<rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > John Wilkins wrote: > > In article <z8KIm.6971$Xf2.5...@newsfe12.iad>, Ron Dean > > <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> John Wilkins wrote: > >>> In article <r7EIm.5728$gi1.5...@newsfe19.iad>, Ron Dean > >>> <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Dr. Thomas wrote: > >>>>> Ron Dean wrote: > >>>>>>> Volvox minor, is made up of > >>>>>>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of > >>>>>>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells > >>>>>>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the > >>>>>>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells > >>>>>>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which > >>>>>>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells > >>>>>>> were programed to age and die, having been used > >>>>>>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to > >>>>>>> facilitate reproduction. > >>>>>> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. > >>>>>> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer > >>>>>> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to > >>>>>> build new volvox. > >>>>>> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in > >>>>>> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells > >>>>>> including human, were could divide only a limited number of > >>>>>> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were > >>>>>> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called > >>>>>> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically > >>>>>> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly > >>>>>> falsified.
> >>>>>> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a > >>>>>> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. > >>>>>> After several months, he reported that the cells showed > >>>>>> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings > >>>>>> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken > >>>>>> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer > >>>>>> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an > >>>>>> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called > >>>>>> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive > >>>>>> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called > >>>>>> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom > >>>>>> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to > >>>>>> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta > >>>>>> died in 1951.
> >>>>>> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- > >>>>>> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in > >>>>>> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for > >>>>>> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing > >>>>>> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human > >>>>>> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the > >>>>>> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells > >>>>>> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then > >>>>>> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure > >>>>>> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just > >>>>>> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! > >>>>>> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- > >>>>>> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
> >>>>>> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist > >>>>>> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did > >>>>>> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional > >>>>>> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X > >>>>>> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman > >>>>>> together in the same enviroment during the same testing > >>>>>> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while > >>>>>> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. > >>>>>> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman > >>>>>> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. > >>>>>> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young > >>>>>> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, > >>>>>> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow > >>>>>> seems to acquire immortality.
> >>>>>> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental > >>>>>> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the > >>>>>> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to > >>>>>> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that > >>>>>> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so > >>>>>> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". > >>>>>> The manuscript was rejected.
> >>>>>> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another > >>>>>> journal and it was published. This paper has since been > >>>>>> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history > >>>>>> of medical research.
> >>>>>> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate > >>>>>> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA > >>>>>> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about > >>>>>> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning > >>>>>> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells > >>>>>> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By > >>>>>> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds > >>>>>> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick > >>>>>> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
> >>>>>> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, > >>>>>> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, > >>>>>> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young > >>>>>> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This > >>>>>> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A > >>>>>> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. > >>>>>> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, > >>>>>> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called > >>>>>> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of > >>>>>> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the > >>>>>> number of repeats.
> >>>>>> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the > >>>>>> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, > >>>>>> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end > >>>>>> minus one link. > >>>>>> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link > >>>>>> less than the parent cell.
> >>>>>> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from > >>>>>> mortal soma cells.
> >>>>> SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
> >>>> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any > >>>> further. > >>> I am interested, but not enough to put you to any trouble,
> >> It is the time and trouble of writing Part III. However, I had > >> completed approximately 50% of the next part when I felt it > >> was a waste of time and effort, since no one appeared interested. > >> Did you read my two previous post on the subject? If so, any > >> comments?
> > None, other than I am now much better informed about telomeres and the > > Hayflick limit than I was before I read them. I am in particular > > interested to hear what you have to say about HeLa.
> I touched on HeLa cells in part II. Here is what I know about this.
> In 1951 Henrietts Lacks drove from Virginia to The John Hopkins > Hospital with unsual bleeding. Here she was diagnosed with cancer. > Without her knowledge a small section of her cancer was taken and > given to George and Margaret Gey who had wanted to get a cancer > growing in a lab. (A cancer in a test tube) In this way, they hoped, > anticancer therapies and drugs could be tested before they were > given to people. The 1/2 inch piece was sectioned into smaller pieces > and placed it in glass bottles with a nutritional culture. Within > a few days the people in Gey's lab witnessed an explosive growth in > this artificial environment.
> Over the next months it became evident that Dr. Gey had an immortal > human cell line consisting of human cancer cells that would continue > to grow indefinitely. Dr. Gey appeared on national TV with a vial of > Henrietta's cells which he called HiLa cells to hide their origin. He > boasted. "It is possible that, from fundamental studies such as these, > we will be able to learn a way in which cancer can be completely > wiped out".
> These cells were destined to be sent to research cells around the > world even into space on board of Discoverer XVII satellite. These > cells continue to live today, almost 60 years after Henrietta died.
> Normal human somatic cells are not immortal, they will repeat > only about 50 times, aging during this time, then they will die even > when provided with with the right nutrients and conditions. But > Henrietta's cells were truly human somatic cells which became > immortal once they became cancerous. Eventually, they would play > a role in the quest to discover what mechanisms are involved in > immortal cells and how they differed from mortal cells.
> I should emphasize, again that immortal does not mean that immortal > cells cannot be killed by starvation, heat poison etc. It only means > they are not Programed to age and die.
> I have no more time, but I will get back to this.
> Thanks
> Ron
Gracias. I must have missed Part II while I am travelling. Rebecca Skloot has a new book on Henrietta Lacks and her cells. I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know how deeply into the biology she goes.
>On Oct 30, 8:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Suzanne wrote: >> > On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >> >> Suzanne wrote: >> >>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >> >>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >> >>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >> >>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >> >>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >> >>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >> >>> being a real person. >> >> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >> >> the poster to be serious. Cute!
>> >> T.
>> > I am completely serious. >> > Suzanne
>> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text -
>I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like that is in it. >However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are rare, >think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination in >the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that believe >the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true.
Baptists are many differing, though related, denominations amd, as far as I can tell, only the ones who got their start defending American slavery claim that the Bible is literally true.
The fact remains that the Bible is riddled with errors, no matter what your religion teaches.
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:26:15 -0800, Suzanne wrote:
> <SNIPPAGE>
> > What is there to tell? It was some kind of fruit. Eve ate it, offered > > it to Adam. > > It's pretty simple. But boy does it have deep implications...
> You bet! Millions of dupes.
> > He ate it because he loved her.
> Sounds like a peach. "...dare to eat a peach!" [J. Alfred Prufrock]
> <SNIPPAGE> > I can read no further -- do you live near Disneyland?
No we do not live near Disneyland. Do you live in New England?
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:26:46 -0800, Suzanne wrote: > On Nov 6, 9:34 pm, polymer <poly...@operamail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:26:15 -0800, Suzanne wrote:
>> <SNIPPAGE>
>> > What is there to tell? It was some kind of fruit. Eve ate it, >> > offered it to Adam. >> > It's pretty simple. But boy does it have deep implications...
>> You bet! Millions of dupes.
>> > He ate it because he loved her.
>> Sounds like a peach. "...dare to eat a peach!" [J. Alfred Prufrock]
>> <SNIPPAGE> >> I can read no further -- do you live near Disneyland?
> No we do not live near Disneyland. Do you live in New England?
Probably, since that's the most distance you can get from Disneyland and still stay in the country.
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:16:27 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >On Oct 30, 8:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Suzanne wrote: > >> > On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > >> >> Suzanne wrote: > >> >>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > >> >>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > >> >>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real > >> >>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. > >> >>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > >> >>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > >> >>> being a real person. > >> >> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed > >> >> the poster to be serious. Cute!
> >> >> T.
> >> > I am completely serious. > >> > Suzanne
> >> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text -
> >I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like that is in it. > >However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are rare, > >think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination in > >the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that believe > >the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true.
> Baptists are many differing, though related, denominations amd, as far > as I can tell, only the ones who got their start defending American > slavery claim that the Bible is literally true.
Baptists existed before America existed, so they did not begin that way. People that were Christians and non-Christians supported slavery. Baptists made this statement in 1789: "a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with a republican government." The Civil War began on April 12, 1861.
> The fact remains that the Bible is riddled with errors, no matter what
>On Nov 6, 10:49 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:16:27 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Oct 30, 8:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Suzanne wrote: >> >> > On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >> >> >> Suzanne wrote: >> >> >>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >> >> >>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >> >> >>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >> >> >>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >> >> >>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >> >> >>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >> >> >>> being a real person. >> >> >> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >> >> >> the poster to be serious. Cute!
>> >> >> T.
>> >> > I am completely serious. >> >> > Suzanne
>> >> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text -
>> >I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like that is in it. >> >However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are rare, >> >think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination in >> >the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that believe >> >the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true.
>> Baptists are many differing, though related, denominations amd, as far >> as I can tell, only the ones who got their start defending American >> slavery claim that the Bible is literally true.
>Baptists existed before America existed, so they did not begin that >way. People that were Christians and non-Christians supported >slavery. Baptists made this statement in 1789: > "a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with >a republican government." >The Civil War began on April 12, 1861.
And the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to support slavery and the traitors who went to war against the United States of America.
> > The fact remains that the Bible is riddled with errors, no matter what >> your religion teaches.
>Would you like to speak of these supposed errors?
I have. You have ignored them.
Let's do it again:
1. The creation stories are not history. They are not useful in any way to understand the beginning of life, the universe or anything.
2. The Flood Myth is false. There is no possible justification for any religious person to claim that it is true. None.
3. The just-so story about the beginning of differing languages at Babel is nonsense.
4. The stories from Babel to Egypt are completely unsubstantiated.
5. The stories about Egypt and the Exodus are false. They are not only unsupported by the evidence, but the evidence that does exist shows that they are just foundation myths of a people.
6. The conquest of Canaan, particularly the story about how Joshua conquered Jericho are proven to be false by the physical evidence.
Many other stories of wishful thinking, followed by the particularly egregious mismatch of the ancestry of Jesus that so many Christians make so many excuses for.
Suzanne wrote: > On Oct 30, 8:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Suzanne wrote: >>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >>>>> being a real person. >>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! >>>> T. >>> I am completely serious. >>> Suzanne >> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text -
> I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like > that is in it. > However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are > rare, > think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination > in > the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that > believe > the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true. > Suzanne
I am acutely aware of the Baptists as I was a Southern Baptist for 45 years. I have never seen so many prejudiced, bigoted and narrow-minded people in one organization. You need to ask yourself why you deny the facts of nature as shown by the major sciences. Just because millions of others wear their badge of ignorance on their shoulders and dare you to knock it off, doesn't mean you should.
Suzanne wrote: > On Oct 30, 10:24 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >>>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >>>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >>>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >>>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >>>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >>>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >>>>>> being a real person. >>>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >>>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! >>>>> T. >>>> I am completely serious. >>>> Suzanne >>> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit. >> Forgive him, Suzanne. Atheists put no store by civilized conduct.
>> TCross- Hide quoted text -
> Thanks TC. He's forgiven
Thanks god. By the way, placing faith on the goodness of Terry Cross isn't the most advisable thing to do.
Suzanne wrote: > On Oct 30, 11:30 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Terry Cross wrote: >>> On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >>>>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >>>>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >>>>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >>>>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >>>>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >>>>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >>>>>>> being a real person. >>>>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >>>>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! >>>>>> T. >>>>> I am completely serious. >>>>> Suzanne >>>> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit. >>> Forgive him, Suzanne. Atheists put no store by civilized conduct. >>> TCross >> Gee Terry, Suzanne doesn't need to tell us. As you are her staunch >> defender, why don't you tell us about the fruit. I'll be waiting.- Hide quoted text -
> What is there to tell? It was some kind of fruit. Eve ate it, offered > it to Adam. It's pretty simple.
Really? Simple? So god in his infinite wisdom placed access to knowledge and eternity in the garden in the form of fruit?? No explanation of how this worked but you will bite and it is simple??
> But boy does it have deep implications...
The implications weren't deep until Paul came along and needed a reason for the death of Jesus.
> He ate it because he loved her. He was not deceived.
LMAO!! Sure he did. He ate it because the fruit looked so delicious. Eve ate some and she was fine. Besides, god never told Eve not to eat the fruit.
> She was, and he > loved > her that much. He was willing to die for her.
Oh crap, Suzanne. You read something that isn't there into every sticky situation in the bible.
> This is a parallel to > Christ, and in > theology this is called a "type of Christ." He is mentioned in the New > Testament > as being a "type of him that is to come," meaning of Christ that loved > his bride > "the church" (the collective believers, not a denomination), and gave > himself > for her, being made sin for her to suffer in her place so that she > might have > hope.
This "parallel" only exits in the fertile minds of fundamentalists.
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:48:08 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >On Nov 6, 10:49 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:16:27 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >> >On Oct 30, 8:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Suzanne wrote: > >> >> > On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > >> >> >> Suzanne wrote: > >> >> >>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > >> >> >>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > >> >> >>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real > >> >> >>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. > >> >> >>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > >> >> >>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > >> >> >>> being a real person. > >> >> >> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed > >> >> >> the poster to be serious. Cute!
> >> >> >> T.
> >> >> > I am completely serious. > >> >> > Suzanne
> >> >> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text -
> >> >I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like that is in it. > >> >However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are rare, > >> >think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination in > >> >the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that believe > >> >the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true.
> >> Baptists are many differing, though related, denominations amd, as far > >> as I can tell, only the ones who got their start defending American > >> slavery claim that the Bible is literally true.
> >Baptists existed before America existed, so they did not begin that > >way. People that were Christians and non-Christians supported > >slavery. Baptists made this statement in 1789: > > "a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with > >a republican government." > >The Civil War began on April 12, 1861.
> And the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to support slavery and > the traitors who went to war against the United States of America.
The SBC is not a denomination, it is a subdivision of a denomination. It is an organization of autonomous churches. That word means "self-governing," and it does not mean convention led, as you seem to be implying. I don't deny that there were people in it that thought it was all right to have slaves and that they even might have started in such a manner. But they resolutely and unitedly took a stand against slavery when they realized, collectively, it was wrong. That perfectly reflects people who believe they are sinners saved by the grace of God. The oldest church in the SBC is a church that was a church before the convention was even started and that is the First Baptist Church of Charleston, S.C., which I visited one time. It was organized in 1682 before the time that you are talking about. All of the churches in the SBC turned against the idea of slavery. Your statement does not reflect or affect modern Baptists. When other autonomous church people saw the repentance of the SBC beginners, they apparently wanted to be part of that group who cared about growing spiritually, and joined the group. Today it is 16 million members strong.
> > > The fact remains that the Bible is riddled with errors, no matter what > >> your religion teaches.
> >Would you like to speak of these supposed errors?
> I have. You have ignored them.
> Let's do it again:
> 1. The creation stories are not history. They are not useful in any way > to understand the beginning of life, the universe or anything.
You would have to show why you don't think that Genesis is the truth of history, and you have no way of really doing that, actually. You can't even present how the universe began. The find of science goes along now with what Genesis says anyway, that suddenly the universe came into being....BIG BANG reflects this.
> 2. The Flood Myth is false. There is no possible justification for any > religious person to claim that it is true. None.
You can't prove this either. You can't prove something didn't happen by your absense of evidence.
> 3. The just-so story about the beginning of differing languages at Babel > is nonsense.
Oh, is it now? And why do you think so? All of the answers given here about just the meaning of "barbara" alone, go all the way back to this event. stammering...strange speech....unknown languages, etc.
> 4. The stories from Babel to Egypt are completely unsubstantiated.
You don't know a lot about Iraq, perhaps? Babylon's ruins are there. Do you now know this? Ur has been found. Abraham came from Ur or the Chaldees. The Tigris and the Euphrates obviously are well-known. You need to do some more research.
> 5. The stories about Egypt and the Exodus are false. They are not only > unsupported by the evidence, but the evidence that does exist shows that > they are just foundation myths of a people.
Well, there is no denying that a lot of evidence has not been found of a large group of people traveling together, yet the places that they went are known. There is a "tree" a shrub called the moringa that can sweeten waters that are impure that Moses seemed to also know about. Water from a rock is substantiated in the find of the substance known as Wadsleyite. Joseph's body was taken with the Israelites and was set up in Jerusalem, nearby, and there was a prophecy that one day it would be aflame. In our llfetime the Palestinians set it on fire. There is also a place in the desert that has twelve springs in it that is known. There is a shelf in the Red Sea that causes a shift when there is a rare East wind coming against it and the sea has been known to split in half. Napoleon encountered this and thinking himself to be immune, he entered into the split sea with his horse and barely escaped death as it came near crashing down on him. Hahira exists, and the grapes of Eschol existed as did Eschol himself, and the giants, the Nephalim did exist in Hebron which is known anciently by their name. Kadesh-Barnea is known and it did lead to the Holy Land if they had believed and had gone in there. The crossing of the Jordan is known to be down from the city of Adam, according to the Bible and the city of Adam has been located by archaeologists, and it is where the Bible says that it is, and it does dam up just like it says in the Bible. Ai has been found in very recent years and is being excavated. it is where it is supposed to be, according to the Bible. You already know where Jericho is, and it's mound has been certainly found in modern times and still is being excavated. You really need to look into all of this.
> 6. The conquest of Canaan, particularly the story about how Joshua > conquered Jericho are proven to be false by the physical evidence.
This is one of the greatest archaeological finds of all times. It has not been disproven as you say. The very layer that shows the biblical details is very much there, and the evidence has been found by Kathleen Kenyon and people later who found the base of the walls.
> Many other stories of wishful thinking, followed by the particularly > egregious mismatch of the ancestry of Jesus that so many Christians make > so many excuses for.
There is no mismatch of the genealogies. Luke is Mary's line. Matthew is Joseph's line. They were from the same tribe and this is obvious when you see that they shared some common ancestors.
> The events of Good Friday did not happen.
The events of Good Friday did happen.
> There was no Slaughter of the Innocents.
There was. The History Channel even showed the skeletons of young boy babies that have been found. Herod also existed as did the wisemen.
> The Bible is unreliable.- Hide quoted text -
Nonsense. You have not shown anything, only made claims.
On Nov 8, 4:49 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> Suzanne wrote: > > We are by no means at all the only people that believe > > the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true.
> If you were raised in another religion, say the old Norse pantheon, would > you have believed it with the same fervour?
> T.
I can't exactly go and get unborn and then get born in that group to test it, but I'd say that no matter where I would have been born, the Lord would still find me and invite me to give my life to him. You do know that there were people born into that place that did receive Christ when they heard about him, don't you? However there is good reason to believe that the early inhabitants of the northlands were the tribes of Israel. For example, the word "Dan" appears in many places on the way from Israel to Denmark and beyond. For example, the DANube river and the country known even today as "DANmark." It is also believed that the Europeans are descendants of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Also, do you know about the Stone of Scone? It has other names as well. It is the stone that was under the throne that Elizabeth was crowned on, and it came from Scotland. It is connected with one of the Hebrew Prophets and is supposed to also be the same as the pillar that Jacob lay on when at night he saw the vision of the ladder that reached to the heavens with the angels ascending and descending upon it. It is also connected with Tara. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/15/stone.of.scone/
> Suzanne wrote: > > On Oct 30, 8:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Suzanne wrote: > >>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > >>>> Suzanne wrote: > >>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > >>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > >>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real > >>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. > >>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > >>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > >>>>> being a real person. > >>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed > >>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! > >>>> T. > >>> I am completely serious. > >>> Suzanne > >> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text -
> > I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like > > that is in it. > > However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are > > rare, > > think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination > > in > > the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that > > believe > > the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true. > > Suzanne
> I am acutely aware of the Baptists as I was a Southern Baptist for 45 > years. I have never seen so many prejudiced, bigoted and narrow-minded > people in one organization. > You need to ask yourself why you deny the facts of nature as shown by > the major sciences. Just because millions of others wear their badge of > ignorance on their shoulders and dare you to knock it off, doesn't > mean you should.- Hide quoted text -
I guess you can find bigoted people in church and out of church as well. But you are not giving credit for the many people that are not that way at all. I've been a Baptist for 63 years. I have seen people like you are talking about but I have also seen some amazing people that are nothing at all like the ones you are mentioning. One goes to church though not to please bigoted people, but because that is what the Lord wants us to do. You are missing and those kind of people should get to know such a wonderful person as you show that you want to be, that is not like the bigoted kind.
> Suzanne wrote: > > On Oct 30, 10:24 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Suzanne wrote: > >>>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > >>>>> Suzanne wrote: > >>>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > >>>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > >>>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real > >>>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. > >>>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > >>>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > >>>>>> being a real person. > >>>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed > >>>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! > >>>>> T. > >>>> I am completely serious. > >>>> Suzanne > >>> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit. > >> Forgive him, Suzanne. Atheists put no store by civilized conduct.
> >> TCross- Hide quoted text -
> > Thanks TC. He's forgiven
> Thanks god. By the way, placing faith on the goodness of Terry Cross > isn't the most advisable thing to do.- Hide quoted text -
I'm sure that Terry would tell you as would I not to put your trust in anyone but the Lord, himself.
>On Nov 8, 4:12 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Suzanne wrote: >> > On Oct 30, 10:24 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> Suzanne wrote: >> >>>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >> >>>>> Suzanne wrote: >> >>>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >> >>>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >> >>>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >> >>>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >> >>>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >> >>>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >> >>>>>> being a real person. >> >>>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >> >>>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! >> >>>>> T. >> >>>> I am completely serious. >> >>>> Suzanne >> >>> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit. >> >> Forgive him, Suzanne. Atheists put no store by civilized conduct.
>> >> TCross- Hide quoted text -
>> > Thanks TC. He's forgiven
>> Thanks god. By the way, placing faith on the goodness of Terry Cross >> isn't the most advisable thing to do.- Hide quoted text -
>I'm sure that Terry would tell you as would I not to put your trust in >anyone but the Lord, himself.
>Suzanne
So you are not trustworthy in your claims about the Bible or about God.
Suzanne wrote: > On Nov 8, 4:49 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >> Suzanne wrote: >>> We are by no means at all the only people that believe >>> the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true. >> If you were raised in another religion, say the old Norse pantheon, would >> you have believed it with the same fervour?
>> T.
> I can't exactly go and get unborn and then get born in that > group to test it, but I'd say that no matter where I would > have been born, the Lord would still find me and invite me > to give my life to him. You do know that there were people > born into that place that did receive Christ when they heard > about him, don't you? However there is good reason to > believe that the early inhabitants of the northlands were > the tribes of Israel. For example, the word "Dan" appears > in many places on the way from Israel to Denmark and > beyond. For example, the DANube river and the country > known even today as "DANmark." It is also believed that > the Europeans are descendants of the tribes of Ephraim > and Manasseh. Also, do you know about the Stone of > Scone? It has other names as well. It is the stone that > was under the throne that Elizabeth was crowned on, and > it came from Scotland. It is connected with one of the > Hebrew Prophets and is supposed to also be the same > as the pillar that Jacob lay on when at night he saw the > vision of the ladder that reached to the heavens with the > angels ascending and descending upon it. It is also > connected with Tara. > http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/15/stone.of.scone/
Gee Suzanne, what are the native words for the names of The Danube and Denmark? This has to be one of the more cockamamie ideas you have floated in this NG and you have floated bunches of them.
>On Nov 7, 9:53 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:48:08 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Nov 6, 10:49 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:16:27 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> >On Oct 30, 8:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> Suzanne wrote: >> >> >> > On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> Suzanne wrote: >> >> >> >>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >> >> >> >>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >> >> >> >>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >> >> >> >>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >> >> >> >>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >> >> >> >>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >> >> >> >>> being a real person. >> >> >> >> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >> >> >> >> the poster to be serious. Cute!
>> >> >> >> T.
>> >> >> > I am completely serious. >> >> >> > Suzanne
>> >> >> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like that is in it. >> >> >However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are rare, >> >> >think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination in >> >> >the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that believe >> >> >the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true.
>> >> Baptists are many differing, though related, denominations amd, as far >> >> as I can tell, only the ones who got their start defending American >> >> slavery claim that the Bible is literally true.
>> >Baptists existed before America existed, so they did not begin that >> >way. People that were Christians and non-Christians supported >> >slavery. Baptists made this statement in 1789: >> > "a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with >> >a republican government." >> >The Civil War began on April 12, 1861.
>> And the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to support slavery and >> the traitors who went to war against the United States of America.
>The SBC is not a denomination, it is a subdivision of a denomination.
Not really.
>It is an organization of autonomous churches.
Yes, that was the tradition, but the SBC has become more centralized over the years.
> That word means >"self-governing," and it does not mean convention led, as you seem >to be implying.
I just look at the news from those conventions.
> I don't deny that there were people in it that thought >it was all right to have slaves and that they even might have started >in such a manner. But they resolutely and unitedly took a stand >against slavery when they realized, collectively, it was wrong.
You mean when they lost their war against the rest of the country and had no choice?
> That >perfectly reflects people who believe they are sinners saved by the >grace of God. The oldest church in the SBC is a church that was a >church before the convention was even started and that is the >First Baptist Church of Charleston, S.C., which I visited one time.
The center of racism and hatred of our nation.
>It was organized in 1682 before the time that you are talking about.
It chose to join the SBC in support of slavery rather than stay with the ABC which did oppose slavery.
>All of the churches in the SBC turned against the idea of slavery.
When?
>Your statement does not reflect or affect modern Baptists.
You are right, they do not any longer support slavery for those who were once slaves of their forebearers. They merely tolerate racists and other sorts of bigots now.
> When >other autonomous church people saw the repentance of the SBC >beginners, they apparently wanted to be part of that group who cared >about growing spiritually, and joined the group. Today it is 16 >million members strong.
But it is still rife with racism and hatred of learning.
>> > > The fact remains that the Bible is riddled with errors, no matter what >> >> your religion teaches.
>> >Would you like to speak of these supposed errors?
>> I have. You have ignored them.
>> Let's do it again:
>> 1. The creation stories are not history. They are not useful in any way >> to understand the beginning of life, the universe or anything.
>You would have to show why you don't think that Genesis is >the truth of history, and you have no way of really doing that, >actually. You can't even present how the universe began. The >find of science goes along now with what Genesis says anyway, >that suddenly the universe came into being....BIG BANG reflects >this.
The physical evidence has proven that the Genesis stories are false. You refuse to acknowledge reality. That is your problem, not mine. You are free to lie about this as much as you like. Reality will not change to suit your doctrines. Learn some science.
>> 2. The Flood Myth is false. There is no possible justification for any >> religious person to claim that it is true. None.
>You can't prove this either. You can't prove something didn't happen >by your absense of evidence.
There is evidence that is contrary to the evidence that would have existed if the Flood had happened. There was no such Flood. It has been proven.
>> 3. The just-so story about the beginning of differing languages at Babel >> is nonsense.
>Oh, is it now? And why do you think so? All of the answers given >here about just the meaning of "barbara" alone, go all the way back >to this event. stammering...strange speech....unknown languages, etc.
Yes, it is now. Your one foolish example completely ignores how widespread humans were at the time that Babel supposedly happened. Babel did not happen.
>> 4. The stories from Babel to Egypt are completely unsubstantiated.
>You don't know a lot about Iraq, perhaps? Babylon's ruins are there. >Do you now know this? Ur has been found. Abraham came from >Ur or the Chaldees. The Tigris and the Euphrates obviously are >well-known. You need to do some more research.
What? Are you back to claiming that the gods of the Greeks started the Trojan war because there really was a Troy?
For the most part, stories are told about places that exist. Harry Potter is set in England. Is Harry Potter true because England exists?
>> 5. The stories about Egypt and the Exodus are false. They are not only >> unsupported by the evidence, but the evidence that does exist shows that >> they are just foundation myths of a people.
>Well, there is no denying that a lot of evidence has not >been found of a large group of people traveling together, >yet the places that they went are known. There is a "tree" >a shrub called the moringa that can sweeten waters that >are impure that Moses seemed to also know about.
Again, one trivial claim does not dispose of the contradictory evidence.
>Water from a rock is substantiated in the find of the >substance known as Wadsleyite. Joseph's body was taken >with the Israelites and was set up in Jerusalem, nearby, >and there was a prophecy that one day it would be aflame. >In our llfetime the Palestinians set it on fire. There is also a >place in the desert that has twelve springs in it that is >known. There is a shelf in the Red Sea that causes a shift >when there is a rare East wind coming against it and the >sea has been known to split in half. Napoleon encountered >this and thinking himself to be immune, he entered into the >split sea with his horse and barely escaped death as it >came near crashing down on him. Hahira exists, and the >grapes of Eschol existed as did Eschol himself, and the >giants, the Nephalim did exist in Hebron which is known >anciently by their name. Kadesh-Barnea is known and it >did lead to the Holy Land if they had believed and had >gone in there. The crossing of the Jordan is known to be >down from the city of Adam, according to the Bible and >the city of Adam has been located by archaeologists, and >it is where the Bible says that it is, and it does dam up just >like it says in the Bible. Ai has been found in very recent >years and is being excavated. it is where it is supposed to >be, according to the Bible. You already know where >Jericho is, and it's mound has been certainly found in >modern times and still is being excavated. You really need >to look into all of this.
I have. The short answer is that the Exodus is a myth.
>> 6. The conquest of Canaan, particularly the story about how Joshua >> conquered Jericho are proven to be false by the physical evidence.
>This is one of the greatest archaeological finds of all times. >It has not been disproven as you say. The very layer that shows >the biblical details is very much there, and the evidence has been >found by Kathleen Kenyon and people later who found the base of >the walls.
You keep ignoring the facts that these discoveries do not support the story found in the Bible. I think you need to read your Bible a little more before you tell me how the evidence supports it. Clearly you are ignorant of the stories or how wrong they are.
>> Many other stories of wishful thinking, followed by the particularly >> egregious mismatch of the ancestry of Jesus that so many Christians make >> so many excuses for.
>There is no mismatch of the genealogies. Luke is Mary's line.
That is clearly not what the Bible says.
>Matthew is Joseph's line. They were from the same tribe and >this is obvious when you see that they shared some common >ancestors.
How do you cross ancestors? If John's father is Fred and Mary's father is the same Fred, then they have to have all the same ancestors
...
Suzanne wrote: > On Nov 8, 4:10 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Suzanne wrote: >>> On Oct 30, 8:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >>>>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >>>>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >>>>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >>>>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >>>>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >>>>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >>>>>>> being a real person. >>>>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >>>>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! >>>>>> T. >>>>> I am completely serious. >>>>> Suzanne >>>> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text - >>> I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like >>> that is in it. >>> However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are >>> rare, >>> think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination >>> in >>> the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that >>> believe >>> the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true. >>> Suzanne >> I am acutely aware of the Baptists as I was a Southern Baptist for 45 >> years. I have never seen so many prejudiced, bigoted and narrow-minded >> people in one organization. >> You need to ask yourself why you deny the facts of nature as shown by >> the major sciences. Just because millions of others wear their badge of >> ignorance on their shoulders and dare you to knock it off, doesn't >> mean you should.- Hide quoted text -
> I guess you can find bigoted people in church and out of church as > well. But you are not giving credit for the many people that are not > that way at all. I've been a Baptist for 63 years. I have seen people > like you are talking about but I have also seen some amazing people > that are nothing at all like the ones you are mentioning. One goes to > church though not to please bigoted people, but because that is what > the Lord wants us to do. You are missing and those kind of people > should get to know such a wonderful person as you show that you > want to be, that is not like the bigoted kind. > Suzanne
Sorry sister, my experiences outweigh your mumblings. Almost all of you are narrow-minded in that you worship the bible.
Suzanne wrote: > On Nov 8, 4:12 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Suzanne wrote: >>> On Oct 30, 10:24 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>>>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >>>>>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>>>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >>>>>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >>>>>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >>>>>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >>>>>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >>>>>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >>>>>>>> being a real person. >>>>>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >>>>>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! >>>>>>> T. >>>>>> I am completely serious. >>>>>> Suzanne >>>>> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit. >>>> Forgive him, Suzanne. Atheists put no store by civilized conduct. >>>> TCross- Hide quoted text - >>> Thanks TC. He's forgiven >> Thanks god. By the way, placing faith on the goodness of Terry Cross >> isn't the most advisable thing to do.- Hide quoted text -
> I'm sure that Terry would tell you as would I not to put your trust in > anyone but the Lord, himself. > Suzanne
I would take that a step further and say that you can't trust the Lord.
> Suzanne wrote: > > On Oct 30, 11:30 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Terry Cross wrote: > >>> On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> Suzanne wrote: > >>>>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > >>>>>> Suzanne wrote: > >>>>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > >>>>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > >>>>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real > >>>>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. > >>>>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > >>>>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > >>>>>>> being a real person. > >>>>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed > >>>>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! > >>>>>> T. > >>>>> I am completely serious. > >>>>> Suzanne > >>>> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit. > >>> Forgive him, Suzanne. Atheists put no store by civilized conduct. > >>> TCross > >> Gee Terry, Suzanne doesn't need to tell us. As you are her staunch > >> defender, why don't you tell us about the fruit. I'll be waiting.- Hide quoted text -
> > What is there to tell? It was some kind of fruit. Eve ate it, offered > > it to Adam. It's pretty simple.
> Really? Simple? So god in his infinite wisdom placed access to knowledge > and eternity in the garden in the form of fruit?? > No explanation of how this worked but you will bite and it is simple??
It didn't take a rocket scientist for Eve to understand the words, Don't eat the forbidden fruit.
> > But boy does it have deep implications...
> The implications weren't deep until Paul came along and needed a reason > for the death of Jesus.
God already did that when he told Adam and Eve about the promise of the Seed/Redeemer born of a woman in Gen. 3:15 when he spoke to the serpent about it. That they believed God is evident since he clothed them with clothes he made himself, which is significant of clothing them in righteousness (because they believed). That he told them about the blood sacrifice of Christ is apparent in that they taught their sons to make a blood sacrifice, which Cain did not obey.
> > He ate it because he loved her. He was not deceived.
> LMAO!! Sure he did. He ate it because the fruit looked so delicious. Eve > ate some and she was fine. Besides, god never told Eve not to eat the fruit.
Her judgment was that she would now have to listen to him, as it says that God said to her "your desire shall be to your husband." That meant that she would now have to listen to what he had to say to her, since she didn't listen originally and should have.
It says in the New Testament that he (Adam) was as he who was to come, that is Christ, who was made sin for those that will come to him in trust. Adam made himself sin for Eve. He evidently did not want to lose her.
Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, WHO IS THE FIGURE OF HIM THAT WAS TO COME."
> > She was, and he > > loved > > her that much. He was willing to die for her.
> Oh crap, Suzanne. You read something that isn't there into every sticky > situation in the bible.
Nope, it is in the verse above. The one that was to come, which was told to them in Genesis 3:15, which is the seed-redeemer is Christ. Adam was not deceived in the transaction but Eve was. 1 Timothy 2:14: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
> > This is a parallel to > > Christ, and in > > theology this is called a "type of Christ." He is mentioned in the New > > Testament > > as being a "type of him that is to come," meaning of Christ that loved > > his bride > > "the church" (the collective believers, not a denomination), and gave > > himself > > for her, being made sin for her to suffer in her place so that she > > might have > > hope.
> This "parallel" only exits in the fertile minds of fundamentalists.
You didn't really answer my question in the first paragraph. Lots of words, little info.
In the second, it is quite a stretch to pretend that the Old Testament is as full of touchy-feely goodness as the New Testament. I am sure you can quote scores of passages where everyone is nice and the spirit of brotherhood and forgiveness reigns. Hey, it's a big book.
Nevertheless, we have Sodom and G, the Egyptian firstborns, the Flood. That's mass annihilation. Not touchy feely, unless you have a different definition than I do. Never mind the justifications and biblical lectures.
In contrast, "mean Jesus" is limited to Him flogging the merchants out of the Temple. Hurts my capitalistic feelings, perhaps, but hardly something that is very reproachable, Him applying zoning laws.
So, do you _really_ see no contradiction? I'll make a wild guess and say "No, you don't" and that's why Christians are often so unlikely to follow the rather admirable precepts of their own religion. The NT's niceness allows to preach brotherly love which is good marketing. The OT allows fire and brimstone, so you don't have to be nice after all. I suspect the Koran has the same dichotomy, with the same results.
That's OK, being nice might be too much to ask for. Even Buddhists are not immune to stupidity as the events in Sri Lanka have been showing us, but it might explain why some of us don't care much for organized religion, at least as practiced by its adherents.
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:48:27 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >On Nov 7, 9:53 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:48:08 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >> >On Nov 6, 10:49 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:16:27 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> > >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >> >> >On Oct 30, 8:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Suzanne wrote: > >> >> >> > On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Suzanne wrote: > >> >> >> >>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > >> >> >> >>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > >> >> >> >>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real > >> >> >> >>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. > >> >> >> >>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > >> >> >> >>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > >> >> >> >>> being a real person. > >> >> >> >> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed > >> >> >> >> the poster to be serious. Cute!
> >> >> >> >> T.
> >> >> >> > I am completely serious. > >> >> >> > Suzanne
> >> >> >> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like that is in it. > >> >> >However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are rare, > >> >> >think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination in > >> >> >the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that believe > >> >> >the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true.
> >> >> Baptists are many differing, though related, denominations amd, as far > >> >> as I can tell, only the ones who got their start defending American > >> >> slavery claim that the Bible is literally true.
> >> >Baptists existed before America existed, so they did not begin that > >> >way. People that were Christians and non-Christians supported > >> >slavery. Baptists made this statement in 1789: > >> > "a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with > >> >a republican government." > >> >The Civil War began on April 12, 1861.
> >> And the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to support slavery and > >> the traitors who went to war against the United States of America.
> >The SBC is not a denomination, it is a subdivision of a denomination.
> Not really.
> >It is an organization of autonomous churches.
> Yes, that was the tradition, but the SBC has become more centralized > over the years.
No. The SBC still is a group of autonomous churches banded together for the propagation of the gospel, the edification of the saints, and it is churches that recognize that if they pool their resources, they can make a greater evangelistic effort in missions around the world.
> > That word means > >"self-governing," and it does not mean convention led, as you seem > >to be implying.
> I just look at the news from those conventions.
I know. But some of the stuff printed doesn't explain some things. For example, the resolutions that they pass are not really binding.
> > I don't deny that there were people in it that thought > >it was all right to have slaves and that they even might have started > >in such a manner. But they resolutely and unitedly took a stand > >against slavery when they realized, collectively, it was wrong.
> You mean when they lost their war against the rest of the country and > had no choice?
Ha ha ha ha....it sounds that way. No, the ones who saw that they were wrong, admitted it, is what I am saying. Not all in the group felt the same way. Your version is more humorous, though. I did not live then. What we have now is against that kind of thing.
> > That > >perfectly reflects people who believe they are sinners saved by the > >grace of God. The oldest church in the SBC is a church that was a > >church before the convention was even started and that is the > >First Baptist Church of Charleston, S.C., which I visited one time.
> The center of racism and hatred of our nation.
The church that I went to there was not like that. I'm quite sure that you are correct that there were people that acted like that though.
> >It was organized in 1682 before the time that you are talking about.
> It chose to join the SBC in support of slavery rather than stay with the > ABC which did oppose slavery.
I don't know. I'm not sure when they joined. They are in the south, though. But where was Washington from? He is said to have had slaves, himself, wasn't he? He was not from the south.
> >All of the churches in the SBC turned against the idea of slavery.
> When?
I'm sorry, I don't know the exact date of if there was an exact date. I'm sure it took a while, wouldn't you think?
> >Your statement does not reflect or affect modern Baptists.
> You are right, they do not any longer support slavery for those who were > once slaves of their forebearers. They merely tolerate racists and other > sorts of bigots now.
Who is "they?" I am not like that and my friends are not like that and my church is against that. I've been in churches all over the USA that are not like that.
> > When > >other autonomous church people saw the repentance of the SBC > >beginners, they apparently wanted to be part of that group who cared > >about growing spiritually, and joined the group. Today it is 16 > >million members strong.
> But it is still rife with racism and hatred of learning.
I've known people in my life that are that way but I do not see that in churches now. In my church we have a mixture of races among the members.
> >> > > The fact remains that the Bible is riddled with errors, no matter what > >> >> your religion teaches.
> >> >Would you like to speak of these supposed errors?
> >> I have. You have ignored them.
> >> Let's do it again:
> >> 1. The creation stories are not history. They are not useful in any way > >> to understand the beginning of life, the universe or anything.
> >You would have to show why you don't think that Genesis is > >the truth of history, and you have no way of really doing that, > >actually. You can't even present how the universe began. The > >find of science goes along now with what Genesis says anyway, > >that suddenly the universe came into being....BIG BANG reflects > >this.
> The physical evidence has proven that the Genesis stories are false. You > refuse to acknowledge reality. That is your problem, not mine. You are > free to lie about this as much as you like. Reality will not change to > suit your doctrines. Learn some science.
I don't need to lie. I have studied science, thank you very much. Most people have. You have no corner on the market.
> >> 2. The Flood Myth is false. There is no possible justification for any > >> religious person to claim that it is true. None.
> >You can't prove this either. You can't prove something didn't happen > >by your absense of evidence.
> There is evidence that is contrary to the evidence that would have > existed if the Flood had happened. There was no such Flood. It has been > proven.
Something can appear to be contrary to something and not really be.
> >> 3. The just-so story about the beginning of differing languages at Babel > >> is nonsense.
> >Oh, is it now? And why do you think so? All of the answers given > >here about just the meaning of "barbara" alone, go all the way back > >to this event. stammering...strange speech....unknown languages, etc.
> Yes, it is now. Your one foolish example completely ignores how > widespread humans were at the time that Babel supposedly happened. Babel > did not happen.
Babylon is a fact. Get over it. The remains are found.
> >> 4. The stories from Babel to Egypt are completely unsubstantiated.
> >You don't know a lot about Iraq, perhaps? Babylon's ruins are there. > >Do you now know this? Ur has been found. Abraham came from > >Ur or the Chaldees. The Tigris and the Euphrates obviously are > >well-known. You need to do some more research.
> What? Are you back to claiming that the gods of the Greeks started the > Trojan war because there really was a Troy?
I did not mention Troy.
> For the most part, stories are told about places that exist. Harry > Potter is set in England. Is Harry Potter true because England exists?
Harry Potter is fiction and that is a fact. No one has to prove it, it is that way to begin with.
> >> 5. The stories about Egypt and the Exodus are false. They are not only > >> unsupported by the evidence, but the evidence that does exist shows that > >> they are just foundation myths of a people.
> >Well, there is no denying that a lot of evidence has not > >been found of a large group of people traveling together, > >yet the places that they went are known. There is a "tree" > >a shrub called the moringa that can sweeten waters that > >are impure that Moses seemed to also know about.
> Again, one trivial claim does not dispose of the contradictory evidence.
Works both ways.
> >Water from a rock is substantiated in the find of the > >substance known as Wadsleyite. Joseph's body was taken > >with the Israelites and was set up in Jerusalem, nearby, > >and there was a prophecy that one day it would be aflame. > >In our llfetime the Palestinians set it on fire. There is also a > >place in the desert that has twelve springs in it that is > >known. There is a shelf in the Red Sea that causes a shift > >when there is a rare East wind coming against it and the > >sea has been known to split in half. Napoleon encountered > >this and thinking himself to be immune, he entered into the > >split
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:33:22 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 8, 4:12?pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Suzanne wrote: >> > On Oct 30, 10:24 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> Suzanne wrote: >> >>>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >> >>>>> Suzanne wrote: >> >>>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >> >>>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >> >>>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >> >>>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >> >>>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >> >>>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >> >>>>>> being a real person. >> >>>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >> >>>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! >> >>>>> T. >> >>>> I am completely serious. >> >>>> Suzanne >> >>> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit. >> >> Forgive him, Suzanne. ?Atheists put no store by civilized conduct.
>> >> TCross- Hide quoted text -
>> > Thanks TC. He's forgiven
>> Thanks god. By the way, placing faith on the goodness of Terry Cross >> isn't the most advisable thing to do.- Hide quoted text -
> I'm sure that Terry would tell you as would I not to put your trust in > anyone but the Lord, himself.
> Suzanne
I'm sure you couldn't care less about whining in a newsgroup which isn't designed for godbots like you.
-- Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patr...@io.com) Houston, Texas www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: Houston 5, San Antonio 2 (November 7) NEXT GAME: Friday, November 13 at Lake Erie, 6:35
> Iain wrote: > > On Oct 27, 11:04 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Iain wrote: > >>> On Oct 23, 3:47 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> We are programed by our DNA to age and die. > >>> No, we just do. > >>>> But > >>>> can we be _re-programed_ not to do so? > >>> No. > >>> The way not to age would be to leave the aging process alone and > >>> instead restore tissue to its former state.
> >> This, of course, could happen once the aging process is fully > >> understood. A great deal is currently known.
> > No. The whole point is that this is all we can do while the aging > > process is not understood.
> > > We do understand a great deal, while there is much to know. > Why does a dog live just a few years over 10, while the > green sea turtle live hundreds of years? > This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in > which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about > 10 years old. Then the child begins to show all the symptoms > of rapid aging and usually dies in their teens appearing to > be advanced in age. The reasons are reasonably well understood.
> > You don't need to know how a gun works in order to repair a bullet > > wound.
> > What has the study of aging got to do with the possibility of > > rejuvenation?
> > > Rejuvenation? Maybe nothing. But greatly slowing the aging process > is the expectation.
But you'd need to understand aging much much more in order to do that. And you can only do that up till a point.
Whereas one doesn't need to understand aging at all in order to actually offset the aging process absolutely. One only needs to understand the static difference between an old person and young person (this is a matter of free observation), and then contrive a regenerative medicine to restore tissue to its former state.
|
