that too. ;)

Are you and old fag a couple of bum buddies? I HAVE heard of a gay church where they all kiss and hold hands during their services.

That's how many gay men meet their lovers who wouldn't otherwise have a partner I guess...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   18:32:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Tell me where the Chinese come from since it isn't explained in the Bible...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   18:33:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Prove to me that dinosaurs are millions of years old. What do you base that on?

It can be determined not just by carbon dating, but by geological evidence such as the levels of sediment covering the remains, and the approximate date of the asteroid (or other object) impact which caused their demise. BTW, where does it mention dinosaurs in the Bible?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   18:36:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

FL, my friend, you might as well go outside and have this discussion with your neighbors pet cat.

At least the cat's response would be rational.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   18:40:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That does not tell us though when the texts were originally penned nor does it date the story of Genesis - which is an allegorical story. There is NOTHING which proves it to be the word of "God" whatever that entity may truly be.

Exactly. They can't even explain WHY they think it's the word of God.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   18:43:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

FL, my friend, you might as well go outside and have this discussion with your neighbors pet cat.

At least the cat's response would be rational.

Sadly, you're more than likely right. At least the cat can't go start wars due to their false beliefs, thinking that GOD wants them to...

I've actually seen Sunday morning TV evangelists beating the war drums for war against Iran, claiming that "true Christians" must side with Israel. How pathetically hypocritical, where it's the opposite of what Jesus taught.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   18:54:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

How patheticly hypocritical, where it's the opposite of what Jesus taught.

Shaking head slowly "Indeed".

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   18:56:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Hey OF

Can God make a carpet so large not even he can vacuum it?

Yes or Noe.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   19:25:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That does not tell us though when the texts were originally penned nor does it date the story of Genesis - which is an allegorical story. There is NOTHING which proves it to be the word of "God" whatever that entity may truly be.

Exactly. They can't even explain WHY they think it's the word of God.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. The stock answer is that it was divinely inspired because the man who wrote it said God spoke to him. In other words there is no proof of the genesis of Genesis.

Oral Roberts said God would "take him home" if he didn't raise ten million to keep Oral Roberts U. operating.

Pat Robertson says that God speaks to him and tells him what will happen in the year ahead. Does that mean he does or that Pat Robertson is a huckster? Again there is no proof other than Pat Robertson's, a neocon Televangelish huckster, worthless word.

Now we have the "usual suspects" trying to justify mass murder and genocide because it was done by Israel which has God's Carte Blanche to commit murder, genocide, run drugs, engage in Sex Slavery, provide safe haven for criminals, etc., ... because God said they could. And who said God said they could? Why the people comitting the crimes of course. That and their Neo-Nazi supporters. Killing children with White Phosphorous is good when Israel does it, because God said they could.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-19   19:50:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That it takes billions of years for light to reach us from distant galaxies doesn't register in your feeble mind. You're problem, not mine.

You haven't proved anything. You have offered zero proof. Just the ramblings of a fool. You are a fool. Ask around.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:01:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It can be determined not just by carbon dating,

Prove carbon dating isn't proveable. It is just assumptions. Not science. If it was rocks from Mt St Helens wouldn't have been dated at millions of years. Your a real whack job. People like you are what is wrong with this country. Your type are bringing us down.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:03:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

but by geological evidence such as the levels of sediment covering the remains, and the approximate date of the asteroid (or other object) impact which caused their demise. BTW, where does it mention dinosaurs in the Bible?

Levels of sediment don't prove anything. All they prove is their was a flood.

Explain how it does if you think you can.

BTW there are no asteroids in the sedimentry layers. Kind of strange that if the earth was so old you think there would have been some evidence of that. Also the moon has no atmosphere. If the universe was billions of years old. There would have been more dust on the moon then when we landed.

Oh yes the Bible does mention dinosaurs. But it wouldn't have mattered if it didn't It doesn't mention ostriches either. There are two places that are dinosaur references. One is behemoth. The other is where it is talking about a creature with a tail like a cedar tree and it drinks rivers.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:07:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I've actually seen Sunday morning TV evangelists beating the war drums for war against Iran, claiming that "true Christians" must side with Israel. How pathetically hypocritical, where it's the opposite of what Jesus taught.

I call bullshit liar. You don't watch that kind of shows. If your not a liar it should be real easy to pull one up from youtube. Can't can ya.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:08:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW there are no asteroids in the sedimentry layers.

Also the moon has no atmosphere

Yep - wonder why that is?

A FRIGGIN MYSTERY.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   20:09:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I HAVE heard of a gay church where they all kiss and hold hands during their services.

That would be twenty twelve. He attends a fag church. His wife attends a molesters church. Methodist and Catholic.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:10:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

FL, my friend, you might as well go outside and have this discussion with your neighbors pet cat.

At least the cat's response would be rational.

Hey not James bond like at all. Are you too of the false belief that the distance of the stars proves the earth is millions of years old?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:10:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

He didn't say it. YOU and a bunch of old Popes and Roman emperors are the ones saying it or who have said it in the past. The descendents of the Jews who WROTE the Old Testament admit that the story is an allegory, not literal truth.

Can you prove that?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:11:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

While conditioning this carefully - I do believe the Christian Bible and Old Testament to be valid as works of religious writing and philosophy.

So is the Kama Sutra. :)

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition


"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx

You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace

ALAS, BABYLON

IndieTX  posted on  2009-02-19   20:12:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If you believe in magic.

And then all things are possible.

Is it magic when you put and old dead seed in the ground and it grows?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:12:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm saying that God doesn't need to have created the universe the way YOU demand him to have created it

Uh... I didn't say that. He did in his book he wrote us. He wrote it so we would know how we are supposed to live and why we are here.

Your so called god would have you clueless figuring it out for yourself. Everyone with their own custom set of beliefs. A really stupid philisophy that you have.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:14:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you too of the false belief that the distance of the stars proves the earth is millions of years old?

Consider the false assumptive argument of your question. I'am going to talk to Schorder's cat.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   20:15:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Therein lies the crux of the matter. The stock answer is that it was divinely inspired because the man who wrote it said God spoke to him. In other words there is no proof of the genesis of Genesis.

God gave you a brain why don't you try using it.

People don't believe it just because someone said so. If that were true we would be muslims too. God said that he judged the world with a worldwide flood. Is there any evidence of that?

How about billions of dead things buried in mud laid down by water all over the earth.

Oh you of little faith. Thinking man has all the answers. I pity you.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:17:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Oral Roberts said God would "take him home" if he didn't raise ten million to keep Oral Roberts U. operating.

Pat Robertson says that God speaks to him and tells him what will happen in the year ahead. Does that mean he does or that Pat Robertson is a huckster? Again there is no proof other than Pat Robertson's, a neocon Televangelish huckster, worthless word.

I agree with you about that. But remember Jesus said many would come in his name and that they would deceive people.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:18:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Now we have the "usual suspects" trying to justify mass murder and genocide because it was done by Israel which has God's Carte Blanche to commit murder, genocide, run drugs, engage in Sex Slavery, provide safe haven for criminals, etc., ... because God said they could. And who said God said they could? Why the people comitting the crimes of course. That and their Neo-Nazi supporters. Killing children with White Phosphorous is good when Israel does it, because God said they could

Dude we are talking about starlight and the age of the earth. Take your anti jew bigotry to another thread please.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:18:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Also the moon has no atmosphere

Yep - wonder why that is?

Your a little slow. You don't get it. When NASA was going to the moon they were worried that there would be to much dust on the surface and that the moon lander would sink through it and get stuck. That foolish belief was based on millions of years bullshit. There was not enough dust on the surface for it to be millions of years old. I guess you think that E.T. must have come and vacuumed it all up a few thousand years ago. Because that is what the thickness of the dust on the moons surface indicates.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:21:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Consider the false assumptive argument of your question. I'am going to talk to Schorder's cat.

If the question is to hard for you then by all means go pet your cat or talk to it or whatever. Just don't give it an ibuprofen.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:23:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Is it magic when you put and old dead seed in the ground and it grows?

Well yes, if the seeds are dead, or maybe they weren't dead after all? If they grow - tautological error defined here.

But it is certainly magical, to me, to see a seed germamate, or any number of things that the master has made, I don't know for us, but we are surely benificaries of her handiwork and I am the first in line to express my appreciation for the effort.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   20:24:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

and that they would deceive people.

Yep.

And they might not even realize they are doing it.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   20:26:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

He did in his book he wrote us. He wrote it so we would know how we are supposed to live and why we are here.

So the men that wrote the books that were accepted into the bible were your gods?

Do you worship them? Apparently you think some guys who wrote a book created the universe, that's how bright you are...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   20:26:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

When NASA was going to the moon

Oh WAIT a minute, you actually believe men can fly to the moon? Isn't that against your beliefs, I mean, if God had meant for men to fly, he would have given them wings, right? Besides, physics doesn't exist according to you, so rocket ships could never fly to the moon since man doesn't have any idea of how things work, according to your fanatical beliefs at least...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   20:29:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

People don't believe it just because someone said so. If that were true we would be muslims too. God said that he judged the world with a worldwide flood. Is there any evidence of that?

The Sumerians wrote about the same flood, and the Old Testament didn't yet exist when they wrote that story. So you if you base your belief in the Bible on the flood, then you might as well put your faith into ancient Sumerian mythology, as they wrote it first.

So then, why DO you think that the words of men are the words of God?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   20:32:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your a little slow. You don't get it. When NASA was going to the moon they were worried that there would be to much dust on the surface and that the moon lander would sink through it and get stuck.

Quite actually, - I worked for NASA at Building 1, Seventh Floor, Clear Lake City and have a piece of the Space Shuttle Columbia, SS-1 on my desk as I type and am rather well familiar with the concerns NASA had with the historical first landing.

You are correct that there were fears that micro dust may have led the lander to be enveloped by the dust, and on e of the (many) fears were a collective sigh of relief that the lander just hit 1/4 of dust and then found solid footing.

You might get a good pair of 20X binoculars and a tripod and view the acne scarred moon surface and consider where the dust may have gone, as well as consider that a environment with no meaningful atmosphere or activity would generate dust.

You may also want to re-consider you pugilistic "spit in your face" style of posting.

It is not constructive - maybe that is good for you?

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   20:42:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I mean, if God had meant for men to fly, he would have given them wings, right?

Actually the Bible tells us that we will go to space.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:43:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You may also want to re-consider you pugilistic "spit in your face" style of posting.

Academy award winning writing. Bravo bravo...

Cynicom  posted on  2009-02-19   20:44:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Isn't that against your beliefs, I mean, if God had meant for men to fly, he would have given them wings, right? Besides, physics doesn't exist according to you, so rocket ships could never fly to the moon since man doesn't have any idea of how things work, according to your fanatical beliefs at least...

You are a very stupid person. Not ignorant. Stupid.

Show me something in scripture that even remotely says this bullshit you are trying to peddle.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:46:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That foolish belief was based on millions of years bullshit.

Also I am unaware of exactly what that means.

Seems to me to be a bit epistemlogically "lose".

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   20:46:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Sumerians wrote about the same flood, and the Old Testament didn't yet exist when they wrote that story.

So now you admit that there was a flood. The Sumerians passed down a version of that orally. The Sumerians are the descendants of Noah and his family. Kind of like when you are a kid and you play the game where you whisper it to the person next to you and by the time it gets to the end it is different.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:47:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You may also want to re-consider you pugilistic "spit in your face" style of posting.

I do do that sometimes. Sorry. Mainly when people get pissy with me first.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:49:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer

Dakmar  posted on  2009-02-19   20:49:57 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

O please read some basic human history, who knows you might lean something.

1) Hermatica

2)Herodotus

3)Babylonian Genesis

Choose your editions. Then get back to us in a few months.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   20:52:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Wha...huh?

Smeites and Assyrians and Hemites all allegedly descended from Noah...

Sumerians culture arose in Iraq 20,000 years before Noah allegedly lived...

war  posted on  2009-02-19   20:52:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sumerians culture arose in Iraq 20,000 years before Noah allegedly lived...

Maybe that is true in your little head. But according to encyclopedia Britannica you are WRONG WRONG WRONG!

http://www.answers.com/topic/sumer

Region of southern Mesopotamia and site of the earliest known civilization. It was first settled c. 4500 – 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people called the Ubaidians, who drained the marshes for agriculture and developed trade. The Sumerians, who spoke a Semitic language that came to dominate the region, arrived c. 3300 BC and established the world's first known cities. These polities evolved into city-states, which eventually developed monarchical systems that later came to be loosely united under a single city, beginning with Kish c. 2800 BC. Thereafter, Kish, Erech, Ur, and Lagash vied for ascendancy for centuries; Nippur emerged as a religous centre. The area came under the control of dynasties from outside the region, beginning with Elam (c. 2530 – 2450 BC) and later Akkad, led by the Akkadian king Sargon (r. 2334 – 2279 BC). After the Akkadian dynasty collapsed, the city-states were largely independent until they were reunified under the 3rd dynasty of Ur (22nd – 21st century BC). That final Sumerian dynasty declined after being weakened by foreign invasions, and the Sumerians as a distinct political entity disappeared, becoming part of Babylonia in the 18th century BC. The Sumerian legacy includes a number of technological and cultural innovations, including the first known wheeled vehicles, the potter's wheel, a system of writing (cuneiform), and written codes of law.

For more information on Sumer, visit Britannica.com.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:56:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sumerians culture arose in Iraq 20,000 years before Noah allegedly lived...

Any secret masonic information would have to had come from the ancients.

The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer

Dakmar  posted on  2009-02-19   20:57:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sumerians culture arose in Iraq 20,000 years before Noah allegedly lived...

That's pretty old. I am unaware of any ME "culture" meaning small villages, neo lithic communities before about 8500 BC.

Or Thereabouts.

As Noah is guessed to have been extent 2500bc??? loose, that puts the Sumerians at 23,000 bc, and as far as I know that is a time frame that does not allow for any identification of a human culture.

Some burnt bones etc, but the Sumerian culture is not attested until about 3200 bc, IIRC.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:01:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So now you admit that there was a flood. The Sumerians passed down a version of that orally.

I never said there wasn'ta flood, in fact I've already spoken to you on that topic.

For your information, the Sumerians didn't pass the story orally, they read from an ancient text called the Epic of Gilgamesh, which doesn't mention anything at all about Noah, but instead speaks about their hero-king Gilgamesh.

The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the writing of the Genesis.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:03:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

HA and no internet mineing for me.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:03:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do you know who supposedly wrote Genesis, according to your own legends?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:04:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the writing of the Genesis.

There's another one for your reading list OF.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:04:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

For your information, the Sumerians didn't pass the story orally, they read from an ancient text called the Epic of Gilgamesh, which doesn't mention anything at all about Noah, but instead speaks about their hero-king Gilgamesh.

The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the writing of the Genesis.

They passed it down orally. Then wrote it in a book dork.

The epic of gilgamesh doesn't predate Genesis.

Genesis is the beginning.

Why does your essence cult call Christ a liar. Aren't they supposed to follow him? Don't bother answering your answer will be BS.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:07:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yeah it was likely Moses.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:08:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Region of southern Mesopotamia and site of the earliest known civilization. It was first settled c. 4500 – 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people called the Ubaidians, who drained the marshes for agriculture and developed trade. The Sumerians, who spoke a Semitic language that came to dominate the region, arrived c. 3300 BC and established the world's first known cities. These polities evolved into city-states, which eventually developed monarchical systems that later came to be loosely united under a single city, beginning with Kish c. 2800 BC.

Now show us where it mentions any of that history in the Bible.

BTW, who wrote Genesis?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:09:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If you are wise you will read this. If you want to stay stupid then ignore it.

Anyway, all of my adult life I have seen this type of a gaseous fog emanating from some academic forum or another on this topic and a number of others. That is why I generally call academicians the wise guys. If they are so smart why do they so regularly and speciously spew forth such vapid and empty-headed nonsense? Especially now when some people will actually take the time to look and see if what is offered has any merit. I think that it must pay very well.

If they told us the moon was blue, some would no doubt take it at face value. Yet, why not just go outside at night and take a look? But some won’t look because the information comes to us well polished, decorated, and with an air of academic credence, and we are such trusting souls. The modern magician with his sleight-of-hand and magnificent disappearing acts comes with a similar bag of tricks, planning on the same outcome. The Ponzi schemer or con artist also uses the same techniques.

P. T. Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every second, and two to take him.” He was mostly counted in the second group, and seemed to know what he was talking about.

But don’t take my word for it. Is the Gilgamesh epic startlingly similar to the record of Genesis? Let’s play Fox News and you decide.

First, it is not news that these two records have been and are being compared and stated as being similar. This farce has been going on since the eleven tablets inscribed with the Gilgamesh “Epic” were first found nearly three centuries ago. There have been claims made along the way that a record of the flood as described in Genesis has been found in many ancient cultures and this is the sterling example poised in support.

Second, the records are all translated and available for reading and inspection. I downloaded the translated versions so that I could accurately quote them and present them here.

What then would stop us from making a cursory examination of the premise that these two records are so similar? What would stop us from examining whether or not the Chaldean records are the oldest form of storytelling records of this kind?

The answer is that nothing can stop us now.

Let’s take the second point first: that these tablets contain the oldest known writing, story, and records of historical import. Unfortunately there is nothing in the Gilgamesh tablets that suggests they are historical documents at all other than a few of the names also appear in some other ancient records. That however, doesn’t even slow these things down. Historians date these records and the fragments found at Kish, Me-tura and Urhu from about 2,600 years before Christ. That roughly corresponds to the time of the building of the first pyramids in Egypt.

Aside from that, none of these tablets actually pre-dates the templates or the events in the writings of Moses, or more correctly, that of the story of Abraham, let alone Noah and the rest going right back to Adam. Abraham’s saga may be contemporaneous to these things, if they can be said to be contemporary. Yet in all that it appears that Gilgamesh could not predate the Bible, that is unless you discount that Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

By the way, this is exactly where this premise gets its legs, when you scrape away the nonsense and get down to the roots. You must accept that the writings of Moses are fraudulent and come along after this Chaldean record or any of the others containing similar stuff. Babylon was likely not much of a mud brick town when Abraham was living, and may not have existed at all during Noah’s day. But to buy into this, you must accept Moses did not write the first books of the Bible and that they are later productions simply filled with myths.

And if you believe that Moses did not write Genesis, why believe that he wrote anything at all? You also act to make Jesus out a liar, because he plainly stated that the writer of the first five books of the Old Testament was Moses. Then you end up with another set of problems to explain away, and the only way to do that is to say Jesus was not the Son of God, who he said he was, equal with God Almighty both omniscient and omnipresent, but was mistaken, or, better yet, was a fraud. As with many other things, you just can’t have it both ways.

Along with that the Jews should be up for the grand prize as the most easily duped people in all of history, supposing that Moses did not write what was in all times attributed to him, and that all of it was created and supplied sometime after the rule of David (nearly a full millennia later) during the rule of Josiah or thereabouts, that is, if David and the rest actually ever existed. But that is the theory, and you have to buy that to make the other work. Wow. This is like buying in on the JFK theory for the shooter on that grassy knoll – you must suspend the facts, toss the records, physics, along with good sense and reason out just to get there. It makes me winded just thinking about it.

In short you have to accept that everything in the Hebrew culture was a full-blown fabrication, and not a simple one, but the most elaborate kind, one that lasted for a few thousand years. Can you imagine how hard it would be to line up the conspirators over time? You must accept that although they were the greatest and most accurate recorders of all time. But to be true to this they had to be conniving recorders of fairy tales who made up stories that they then attributed as being their own, in place of what must have been a more failed history. Once that one settled in then they sold it to each successive generation – sold it to several million other unsuspecting dolts. To work, it had to all be a most elaborate myth and conspiracy, in the same fashion as the many conspiracy theories currently in vogue concerning Jesus. After all, history is a pack of lies told on the dead (a remark once attributed appropriately to the atheist Voltaire and then bandied about by many others since - who are each certainly in a position to know lies when they should hear them).

Just the presentation of that heap of empty nonsense stinks to high heaven. It does have its use though – it presents me with an opportunity to poke a little fun at some seriously bad scholarship.

What actually applies is that Noah’s ordeal predates the Akkadian, Sumerian, Chaldean, or any other story like it by at least a millenium. The order that the scholars have it in is just opposite of the chronology and the facts. The details in Gilgamesh and the others is sifted from the biblical record, not the other way around. That is the only plausible explanation, and the one that actually fits both dates and data. Of course, to get here you have to accept the only reasonable explanation of how the information got out in the first place. That is that Moses was the writer/recorder of the five books which bear his historical imprint, the ones attributed to his hand by all ancient and modern histories.

When you come to examining the translations of Gilgamesh, you will find mention of a flood in just a handful of places where occurrences of the English word are found in the documents. Most of these are found in the ninth and eleventh tablets and when they are taken in what little context there is, most of these details bear no resemblance to anything in the narrative of Noah.

A flood is also mentioned in some of the other tablets, by example (the breaks are where an unknown number of lines are missing or are not readable or where the record is simply incomplete): “…… having traveled all the roads that there are, having fetched …… from its ……, having killed ……, you set up …… for future days ……. Having founded ……, you reached ……. Having brought down the old …… forgotten forever and ……, he (?) carried out correctly ……. …… the flood …… the settlements of the Land.”

Scholars may be able to load up their pipes light them and dream in the night to make something of that, but less sensible and less educated folks might read it and think the whole section is good for nothing at all.

The body is certainly an epic though not a poem in the sense of say Coleridge’s “The Rhyme of The Ancient Mariner”. The English translation is barely coherent, while the ancient translated text of the Old Testament is fluent, and though antiquated, quite readable and understandable in comparison.

Now let’s get to the single section that might be said to parallel the Noah account. Whoops, I let the proverbial cat out of the bag! It is perhaps two or three pages in length, or about three times the length of the story of Noah. See if you can find all the parallels and similarities that are crammed in here that the scholars see, or perhaps just the single glaring one that I tripped over. (You can find the English text at this link although we will not link to it here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Epic_of_Gilgamesh#Tablet_IX)

Gilgamesh or Utanapishtim (it is impossible for me to tell which) was told to tear down a place called the Reed House at the Euphrates and build a boat out of its materials. (Now that’s a similarity: there is a boat in both stories.) For this story, however, the boat, though 10 times 12 cubits high and as large as a “field,” took just a week to construct.

“The boat was finished by sunset. The launching was very difficult. They had to keep carrying a runway of poles front to back, until two-thirds of it had gone into the water(?). Whatever I had I loaded on it: whatever silver I had I loaded on it, whatever gold I had I loaded on it. All the living beings that I had I loaded on it, I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat, all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up. Shamash had set a stated time: ‘In the morning I will let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat! Go inside the boat, seal the entry!’ That stated time had arrived. In the morning he let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat. I watched the appearance of the weather– the weather was frightful to behold! I went into the boat and sealed the entry. For the caulking of the boat, to Puzuramurri, the boatman, I gave the palace together with its contents. Just as dawn began to glow there arose from the horizon a black cloud. Adad rumbled inside of it, before him went Shullat and Hanish, heralds going over mountain and land. Erragal pulled out the mooring poles, forth went Ninurta and made the dikes overflow. The Anunnaki lifted up the torches, setting the land ablaze with their flare. Stunned shock over Adad’s deeds overtook the heavens, and turned to blackness all that had been light. The… land shattered like a… pot. All day long the South Wind blew …, blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water, overwhelming the people like an attack. No one could see his fellow, they could not recognize each other in the torrent. The gods were frightened by the Flood, and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall. Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth, the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed.”

I would think that a shower of bread followed by a rain of wheat might preclude the need for bringing on a flood. As getting chonked on the head by a loaf would probably get most peoples attention, if they survived. To be fair, it seems the food is for the boat people, although why they needed a sky full is not broached. There is really nothing to compare this to in the Noah story.

There is apparently a fire going on preceeding, or (how can it be?) during the flood in this tale, along with a few other related catastrophes, as if the flood just wasn’t bad enough. And a mountain they came across in the very abbreviated journey was submerged with the folks on the summit in the water and not doing well. Three birds were released at the end (a dove, sparrow - both returned, and then a raven) and following that everything was let go, so that’s a similarity of sorts.

The boatman came out of this better than most, as he received a palace from Gilgamesh for just caulking everything up. Not a bad deal if you can get it. But then what good is a submerged palace full of stuff.

There were animals aboard (though it says nothing of how many) so that’s certainly a similarity, and there was a crowd of people, a lot more than a mere eight souls (both “kith and kin,” which I had always thought was a Scottish phrase, and other assorted hanger’s on). Gilgamesh apparently took all the cash he could get his hands on with him, not knowing what he might come across. It doesn’t state how many people were present or how much money was aboard either. But, I think the boat was loaded.

Apparently this “universal” flood covered only the Euphrates basin, lasted just one week, and didn’t get rid of everybody and everything.

“How, how could you bring about a Flood without consideration? Charge the violation to the violator, charge the offense to the offender, but be compassionate lest (manknind) be cut off, be patient lest they be killed. Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a lion had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a wolf had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that famine had occurred to slay the land! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that (Pestilent) Erra had appeared to ravage the land!”

The flood was pegged by Gilgamesh as an apparent inconsiderate act on behalf of the gods, and it’s too bad that he didn’t file the complaint prior to embarking. Noah’s God wasn’t concerned with such things, as his intent was to destroy everything and everybody excepting righteous Noah. And Noah didn’t whine about things, he simply did as he was instructed.

It appears that Gilgamesh or perhaps it’s Utanapishtim (it’s still difficult by reading to know who did what and Gil may have been just along for the ride) made it to the mouth of the rivers by the end of the week’s surge (it is unspecified as to which rivers it is talking about - but likely again, it’s the Tigris and Euphrates) and there he or they were allowed or were forced to disembark. Utanapishtim and his wife get a reward for suffering through this and are made gods. It then states that all the cities were still very much intact. This part is easily as entertaining as some of the descriptions found in the Book of Mormon.

This is the final paragraph of this portion. It is also one of the best parts. See how many parallels you can find.

“Urshanabi, this plant is a plant against decay(!) by which a man can attain his survival(!). I will bring it to Uruk-Haven, and have an old man eat the plant to test it. The plant’s name is ‘The Old Man Becomes a Young Man.’” Then I will eat it and return to the condition of my youth.” At twenty leagues they broke for some food, at thirty leagues they stopped for the night. Seeing a spring and how cool its waters were, Gilgamesh went down and was bathing in the water. A snake smelled the fragrance of the plant, silently came up and carried off the plant. While going back it sloughed off its casing.’ At that point Gilgamesh sat down, weeping, his tears streaming over the side of his nose. “Counsel me, O ferryman Urshanabi! For whom have my arms labored, Urshanabi! For whom has my heart’s blood roiled! I have not secured any good deed for myself, but done a good deed for the ‘lion of the ground’!” Now the high waters are coursing twenty leagues distant,’ as I was opening the conduit(?) I turned my equipment over into it (!). What can I find (to serve) as a marker(?) for me! I will turn back (from the journey by sea) and leave the boat by the shore!” At twenty leagues they broke for some food, at thirty leagues they stopped for the night. They arrived in Uruk-Haven. Gilgamesh said to Urshanabi, the ferryman: “Go up, Urshanabi, onto the wall of Uruk and walk around. Examine its foundation, inspect its brickwork thoroughly– is not (even the core of) the brick structure of kiln-fired brick, and did not the Seven Sages themselves lay out its plan! One league city, one league palm gardens, one league lowlands, the open area(?) of the Ishtar Temple, three leagues and the open area(?) of Uruk it encloses.”

(Retrieved from “http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Epic_of_Gilgamesh”)

This last bit comes from another of the earlier tablets although it too mentions a flood.

“Enlil’s advice was given to Enki. Enki answered An and Enlil: “In those days, in those distant days, in those nights, in those distant nights, in those years, in those distant years, after the assembly had made the Flood sweep over to destroy the seed of mankind, among us I was the only one who was for life (?), and so he remained alive (?) — Zi-ud-sura, although (?) a human being, remained alive (?). Then you made me swear by heaven and by earth, and … that no human will be allowed to live forever (?) any more. Now, as we look at Gilgamec, could not he escape because of his mother?’”

As I said, I came up with only one true similarity: it seems that a flood is mentioned, and it records a corresponding boat ride. Again, the other details and that one central similarity seem to be lifted from Noah, and not the other way around. This flood clearly was not universal, however.

As for other similarities there really aren’t many that I can find. But there are enough for the truly wise among us to able to probably identify how the parallels and common threads made their way from the Old Testament and into Gilgamesh. So, why is it that this (the clearly inferior record and later record) is thought to be the source, while the clearly superior and early one is deemed the copy? Go figure. To do that you must make the theory fit for your own use. If you don’t believe that the earliest complete record of antediluvian doings is the Bible then you must find a way to have other less valuable things to predate it. By ridding yourself of Moses you can accomplish what you seek. Only then will the pieces fit.

I do see a little divergence as with some of the items already mentioned (or a lot of that perhaps). Here no human is mentioned as afterward allowed to live forever, and that doesn’t parallel anything in the story of Noah in the Old Testament, as that notion was taken care of long before Noah had appeared.

Noah built the ark, but Gilgamesh hired it out. Noah used wood and Gilgamesh found reeds useful. But then, Gilgamesh, Utanapishtim and company weren’t floating around for nearly as long as Noah.

Last but not least, the gods are apparently in as big a mess throughout this whole episode as are the other characters, which is a sure sign of human invention and tinkering. “The gods were frightened by the flood and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. The gods were cowering like dogs.” You will never find anything even remotely similar to that in the whole of the Bible.

In the last bit of narrative, the character Enki (perhaps from the famous trio Enki, Dinki, Doo?) survived the flood, but it seems the writer indicates that good ole Gilgamesh didn’t make the final cut. I’m confused. Gilgamesh’s mother may possibly have had a hand in his undoing, too. That is, if in fact he was undone. There is no such ambiguity in the account of Noah as is found here and throughout this entire record.

Well, there you have my report of this rather grand work of antiguity. My one point worth pondering was made earlier and then repeated: this record does not predate the five books of Moses, and the story of Noah found there was the source for the “shared” details in this fable. To assign this as a fable (or is it art?) you need only to read this tablet or any of the earlier ones, and all of that will be crystal clear. You may read some of the Bible and think it full of fables too, but the stories there all end in a single central point. The details are less stupendous and contrived. The events always glorify the one and only God, and the details match from place to place, through superior writing and in careful relating of the narrative. But that is really for you to decide.

So, we reported and we’ll let you decide. Of course, you couldn’t get hurt by going on-line and reading some more of this seriously empty stuff for yourself. It works better and faster than any over-the-counter sleeping potion. Perhaps you’ll find it readable and uplifting and not at all as I found it — unable to float.

In another essay on another day, I’ll take a look at the Babylonian “creation” epic that is similarly said to “closely follow the biblical account.”

http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/noah-versus-gilgamesh/

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:16:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Now show us where it mentions any of that history in the Bible.

BTW, who wrote Genesis?

It doesn't have to mention the Bible. Tell me why it must. Genesis predates Gilgamesh.

Moses

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:17:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yeah it was likely Moses.

Ok, so now that we've got that cleared up, how do you know it was Moses?

Here's some info for you about the Book of Genesis...

Book of Genesis

Advanced Information

Modern analysis indicates that the book of Genesis (and the other four Books of the Pentateuch) were written by a number of authors who assembled material from three traditions:

• "J", named for the Yahwist tradition who referred to God as Yahweh (translated "the Lord" in English). (The J comes from Yahweh sometimes being referred to as Jehovah.)

  J seems to be a writer who focuses on humanity in his writing. His writing shows much greater sensitivity towards women than does E. He regularly used "Yahweh" as God's name. He describes God in anthropomorphic terms: God forms Adam from clay; he waked and talked with Adam and Eve in the garden; he spoke to Moses.

  J lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, during an early period of Israel's history when many followed a nature/fertility religion. He may have been a member of the Judean court. He wrote a more or less complete story of the history of the Israelites from a Judean perspective. J was probably written between 848 BC (when King Jehoram gained power in Judah) and 722 BC when the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom Israel and took its people into exile. Some scholars date J to the 10th century BC.

• "E", named for the Elohist tradition who referred to God as Elohim, which was derived from the name of the Canaanite God El (translated as "God" in English)

  E was a writer who writes about religious and moralistic concerns. He consistently used "Elohim" as God's name. He lived in the northern kingdom of Israel. He wrote a more or less complete story of the history of the Israelites from the perspective of the northern kingdom. E probably wrote between 922 and 722 BC. He may have been a priest from Shiloh who viewed Moses as his spiritual ancestor.

• "P", named for the Priestly class who were primarily concerned with history, genealogies, etc.

  P was a writer who focused his writings on God. He added material from a priestly perspective. It discusses priests' lives, religious rituals, dates, measurements, chronologies, genealogies, worship and law. He was a priest who identified Aaron as his spiritual ancestor. He views God as a distant, transcendent deity, less personal than in J and E. P is sometimes harsh and critical. The words "mercy," "grace" and "repentance" do not appear in his writing; they appear about 70 times in J, E, and D. P was displeased with the work of J and E and wrote P as an alternative history.

  P rejected the concepts of angels, dreams and talking animals that are seen in J and E. He believed that only Levites who were descended from Aaron could be priests. He lived after J, E and D because he was aware of the books of the Prophets which were unknown to the others. Lived when the country's religion reached a priestly/legal stage, before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. He patterned his writing after the topics in J and E.

Two of the additional authors are:

• "D", the author of the book of Deuteronomy.

  D was a writer who lived well after J and E, because he was familiar with later developments in Israel's history. He lived at a time when the religion of ancient Israel was in its spiritual/ethical stage, about 622 BC. He wrote almost all of the Book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. A second writer edited the original text after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC. This writer added the last two chapters to 2 Kings and inserted short passages elsewhere to reflect the change in circumstances brought about by the Babylonian attack.

  D lived in Judah - probably in Jerusalem. He was probably a Levitical priest - perhaps Jeremiah.

• "R", was a redactor who was an Aaronid priest. He joined the writings of J, E, P and D together into the present Pentateuch.

R.E. Friedman suggests that when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom in 722 BC, many refugees streamed south into Judea, bringing their sacred writing "E" with them. Subsequently, E and J were combined into a single document, referred to as "JE."

D was written perhaps a century later. It was conveniently "discovered" in the temple by the priest Hilkiah in 622 BC, shortly after it was written. D was then joined with JE.

P was written before the death of King Josiah in 609 BCE, probably during the reign of King Hezekiah. It was written as an alternate to JE.

R combined J, E, P and other documents together into the first four books of the Hebrew Scriptures. To this, he added D's writings, the book of Deuteronomy, to complete the Pentateuch. By the time that he did the editing, the JE, D and P documents were in wide circulation. Each was supported by various factions. R saw his task as attempting to join these sources together into a more or less cohesive, single document. Friedmann suspects that Ezra was the redactor.

During the 18th Century, three investigators (Witter, Astruc and Eichhorn) independently concluded that doublets in the Torah were written by two different authors. A doublet is a story that is described twice, as in:

• the two creation stories in Genesis
• two descriptions of the covenant between God and Abraham
• two stories about the naming of Isaac
• two stories about the renaming of Jacob
• two versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5)
• two accounts of Moses' striking the rock at Meribah

These doublets sometimes appear to contradict each other. In most cases, one referred to God as Yahweh while the other used the term Elohim.

During the 19th Century, scholars noticed that there were a few triplets in the Torah. This indicated that a third author was involved. Then, they determined that the book of Deuteronomy was written in a different language style from the remaining 4 books in the Pentateuch (implying a fourth author). Finally, by the end of the 19th Century, liberal scholars reached a consensus that 4 authors and one redactor (editor) had been actively involved in the writing of the Pentateuch.

During the 20th Century, academics identified which verses (and parts of verses) were authored by the various writers. They have also attempted to uncover the names of the authors. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he urged academics to study the sources of Biblical texts. Recent archeological discoveries and new linguistic analysis tools have facilitated the research.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:26:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do you know who supposedly wrote Genesis, according to your own legends?

No one knows, but maybe O Friend.

The Semitic language is part of the Afro- Asiatic Language Group, so it is resonable to assume that the legends and moral stories and the nation building myths and legends of the oral historical/moral tradition of this group flow from that common human experience.

Job is thought by many specialists to be the oldest book. Genesis, as noted by some before, is of Sumerian/ Akkadian origans, dating to something like 2300bc, in the written testement, the oral tradition is of course much older.

As linguists tell me, the spoken language came in to furititon about 100,000 YO, and the essentials that we might recognize about 20,000 YO.

IOW, if you were to be transported to the Arabaia 20,000 YO after maybe six months, you would recognize the English language that you spoke as being a relative, strange in many respects, to the Arabic language spoken then.

And this would be the percursor of Hebrew. As well as the Northern African Languages as Dinka, Massai, and the rest, as opposed to Bantu, the southern sahra languages that are of a totally different group.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:29:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your post is nonsense. It is just someones opinion. Not even your original thoughts. Besides there are a lot of "probably" "likely" "perhaps" "suggests"

Lame

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:29:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your post is nonsense. It is just someones opinion.

It is not.

It appears to me to be from the book, well repsepected, "Who Wrote the Bible".

And as far as you go "It is just someones opinion."

That's all you are - a babbling brook of uninformed babbalage.

With hateful rightfulness added to the fascist mix. OF Ignorance only is bliss in the short term.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:39:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That's pretty old. I am unaware of any ME "culture" meaning small villages, neo lithic communities before about 8500 BC.

Sumerians are rooted in pre history Ubaidic and Urukian culture.

war  posted on  2009-02-19   21:40:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Genesis predates Gilgamesh.

Wrong. The Hebrew people left Egypt around 1200 BC, many centuries after the fall of the Sumerian civilization (1940 BC), and the language of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh predates the language of the Hebrew texts. The language of the earliest known tablet containing the Epic of Gilgamesh is from before 2000 BC.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:43:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

With hateful rightfulness added to the fascist mix. OF Ignorance only is bliss in the short term.

Facist. Me a facist. Now come on that is a stupid notion.

The book is opinion.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:43:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Wrong. The Hebrew people left Egypt around 1200 BC, many centuries after the fall of the Sumerian civilization (1940 BC), and the language of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh predates the language of the Hebrew texts. The language of the earliest known tablet containing the Epic of Gilgamesh is from before 2000 BC.

Your full of shit as usual. Show me this text and prove it predates Genesis.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:43:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Thanks for the heads up, war.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:44:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Region of southern Mesopotamia and site of the earliest known civilization. It was first settled c. 4500 – 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people called the Ubaidians

Ubaidians are the forebearers of Sumerians...the direct descendancy, IIRC, is Ubaid, Uruk, Eridu, Sumarian.

war  posted on  2009-02-19   21:44:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your not a reliable source. I believe Encyclopedia Britannica. It has already shown you to be wrong.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:45:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do not pass go. Do not collect shit. Go back and read post 185. Then research it. You are in error. Or worse deliberately lying.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:47:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It doesn't have to mention the Bible. Tell me why it must.

Because they are the earliest known people, so they had to be direct descendents of Adam and Eve somehow, right?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:54:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do not pass go. Do not collect shit. Go back and read post 185.

You hate real history don't you, as you can't explain it in terms of the bible. You'll never get past go if you refuse to open your eyes, you'll crash into the first curve.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:55:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Region of southern Mesopotamia and site of the earliest known civilization. It was first settled c. 4500 – 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people called the Ubaidians, who drained the marshes for agriculture and developed trade.

BTW, your timeline of the Ubadians indicates that they created their civilization right at the time the Earth was created according to your beliefs. So where are they mentioned in the Bible?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:05:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Show me this text and prove it predates Genesis.

Use Google, since you don't believe anything other than what your pastor tells you anyways...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:07:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your post is nonsense. It is just someones opinion. Not even your original thoughts. Besides there are a lot of "probably" "likely" "perhaps" "suggests"

Prove that Moses wrote Genesis. Besides, don't you know that the Sumerians existed well before the Hebrews historically left Egypt? You have claimed that Genesis predates Gilgamesh, but are apparently oblivious to the fact that if Moses wrote Genesis, then it would have been impossible for him to have written it before an ancient Sumerian text was written, as the Sumerian civilization had already ceased to exist by that time.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:11:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your full of shit as usual. Show me this text and prove it predates Genesis.

It's obvious who's full of shit here. Here's something for you to read. You'll probably ignore it, but putting it for others who are interested...

From Theology WebSite's Electronic Texts

Introduction to the Gilgamesh Epic
by Scott David Foutz

Sometime around 3500 BC the first cities appeared along the banks of the lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers. (The Tigris and Euphrates, as well as the Pishon and Havilah rivers are mentioned as flowing through Eden in Genesis 2:10ff.) These two rivers run a generally parallel course for about 600 miles from their source in the Persian Gulf. The plain between the Tigris and Euphrates is historically known as Mesopotamia (meaning: "between rivers") and is generally deemed by contemporary archaeology to be the "cradle of civilization". This region is located in the heartland of modern day Iraq.

Some time after 3500 BC a people called the Sumerians occupied the southern portion of this plain, nearest to the Persian Gulf. There is no evidence regarding the origin of the Sumerians, but they most likely came as conquerers (rather than passive settlers) from central Asia. They settled a number of agricultural communities, perhaps most notably one at Ur (on the Euphrates). Biblical students will recognize Ur as the hometown of the biblical Abraham about 1500 years later (see Gen 11:31). For over a thousand years these remarkable Sumerians controlled the southern portion of the Mesopotamian Valley and shaped many of the basic institutions and ideas governing later models of civilization throughout the Middle East and later, Europe.

Many scholars believe that the Sumerians invented writing since no earlier archaeological evidence of writing has been found than the written language of the Sumerians dating back to approximately 3200 BC. Initially the Sumerian written language consisted of pictograms (graphic representations of objects) which eventually evolved into a mixed system of simplified drawings, ideograms (symbols for ideas and abstracts such as "power"), and phonograms (symbols for the sounds of words or syllables). The Epic itself refers to "those who first cut into clay his bird-like words". (Tablet 1)

Wedge-shaped marks were used in making each symbol. The term "cuneiform" (from the Latin cuneus for "wedge") was later used to designate this type of writing. This practice of writing apparently proved so practically valuable that other peoples of the ancient Middle East later borrowed cuneiform symbols and adapted them to the sounds of their own languages.

The most impressive surviving literature of the Sumerians are their epic poems recorded on clay tablets concerning the career and discoveries of a legendary king named Gilgamesh. Although Gilgamesh is a semi-divine person in the epic, his principal quest, a quest for immortality, ends in failure. Thus the Epic of Gilgamesh has been said by some to embody the values and aspitrations of the Sumerian people.

The Gilgamesh Epic first became known to 19th century scholars through copies from the library of Ashurbanipal of the 7th century BC. Since that time, considerable archaeological evidence suggests that Gilgamesh did exist. Two historiographic texts of the 21st or 20th centuries BC mention Gilgamesh as a king of the city of Uruk (biblical Erech, see Genesis 10:10) during the Second Early Dynastic Period of Sumer (ca. 2700-2500 BC). According to the same texts, Gilgamesh is a contemporary of two other Sumerian kings, Enmebaragesi of Kish and Mesannepadda of Ur. Separate inscriptions of both of these kings as well as two sons of Mesannepadda have now been discovered, confirming their existence and thus greatly enhancing the likelihood that Gilgamesh was also an historical person.

The value of the Gilgamesh Epic for students of the Bible is truly substantial and multifaceted. Among these facets are the following:

1. The Epic is significantly older than the Old Testament and thus provides us with unparalleled insight into the ancient Near East. The most conservative traditional views of biblical authorship attribute the book of Genesis to Moses and thus require a (conservative) date of approximately 1440 BC, whereas the earliest written stage of portions of the Epic are presumed to date from the Ur III period, approximately 2000 BC.

2. The Epic contains a Flood Story strikingly similar to that of Genesis 6-9 (see Tablet 12). As mentioned previously, conservative views attribute the commitment of the biblical flood acount to written text (as opposed to oral tradition) approximately 1440 BC with Moses. Thus the textual account of the Flood in the Epic significantly precedes the account in Genesis. (Scholars generally recognize this precedence of the Sumerian flood account based on references to the Flood oon the Old Babylonian versions of the Epic (2000-1600 BC) and the complete flood account's appearance in the older Atrahasis Epic which we know precedes the Old Babylonian version of the Epic.)

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:21:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In another essay on another day, I’ll take a look at the Babylonian “creation” epic that is similarly said to “closely follow the biblical account.”

http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/noah-versus-gilgamesh/

You take the words of a deranged blogger over that of historical fact that any knowledgeable scholar would acknowledge.

Ignorance is bliss for you isn't it, and knowledge is evil. How are you different from the fanatical Muslims that wish to live as if they were still in the 4th century?

Your little friend apparently has a serious problem with any legitimate knowledge, and finds anything other than his wild assed delusions to be a lie.

Is he your mentor?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:32:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Go back and read post 185.

BTW genius, I WROTE post 185.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:43:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Because they are the earliest known people, so they had to be direct descendents of Adam and Eve somehow, right?

Adam and Eve are the earliest people. They don't have to be direct descendants. They are indirect descendants. But just because they are indirect descendants doesn't mean they have to mention the Bible in their writings. They lost that history.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:44:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You hate real history don't you, as you can't explain it in terms of the bible. You'll never get past go if you refuse to open your eyes, you'll crash into the first curve.

I am not following you to hell.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:48:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You hate real history don't you

The Bible is real history. Sorry you want to live with your sin and reject Christ. Your problem not histories.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:48:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Ubadians

You talk a lot of shit. But you have yet to prove anything that you say. Go on prove it. Don't just say it.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:50:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Prove that Moses wrote Genesis. Besides, don't you know that the Sumerians existed well before the Hebrews historically left Egypt? You have claimed that Genesis predates Gilgamesh, but are apparently oblivious to the fact that if Moses wrote Genesis, then it would have been impossible for him to have written it before an ancient Sumerian text was written, as the Sumerian civilization had already ceased to exist by that time.

Jesus said Moses wrote it.

God told him what to write obviously when he was alone with him at Mt Sinai.

Gilgamesh doesn't predate Genesis. You can keep saying that all you want but it doesn't make it true.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:52:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why does your essence cult call Christ a liar. Aren't they supposed to follow him?

A) What the hell is an "essence cult"?

B) Are you now trying to say that Jesus wrote the Old Testament?

C) Follow WHO?

Oh, you misspelled ESSENES, and don't know enough about ancient history to know that it wasn't a cult, it was a JEWISH SECT, just as the Pharasees were a JEWISH SECT.

So where have you read anything about the Essenes calling Jesus a liar? That you side with those who KILLED Jesus, and believe their words shows whose side YOU are on...

The true gospels of the apostles (who were ESSENES) were burned by the likes of Romans and Pauline "christians", led by Paul in order to sqaush the true teachings of Jesus, which were unacceptable to Rome.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:56:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Jesus said Moses wrote it.

Quote from the Bible please.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:56:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Gilgamesh doesn't predate Genesis. You can keep saying that all you want but it doesn't make it true.

I said the Epic of Gilgamesh was written before the Book of Genesis was written. Do you think Moses lived in Sumeria, well before Egypt existed?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:57:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Ubadians

You talk a lot of shit. But you have yet to prove anything that you say. Go on prove it. Don't just say it.

You are a case study of a person with serious projection issues. YOU are the one that posted the info on Ubadians, but since it contradicts your little idea of when creation occured if you think about it honestly, you now pretend you know nothing about what you already posted and launch ad hominem comments at me.

Answer the question, and don't act like a bigger idiot than you already are.

According to what you posted from Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Ubadians first settled southern Mesopotamia between 4500 – 4000 BC. Since you believe the Earth to be 6000 years old, and 6000 years ago would be 4009 BC, the Bible SHOULD say something about the Ubadian people, don't you agree?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:05:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Adam and Eve are the earliest people.

I believe in magic.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   23:08:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Bible is real history.

This is so sad.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   23:09:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I am not following you to hell.

If there IS a hell, I'm sure there's a spot reserved for you there, since you reject the teachings of Jesus and believe in outright heresy. Time will tell now won't it...

It'd be bad enough if you simply didn't wish to change your view of things, but you attack those who try to present legitimate info on the matter, while at the same time cheering for the death and suffering being inflicted upon innocent people, including children and little babies, at the hands of your heroes, the Israelis.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:10:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

God told him what to write obviously when he was alone with him at Mt Sinai.

Obviously.

Nuttery, the religious kind, as in the worst.

I know the TRUTH>>> and you don't.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   23:11:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Bible is real history.

There is SOME history in the Bible, but there are many tales and poems as well. Are you too stupid to know that? What is the Book of Psalms?

As far as the story of creation, it is not history, it is an allegorical tale meant to convey a religious message.

The Bible was not written by God, it was written by men, EVEN if the Old Testament was written by Moses himself (which is highly improbable as it is).

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:14:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

God told him what to write obviously when he was alone with him at Mt Sinai.

You were there and saw it happen, right?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:15:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

{Concerning Ubadians}

Adam and Eve are the earliest people. They don't have to be direct descendants. They are indirect descendants. But just because they are indirect descendants doesn't mean they have to mention the Bible in their writings. They lost that history.

They existed right at the time of creation according to your beliefs, thus obviously they had to be direct descendents. In fact, we ALL have to be direct descendents if we all came from Adam and Eve. So if THEY lost their history, then where did the history according to the Old Testament come from?

And how do you get this notion of "indirect descendents"? Do you mean aliens came and mated with humans along the way?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:28:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

since you reject the teachings of Jesus and believe in outright heresy.

HeHe- an apostate christian, lots of them around, tooo many really.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   23:41:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

According to what you posted from Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Ubadians first settled southern Mesopotamia between 4500 – 4000 BC. Since you believe the Earth to be 6000 years old, and 6000 years ago would be 4009 BC, the Bible SHOULD say something about the Ubadian people, don't you agree?

That is what the Encyclopedia said. It is probably relatively correct. I posted that in response to war who said 20,000 years. Which was ridiculous.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:41:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As far as the story of creation, it is not history, it is an allegorical tale meant to convey a religious message.

It is real history. The fossil record is part of the "proof".

You are a heretic. A deceiver. A fool. And deceived.

I will pray for you.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:45:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And how do you get this notion of "indirect descendents"? Do you mean aliens came and mated with humans along the way?

I took your word direct to mean that they came from Adam and Eve. I used indirect to mean that it was from the children of Adam and Eve.

No I don't believe in Aliens. Try Houndawg. He thinks Obama is a Lizard man.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:46:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

since you reject the teachings of Jesus and believe in outright heresy.

Jesus talked about Noah and the flood. It is you that reject the plain teachings of Jesus.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:47:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is real history. The fossil record is part of the "proof".

You are a heretic. A deceiver. A fool. And deceived.

Fossil records indicate the earth is billions of years old, so you don't know shit about fossil records.

You are a heathen idol worshipper, an evil spawn, a demonic creature sent here to repulse people away from the true God.

You idolize the men who wrote a book, yet turn your back on what true spirituality and quest for knowledge and truth might bring.

If you believe that you are anything else, then it is you who is deceived.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:52:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Jesus talked about Noah and the flood.

Cite a Bible quote, or admit that you are making it up as you go.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:54:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Cite a Bible quote, or admit that you are making it up as you go.

Here: Jesus is being quoted.

Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.

Henry David Thoreau - 1849

noone222  posted on  2009-02-19   23:59:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Fossil records indicate the earth is billions of years old, so you don't know shit about fossil records.

More circular reasoning on your part.

The fossil record proves the earth was flooded. Their are fossils in the highest mountains. You bought that evolution crap hook line and sinker. Satan is reeling you in. Poor stupid fool.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:59:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Thank You noone222. You are definitely some one.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:01:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Already answered for you in post 237. Did your cult cut that one out of the good book too?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:02:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No I don't believe in Aliens.

So you admit that you reject the teachings of the Bible?

Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

Numbers 13:33 "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:02:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

Numbers 13:33 "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

They were angels. What makes you think they were aliens?

Some people teach that they intermarried with people.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:04:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Here: Jesus is being quoted.

Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

BUT, Jesus didn't write it did he, so you have to believe that Luke is telling the truth. Besides, it is fairly well documented that all of the true gospels of the apostles were burned by Rome and the Church of Paul (the self declared apostle who founded the Roman Catholic Church).

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:04:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

They were angels. What makes you think they were aliens?

So are angels born on earth?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:05:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So are angels born on earth?

I don't know enough about that to answer you.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:06:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BUT, Jesus didn't write it did he

The whole Bible is from God. Regardless of what the Romans tried to destroy.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:07:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

More circular reasoning on your part. The fossil record proves the earth was flooded.

Holy shit, speak of pot calling the kettle black!!!

I never said that the earth wasn't flooded you liar. I said that the fossil records indicate that life has been on this planet for billions of years.

That your book written by desert dwellers doesn't mention it is your proof that it can't be true, and your proof that the book is right is that you say it is, because there was a flood.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:10:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The whole Bible is from God. Regardless of what the Romans tried to destroy.

Prove it.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:10:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't know enough about that to answer you.

So you at least admit that they aren't born in hospitals nor have a special hotel for angels here in most major cities, right?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:12:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I never said that the earth wasn't flooded you liar. I said that the fossil records indicate that life has been on this planet for billions of years.

That your book written by desert dwellers doesn't mention it is your proof that it can't be true, and your proof that the book is right is that you say it is, because there was a flood.

You don't believe in a worldwide flood.

Explain how the fossils prove the earth is billions of years. You keep saying that. But you can say it til your blue in the face and it does't make it true.

You are just parroting something you heard a little guy in a white suit say. They are your god.

You like to say desert dwellers don't you. Think it makes you smart. Well it doesn't. God revealed his word to who he wanted to back at the beginning. They wrote it down. You are free to reject it. Everyone has a choice if they want heaven or Hell. The choice is yours. Choose wisely. Oh you already chose....nevermind.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:14:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Prove it.

It is not my job to prove it to you. It is between you and God. Pray about it.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:15:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Did your cult cut that one out of the good book too?

BTW, the Essenes existed BEFORE Jesus lived, as well as DURING his life. The gospels written by the apostles were burned by your cult, so we'll never know for sure what the apostles REALLY said, or what Jesus REALLY taught, unless we look at what THEY believed by investigating their origins.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:15:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You don't believe in a worldwide flood.

Backup your assertion. Provide a link where I've made that statement, or admit that you are a liar.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:16:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Explain how the fossils prove the earth is billions of years. You keep saying that. But you can say it til your blue in the face and it does't make it true.

Look it up pal, I don't have time to teach you high school biology.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:16:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, the Essenes existed BEFORE Jesus lived, as well as DURING his life. The gospels written by the apostles were burned by your cult, so we'll never know for sure what the apostles REALLY said, or what Jesus REALLY taught, unless we look at what THEY believed by investigating their origins.

If that is what you want to put your faith in that is your business. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.....That applies to you.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:18:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You are just parroting something you heard a little guy in a white suit say. They are your god.

You are a hypocrite as well as a liar. I've read a lot more than you can imagine, although you believe everything your little pastor hollars at you in one of his sermons, because, you simply find it easier than having to use any intelligence.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:18:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.....

So you're saying Jesus was a fool, since he was an Essene?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:19:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Look it up pal, I don't have time to teach you high school biology.

In other words. You don't understand it you just took it on faith. You can't explain it because it is stinky horse shit.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:19:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You are a hypocrite as well as a liar. I've read a lot more than you can imagine, although you believe everything your little pastor hollars at you in one of his sermons, because, you simply find it easier than having to use any intelligence.

I base it on the Bible. No pastor told me this stuff. You on the other hand are easily deceived.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:20:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So you're saying Jesus was a fool, since he was an Essene?

Go to hell asshole.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:21:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That applies to you.

Your hypocrisy isn't just blatently obvious, but sadly pathetic, since you appear to take yourself seriously and are blind to how foolish you truly are.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:21:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I know everyone who believes Gods word (the Bible) is stupid. You on the other hand have all the answers and are a really really really smart guy. Sarcasm off.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:23:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I base it on the Bible.

And the Bible is written by men, some of who were less than honest. In fact, it's a rather poor translation of the original Hebrew in terms of the Old Testament, and known to be ficticious in terms of the New Testament as the original texts were burned by those you revere.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:23:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I know everyone who believes Gods word (the Bible) is stupid.

Those who believe the Universe and everything in it was created 6000 years ago are about as intelligent as any other self deluded group of people.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:26:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In other words. You don't understand it you just took it on faith.

You can't understand that light travels at the speed of light, so I doubt you'd understand anything concerning fossil evidence.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:27:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And the Bible is written by men, some of who were less than honest. In fact, it's a rather poor translation of the original Hebrew in terms of the Old Testament, and known to be ficticious in terms of the New Testament as the original texts were burned by those you revere.

Quit talking shit ok. You couldn't put up on your fossil millions of years comment. Because you were to stupid.

Now you say it was a poor translation. They should have hired you to translate it. Then we would have had a perfect Bible.

Come on show us 5 examples of a poor translation. Then tell us what it should have said.

I put you pussy out just like you did on proving that fossils prove the world is billions of years old. You are fat on talk and not shit on substance.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:27:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Go to hell asshole.

So you are saying that Jesus wasn't a fool, yet he was an Essene, who you've called fools. So which is he?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:28:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You can't understand that light travels at the speed of light,

You are to stupid to understand that that doesn't prove how old the earth is.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:28:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're just a troll that I don't have time to play with any further this evening. I do have a job, and do need to get some sleep. Adios, and try not to burn your neighbor's cats and dogs as sacrifices to your gods...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:29:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Those who believe the Universe and everything in it was created 6000 years ago are about as intelligent as any other self deluded group of people.

Why is that. All the evidence suggests that the Bible is correct. No contradictions in scripture. No scientific contradictions.

You have a lot of faith in those scientists whose views change daily. With every new discovery your truth changes. Back and forth blowing with the wind.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:30:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I do have a job,

sure you do.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:30:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Now we have the "usual suspects" trying to justify mass murder and genocide because it was done by Israel which has God's Carte Blanche to commit murder, genocide, run drugs, engage in Sex Slavery, provide safe haven for criminals, etc., ... because God said they could. And who said God said they could? Why the people comitting the crimes of course. That and their Neo-Nazi supporters. Killing children with White Phosphorous is good when Israel does it, because God said they could

Dude we are talking about starlight and the age of the earth. Take your anti jew bigotry to another thread please.

Nice attempt to avoid the issue with the standard smear tactic - "if'n you don't approve of Israel committing War Crimes and being a nexus in international crime it's jus' cuz ya hate Joos". The point is relevant as it illuminates the issues at hand - you are the one making the preposterous argument on starlight not I. My comment was aimed more at underscoring the way which religion is twisted to justify positions and doctrines which are antithetical to it.

Did it ever occur to you that someone could object to massive State Criminality by Israel without hating?

I despise the actions of the STATE of Shittylittlestan and that has nothing to do with disliking or hating a group of people simply because of their ancestry and religion. It has everything to do with opposing inhuman and disgusting bigotry perpetrated by the Israelis and their supporters in justifying the murder of others for the crime of refusing to just die and give up their homes.

Please cite, give a link, of any instance where I have EVER expressed a generalized hatred of Jews. Of course you cannot and we both know it as I do not hate Jews. I do despise criminality and murder which uses religion as its justification.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-20   0:31:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why is that. All the evidence suggests that the Bible is correct. No contradictions in scripture. No scientific contradictions.

You are an absolute crackpot cretin if you truly believe that, as it's been made clear to you in hundreds of posts on this thread that your childlike understanding of the world and the universe is woefully misguided, scientifically and historically impossible, yet you continue to make believe that only YOU and your whacked out cult know anything, that the world's scientists are all stupid, then you proceed project your own shortcomings onto those who are trying to speak to you as an adult.

I've given you mathmatical proof that the universe could not exist if light behaved any differently than it does, specifically in terms of its speed. That you can't understand the concept that light travels a certain distance in a year is rather pathetic.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:37:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You are to stupid to understand that that doesn't prove how old the earth is.

You can't even spell simple words correctly, never mind understand anything beyond 1st grade science class. I can see why you need to believe in fairy tales and magic, as anything beyond "poof it was there" boggles your mind.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Please cite, give a link, of any instance where I have EVER expressed a generalized hatred of Jews. Of course you cannot and we both know it as I do not hate Jews. I do despise criminality and murder which uses religion as its justification.

Of course he can't, but that won't stop him from accusing you of it or saying that you did. OF is a flaming hypocrite of the worst kind where he'll concoct blatent lies in order to "win" his argument.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:43:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Come on show us 5 examples of a poor translation.

I can give you one right now. The word Adam in your English bible means a person's name, where in the original Hebrew A-dam means human, or humankind.

You are fat on talk and not shit on substance.

I've already stated the fact concerning the word Adam to you several times on this thread alone, so look in the mirror when you utter those words...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:48:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Please cite, give a link, of any instance where I have EVER expressed a generalized hatred of Jews

I will take your word for it. You were off topic though.

It is hard keeping track of who said what sometimes.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   1:41:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I can give you one right now. The word Adam in your English bible means a person's name, where in the original Hebrew A-dam means human, or humankind.

Don't think so dude.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

And Humankind knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord

and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God

and humankind and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son

And humankind knew his wife again; and she bare a son

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

And all the days that humankind lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (I guess you think we would all be dead now all humankind should be dead right...lol what a fool)

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   1:47:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I've given you mathmatical proof that the universe could not exist if light behaved any differently than it does, specifically in terms of its speed.

No you have just said you have proof over and over. You never put it up though. Your statements are not proof.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   1:50:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't think so dude.

So you know more Hebrew than the Hebrews, and say that Adam was a dude's name.

You know more than those who wrote the Torah I guess, perhaps you can go teach Hebrew over in Israel or something...

Oh wait, there is a Hebrew to English dictionary online. Click the link below and look up Adam.

Hebrew/English Dictionary

See how full of shit you are? And see how accurate your translation of the Bible is? I'd love to see the entire original text translated straight from Hebrew to English, I highly doubt it says what you think it says.

You even proved it by taking the original word and tossing it about your fairytale, it obviously doesn't work.

As far as the first chapter of Genesis, it DOES fit, where it says, God created HUMANS in God's own image, male and female they (yes, it's a plural) created them.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   6:23:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No you have just said you have proof over and over.

Well apparently you either don't read posts directed to you, or pretend they weren't posted when they offer absolute proof that you claim doesn't exist.

Look at posts 105 and 106, that's the proof. Forgot about those?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   6:30:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So a word means one thing in one sentence then another in another sentence. Geeze your even dimmer then originally thought.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   7:37:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I already disproved that in post 185 or whatever it was. Go back and read it.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   7:39:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Oh and thanks for that dictionary. It looks kind of interesting. So you are good for something.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   7:40:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your not a reliable source. I believe Encyclopedia Britannica. It has already shown you to be wrong.

Given that I too cited the Ubaidiac and Urukian cultures as Summarain pre- culture, your statement is at odds with reality.

YOU claimed that they were descendants of Noah which is 100% incorrect.

war  posted on  2009-02-20   8:08:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

such complex questions.

The planet Pluto was discovered in 1930. Did the planet exist before it was discovered by a human being or did it come into existance seconds before it was discovered? If it existed then it must be admitted that our technology is weak and cannot/does not know all things. If it didn't exist until just seconds before it was discovered then the very foundation of our science about the creation of planets is completely wrong.

Has an absolute proof of what came first the chicken or the egg ever been put forth? Theories, yes... proof NO. And such a simple question.

If Darwin was correct why is it Neanderthal, Cromagnum and the others no longer exist and yet the families of monkey still exist? If our science is so weak and/or flawed how can we expect to use it to justify, prove or disprove the Bible and the acts of the Lord?

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-02-20   8:48:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

YOU claimed that they were descendants of Noah which is 100% incorrect.

No one survived the flood except the people on the Ark. We are ALL descendants of Adam.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   8:55:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If our science is so weak and/or flawed how can be expect to justify using it to prove or disprove the Bible and the acts of the Lord?

You can't absolutely scientifically prove the existence of God.

But you can take the words from the Bible and analyze them. For example. The flood. If it happened as the Bible says there should be evidence of that. Well there is. It is called the fossil record.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   8:56:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Did you read what I posted? To try and use "science" to prove or disprove the Lord and all HE has done is a waste of time. Science will never be sophisticated/accurate enough to use as a method to attempt to prove or disprove the Bible, The Lord and all that HE has done. For example, the concept of "end" is a human limitation. In our limited understanding/knowledge things must begin and end. That doesn't mean that is the absolute truth. All it means is we do not have the ability to understand otherwise.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-02-20   9:01:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This whole thing is hilarious. Nearly 300 replies to a topic as silly as this?

Yes, I know, I added a reply too. If that makes me silly, so be it.

Surreal World Blog

Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-20   9:14:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

We are ALL descendants of Adam.

Then who did Cain and Abel marry?

war  posted on  2009-02-20   9:19:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

already disproved that in post 185 or whatever it was. Go back and read it.

The only thing you've disproven here is yourself.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   9:51:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Then who did Cain and Abel marry?

An inflatable doll leftover from the Sodomites, its in the book of Ludicrious, silly.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-20   10:06:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

...it's in the book of Ludicrious, silly...

My bad...

war  posted on  2009-02-20   10:21:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Then who did Cain and Abel marry?

Their sisters.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   21:30:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This whole thing is hilarious. Nearly 300 replies to a topic as silly as this?

This topic isn't silly. It is of great importance. The article proves that the dating method used by some of the stupider scientists is not scientific. Since evolutionists use these dating methods to confirm their own bogus science dating methods. It proves that maybe the Bible was right when it says the earth is roughly 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   21:32:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The only thing you've disproven here is yourself.

How so?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   21:33:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Did you read what I posted?

Yes I did. Go back and read what I said. We have differences but not as big as say myself and former berzerker.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   21:34:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is kind of hilarious that lurker thinks that because we can see the start that the earth has to be billions of years old. What a foolish position. There are so many variables that he just tosses out the window.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   21:35:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It proves that maybe the Bible was right when it says the earth is roughly 6 to 10 thousand years old.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-20   21:37:12 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It proves that maybe the Bible was right when it says the earth is roughly 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Tom how old do you believe the earth is. And why do you believe what you believe?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   21:38:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

OF having a discussion on such a matter with a voice that believes in magic is utterly pointless.

You can ask me how I know this ;)

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-20   22:20:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The only difference I see is that I don't believe it is necessary to try any use our limited knowledge/science to prove that The Lord exists. I know HE does.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-02-21   6:14:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The only difference I see is that I don't believe it is necessary to try any use our limited knowledge/science to prove that The Lord exists. I know HE does.

I don't think it is necessary to try to prove that God exists for my own benefit. I believe it.

There is somewhere in the Bible where Jesus talks about having to teach the greeks different than the Jews. For to the Greeks it was foolishness and the Jews already had a foundation to build on.

Same way with today. So many people believe that evolution and this millions of years garbage is true since "scientists" say it is so. It is a stumbling block for them and their faith. If we could just show them that evolution isn't necessarily true then that gives their faith a chance to grow and come to christ.

You might say but God could have used evolution and it isn't necessarily the way the Bible said it is.

Well if we are telling them the Bible is inaccurate about creation then why should they believe us when we tell them that they need to accept christ.

So that is what I am doing. Is attacking the extremely weak foundation that evolution and this millions of years crap is based on.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-21   22:15:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Cite a Bible quote,

This was your question.

Here was the answer:

Here: Jesus is being quoted. Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Here's your stupid response and the reason some people are seen for the dissembler's they truly are:

BUT, Jesus didn't write it did he, so you have to believe that Luke is telling the truth.

You should ask the question you want answered.

If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.

Henry David Thoreau - 1849

noone222  posted on  2009-02-22   22:49:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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