online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: noah, the flood and all that jazz
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 64 (view)
 
noah, the flood and all that jazz
Posted: 7/16/2006 6:41:48 PM

I've found this article about core samples taken from the floor of the Black Sea, which showed layers of mud carbon dated to 18,000 to 8,600 years ago, indicating a flood that lasted much longer than 40 days and 40 nights (but some researchers claim that whenever 40 is mentioned in the bible, it's symbolic, and not literal.) It's here: http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2000/april/phenom_apr00.php


Hey, I'm not denying that floods happen. But when you say 'the deluge', I assume that you're referring to a worldwide flood which covered all the land. There is no evidence for a flood which matches what the Bible claims to have happened.


And what do you mean Exodus couldn't have happened? It's speculated from archaeological evidence that Moses was a deposed pharoah who left Egypt with his supporters and moved to Israel, where they were given the Laws of the land they were moving to (the 10 Commandments) by the Lord of the Mount, who nobody's quite sure who he actually was.


When I said that Exodus never happened, I mean, Exodus never happened. I suppose that it could have happened, were you to change the entire Egyptian government, move the construction of the pyramids into the New Kingdom, somehow find evidence of 2 million people just picking up and leaving (the Bible specifies '600,000 men of fighting age' from what I recall, but it translates into over 2 million total), completely ignore the Egyptian kinglist. Of course, you couldn't do this without changing the location of Egypt (well, you could just change the geography as well), and eliminating the Nile. This would achieve the 'changing the entire government' requirement, as listed above, as well as their economy.

Of course, your version, which is 'The Exodus happened, if you turn Hebrews into Egyptians, get rid of the Red Sea and all the magic tricks and toss in some Masons', might work too. Kind of like how if you were to eliminate gravity, we wouldn't need planes.

BTW, which Pharaoh were you referring to, and who's doing the speculation?

Although, a lot of the story following is probably base on the Code of Hammurabi.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 141 (view)
 
World's best known atheist admits that God exists!
Posted: 7/16/2006 9:21:37 AM

any chance he is getting older, and hedging his bets, just incase he dies and has been wrong his whole life?


Are you referring to Pascal's wager? Of course, you'd have to wonder why someone billed as "The World's Most Famous Atheist" isn't already familiar with it already.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 62 (view)
 
noah, the flood and all that jazz
Posted: 7/16/2006 12:56:59 AM

The deluge did occur. There is evidence of it.


Oddly enough, there are no geologists who'll testify to that. Funny how that works. Do you have any references for you claim?


You have to remember: Just because it's in the Bible, it doesn't mean it's not in some way true. It does offer at least clues as to what was going on back then.


No one's arguing that. But, at the same time, something being in the Bible doesn't mean that is IS true. And there has been very little that has been shown to be historically accurate. Look at Exodus, for example. There's no way that that could have happened. But most people believe it to be fact.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 61 (view)
 
It is my firm belief that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs.
Posted: 7/16/2006 12:51:50 AM

That's why Jesus was so important at the time. He was the culmination of two important bloodlines who the Jews believed was prophesized to come and free them from the Romans. He was two messiahs in one.


Actually, both of the bloodlines listed are through Joseph (though the one in Matthew tries to get around this by saying 'Joseph, husband of Mary', sneaky buggers.) The only way you can get around this little inconsistency is to say that the Bible is in error, or, that the geneologies were faked in order to match what was prophesized.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 44 (view)
 
noah, the flood and all that jazz
Posted: 7/12/2006 9:36:36 PM

There's no question that a flood happened that covered at least Mesopotamia. Archeologists have found mud layers that's been dated to around 4000 BC. As mentioned, it was probably the end of the ice age what caused it...


There's no question that floods happen, period. And floods are devastating to a pre-industrialized culture. That's not evidence that this particular story happened. Flood stories are common throughout the world, and there's no evidence that this one is any different. We DO know, however, that it's almost identical to a pre-existing story. Which only means that whomever transcribed it, probably copied the story.


So that may not be Noah's Ark that they've found in Iran...it might be Utanapishtim's Sub...I'm curious to see how that plays out...


How many times have they found the ark now? And each time, it turns out to be a load of bollocks. I'm not holding my breath on this one.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 103 (view)
 
The question no christian can answer for me.
Posted: 7/12/2006 9:24:47 PM

The truth is that Jesus didn't have to be executed, but he did have to die. There is a difference between what God allows and what he intended. God could have stopped Satan from tempting Eve. He could have freed the jews from Egypt long before he did. God didn't have to let Job suffer over a bet with the Devil.

So why did he allow these things? Why does he still allow terrible things to happen to good people?

etc.


Well, I'm quite certain that Jesus had to be executed. Did he not say 'My father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by?'. Aside from which, I didn't ask anything about 'why bad things happen to good people', as there are plenty of pat answers for that. I don't see how yours are any different than Lee Strobel's. It's just that, when dealing with a god that's supposedly omnipotent, the crucifixion is rather silly. In fact, an interventionist god at all is rather silly, when you think about it.


It's too bad we can't bring back people like Hitler and Madelyn Murry O'Hair just for a moment and ask if they would have done anything differently.


What is your basis for comparison here? I don't see how Madalyn Murray O'Hair compares to Hitler. Maybe I'm missing something obvious? Do you honestly think that defending the civil rights of non-believers is on the same scale as the Holocaust in terms of atrocities committed?
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Why can't the Catholics and the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox get along?
Posted: 7/11/2006 11:25:08 PM
As far as Christians vs Catholics, the main issue is the first commandment. Most Christians feel that the Catholics are violating this, which prayers to saints and to Mary. They consider this idolatry, as you should only pray to God.

With the division between the Byzantine and Roman churches, I think it was around the 11th century, back when they were deciding which books to include in the Bible. I don't think Revelations is in Orthodox Bibles, but I could be mistaken on that point. For the most part, their doctrine is fairly similar though.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 55 (view)
 
The question no christian can answer for me.
Posted: 7/11/2006 11:18:23 PM
I haven't read through my own thread, but I think that the question being asked is, 'Why did God have to kill Himself to save His own creation from His own wrath?'

Um, I don't think that there are any logical explanations for that one. Of course, sacrifice and redemption are common themes in mythology across all cultures.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 74 (view)
 
The 4 types of atheists
Posted: 7/11/2006 11:07:52 PM

I know some have thought that I started this thread to be offensive to atheists. That is not so. I think if you look at my wording in the OP it was not intended as a put-down. The thing that puzzles me and why I bother to think about it, is that if were convinced that God was not there, I would sure not be wasting my time debating it with Christians. I would be a Sin Machine. I would be indulging in every kind of pleasure I could think of and have no guilty feelings for doing so. My Universe would revolve around me, and everything would be open game. That is how I imagine myself as an atheist. Many atheists tell me they have morals higher than many Christians. I have no idea why they would.


So in other words, were it not for some sort of man in the sky threatening eternal damnation, you'd be a complete ***hole. If the only thing keeping you from harming others, is the threat of hell, then frankly, you're not the sort of person I'd want to know. I have no doubt that atheists have higher morals that Christians, if that's the case.

You seem to think that by not believing in some sort of eternal punishment, atheists are devoid of compassion and empathy, and are completely ignorant of societal norms. If this is the only life that you, your children, and everyone else, has, would you not do your best to make it the best life possible?

What sort of person are you?
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 73 (view)
 
The 4 types of atheists
Posted: 7/11/2006 10:59:55 PM
Really, you have four 'philosophies' that are compatable with a naturalistic worldview. Those would be:

1. Atheists (AKA Strong Atheists): These are people who believe there to be no god(s).

2. Nontheists (AKA Weak Atheists): These are people who don't believe in a god. Subtle, but important distinction between the above.

3. Agnostics: People who claim no knowledge of whether there is a god or not. However, this has been used to characterize those who think that there is a higher power, they're just unsure of what to call it.

4. Deists: People who believe there to be a non-interventionist god. As in, this god set all the laws in place, and the universe came into being as a result. But it doesn't intervene in our day to day lives.

All of the above are fully compatable with a naturalistic world view. Nontheism is perhaps the most rational, as it recognizes that, by definition, you cannot prove nor disprove god. The fifth category, Theists, are those that belive in an interventionist God, regardless of which religion it falls under.

Two quick points about things mentioned earlier:

Again, there seems to be some confusion as to what the difference is between a theory and a law. Here's a good explanation:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

In short, most people misunderstand the term theory to mean hypothesis. And evolution is fact.

Secondly, with regards to the whole age of the earth thing...most YEC's (young earth creationists) believe the earth to be 6000 years old. Bishop Ussher, in 1650, arrived at this number by calculating the number of 'begats' in the Bible. If I recall correctly, the date of creation was determined to be October 23rd, 4004 BC. Of course, fringe groups and individuals are certain to have different ideas as to the actual 'creation' date, but 6000 is what's commonly agreed upon by the YEC's.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Cell Phones vs. Bibles
Posted: 7/11/2006 1:22:57 AM
I read the thread title, and was thinking in terms of projectiles.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Is Science a Religion?
Posted: 7/11/2006 12:41:21 AM
Science is a method. To say that science is a religion belies any understanding of what science is.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 36 (view)
 
noah, the flood and all that jazz
Posted: 7/9/2006 4:12:04 PM
Interestingly enough, if you look into the history of the Bible, the why and how it was written, a lot of the stories are taken from the Egyptian and Babylonian mythos (for obvious reasons.) In particular, the the flood stories is based on a Babylonian cuneiform which predates the earliest versions of the Bible by about 1200 years (although my dates might be a bit off, it's been a while since I've done any sort of research.)

http://www.jstandard.com/articles/799/1/Flood-Theory
http://www.ramapo.edu/news/pressreleases/2005/12_13_2005.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/gilgdelu.htm

Most of the legends in the Bible have a basis in Mesopotamian culture (ie. ziggurats vs. the tower of Babel.)

Of course, if you're looking for any actual historical record in the Bible, they're few and far between. About the only one that comes to mind right now is the account in 2 Kings (which is loosely corroborated by the Moabite tablet, any discrepancies can probably be attributed to 'spin'.) There are obviously place names and such which correspond to actual cities, but in terms of events, that's the only one which comes to mind.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Mercury amalgam(silver)fillings: harmful or harmless?
Posted: 7/9/2006 12:29:12 AM

Yea Queen I do Its called Google and its right in front of you. Do your own research I'm not your personal assitant.....


So, in other words, you are either unwilling, or unable, to provide evidence for any of your claims?
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Mercury amalgam(silver)fillings: harmful or harmless?
Posted: 7/9/2006 12:27:59 AM

Queen, some of your points I agree with, some I do not. After looking at your profile I can tell you are coming from a viewpoint that "may" be 180 degrees from my own. There is ALOT in alternative health that is plain crap,but the same is true of allopathic medicine. There are "quacks" on both sides and in the middle,where ever there is money to be made,there will be those stretching the truth or flat out breaking it just to make a buck.


I'm not even going to go into your usage of the term 'allopathic', but anyway...

The point is, there are three types of medicine out there.

1. Medicine that works.
2. Medicine that doesn't work.
3. Medicine's that's new, and we don't know if it works or not.

Modern medicine is composed of the first kind. It's pretty pragmatic, as it takes what works, and discards what doesn't. Anything that falls under 'alternative medicine', is generally the second kind, sometimes the third.

I agree with your point on how people react when there is money to be made, however, the evidence speaks for itself. And I can't think of anything under the category of 'alternative', that is evidence based.


Bennet of Quackwatch has been sued and lost a few times, and on the opposite side of the coin, some of the people he has gone after (Hulda Clark for starters) have richly deserved his scrutiny. Every time I see one of Dr. Hulda Clarks books with those titles that say "The cure for all Cancers"...."The cure for all Diseases",ect. I want to throw up. She has made millions off of peoples suffering,all the while she has known that her methods DO NOT help the sick in VERY basic ways(increasing red blood cell counts,for example).

As for Bennets ties to the FDA et al, this is a sticky area with many interconnecting players and the truth is extremely hard to discern when one is so far removed from the principal players. Frankly, I would rather spend my time and energies on helping people with methods that have been proven to work, and leave the politics to others!


Hulda Clark is a piece of work. Obviously we can agree on that.

With regards to Dr. Barrett (I'm assuming that that's who you meant?), do you have any links for the lawsuits? Or any information on how they somehow refute the informationn on his site? Any evidence for ties to the FDA (though I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing, perhaps you meant drug companies?), or how that would make the information on the site less than credible? The articles are referenced by numerous outside sources.

And part of "helping people with methods that have been proven to work", involves knowing WHAT methods are proven to work, which is where Quackwatch, JREF, CSICOP etc. are invaluable resources. The problem is that people have their 'sacred cows', if you will, and they're unwilling to discard them. Homeopathy is an example of this. Time and time again, it's been shown to be no better than a placebo. Yet homeopaths continue to practice because they won't allow evidence to infringe on their beliefs.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Mercury amalgam(silver)fillings: harmful or harmless?
Posted: 7/7/2006 11:37:49 AM

We are a very sick society the cancer rate is something like 500 times higher than it was in the early 1900's.

Disorders like autism are exploding and 10 to 20 times the rates they were 70 years ago.

almalgum filllings are just one of many causes for our sick condition.


Any cite for this information? Do you just make this stuff up?


No offense, but people ARE falling over left and right. Heart disease, cancer and doctors(from failed operations to allergic reactions from taking pharma meds) are the top 3 causes of death in this country(USA)....Doctors number 3? Something is really wrong here. Are these the same doctors telling us that mercury fillings have been ok? Most of them, yes! I'm not even sure they use mercury in fillings anymore....wonder why not? Oh yeah, thats right, the lawsuits against the ADA,well, good luck with that..... do a Google search on just how toxic mercury is,in liquid or solid form, then you will understand how mercury ions can cripple a persons immune system for life.


Same as above. Any cite for this information? Aside from which, if you check the link I provided above, they explain in very easy to understand terms, the diffference between mercury, and mercury amalgam fillings.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Mercury amalgam(silver)fillings: harmful or harmless?
Posted: 7/7/2006 11:33:12 AM

Cell phone and 2 GHZ home phones are extremly dangerous to your health:
http://www.rense.com/general72/cellcook.htm


Any actual evidence? The site makes a lot of assertions, but doesn't give you any evidence, and makes several claims that cannot possibly have any basis in fact (ie. that a tumor will only develops decades after exposure.) They also make the claim that celphones "cook" eggs. Again, they provide no cite for this information. Aside from which, everything they describe as happening to the egg ("After 25 minutes, however, the egg shell started to become hot and at 40 minutes, the surface of the egg became hard and bristled. Researchers found the protein in the egg had become solid although the egg yolk was still in liquid form. After 65 minutes, the whole egg was well cooked.") is consistent with exposure to heat. They provide no evidence that this is in anyway resulting from the 'dangerous radiation'. And what researchers did this? When did they do this? What brand of celphone did they use? Has this been replicated by anybody and subject to peer review? What controls were used? Really, an elementary school science fair can do better.

Oh, and I rather like this quote:

"Children should be forbidden from cell phone use because they still grow their brains and are particularly vulnerable to radiation."

These are the people you rely on for health advice?


Mercury is not a health elixer yet we let dentists put amalgam fillings in our mouths...


Do you understand the different between mercury,annd mercury amalgam fillings? The Quackwatch article will explain it in far better detail than I could, and uses an excellent example (hydrogen in H2O), to explain to someone who might not have a background in chemistry, why the mercury in fillings isn't the health danger that mercury alone would be. In fact, it's an excellent site, and it wouldbe well worth your time to peruse the articles contained in it.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html


... and doctors to give us injections containing thimesoral.


I split up the above statement, because while thimerosal (I'm assuming that is what you actually meant), is a derivative of mercury, they really have nothing to do with mercury amalgam fillings. Again, I'm going to refer you to Quackwatch's article, as there really is a wealth of information on the subject. All of the cites are contained within the article, the abstracts of which are available on PubMed. Long story short, thimerosal isn't a health risk.


Flouride classified as a toxic waste product by the EPA is in our water and tooth paste.


Do you have a cite for this? Any source for your information?

To paraphrase Paracelsis, "The poison is in the dose." It other words, the levels at which fluoride becomes toxic, FAR exceed therapeutic levels.

A couple links for you:

The ADA: http://gsa.ada.org/search?q=fluoride&site=ADAorg_Collection&client=ADAorg_FrontEnd&proxystylesheet=ADAorg_FrontEnd&output=xml_no_dtd&proxyreload=1&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&btnG=Search

Quackwatch (yes, I love this site):
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html


Aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde yet it is in thousands of products and is in the process of being outlawed in parts of Europe.


Again, any cite for this information?

From MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/aspartame-0916.html

FDA statement:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00772.html

http://www.greenfacts.org/aspartame/index.htm

Go ahead, search the medical journals.

As for the rest of your post... It's not even worth responding to.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 177 (view)
 
Why do some guys that look too handsome to be real go for average are ugly women?
Posted: 7/6/2006 8:43:35 PM
I think the problem here is that people are transferring their own versions of what's attractive onto other people, and assuming that everyone likes the same things.

While there are certain characteristics which could be considered almost universally desirable, attraction is one of the most subjective things that there is. And it's often surprising, as I could give you a list of qualities that I might like, and then find someone who meets none of them.
 QueenSkankarella
Joined: 4/16/2006
Msg: 113 (view)
 
Does having sex when you meet for the first time ruin a chance for a real relationship?
Posted: 7/6/2006 8:34:43 PM
Really, depends on the person. I have no issues with having sex on a first date, frankly, and I can't recall much of a discrepancy between relationships where I had sex right away, and relationships where I hadn't. Like anything else, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Granted, if I slept with someone on the first date, and they came away from that thinking I was a slut, well, to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't want to hang out with them anyways, as my intellectual side couldn't deal with such a hypocrite. I also wouldn't want to date someone who viewed sex another way in which they can judge people.

The best relationship I've ever had started off as a drunken encounter. I don't see how delaying sex could have been an improvement on anything. If anything, it's a big part of how we realized how much we had in common.

Besides, sex is fun.
 
Show ALL Forums