Touchy subjects at public events

Martin Brown wrote in message ...
Otherwise the God of the Young Earth Creationists is in the same
situation as a dodgy antique dealer distressing his newly made furniture
to make it seem much older and more interesting.

I never heard it put that way, but I like it.

Doug Hosey

Doogie Hoosier wrote:
"Bob May" wrote in message ...

On the other hand, Bill, if the illegal aliens, dead people and felons
weren't voting, like they shouldn't be, then the Democrats wouldn't have
very many offices that they'd be in.


Your insensitivity amazes me. Don't you know?--DEAD PEOPLE got rights
too. Sure, they're not going to contribute all that much to the
economy, but they did give up their jobs for the younger workers,
their children are going to be spending *their* money, and the dead
have the right to vote in a way that would benefit their descendants.

Definitely would be some logistics problems, in that concept.

"ngc457" root@localhost wrote in message ...
Doogie Hoosier wrote in message
m...

It didn't take long for somebody to tell me that was not possible,
because..."According to the WORD OF GOD, the light could only have
existed for 6,000 years."

Great troll! Although perhaps a bit too soon after the God and the
big bang troll.

Thanks for the compliment, but this one really wasn't a troll. I've
learned that the easiest way to troll is to simply say the word,
"Astromxxx." I really did want to hear of other topics that have
brought out controversy at star parties, etc. (Nobody mentioned any,
though.)

Any other subjects known to be better left not broached at public
viewings? Like, maybe mentioning the revelation that almost got
Galileo burned alive when he looked at Jupiter?

Galileo will be burned alive on September 21st you moron.

Ah, **** you, you piece of ****?

Steve wrote in message .. .
Victor wrote:

If you were more familiar with the history of the Bible, you would have
known that parchments were discovered in Israel, which were dated to
2000 years or older, using the *SCIENTIFIC* process of carbon dating.

Quite a lot older. And some of the Dead Sea scrolls have some VERY odd
parallels with the New testament, which is a neat trick.

The contents of these texts agree very accurately to their corresponding
sections in the modern-day Bible translations. The essence of the Bible
has not changed, despite numerous translations and duplication over
centuries. The errors you mention does not invalidate the central
message at all.

Can you explain this one then ? In my copy of King James Genesis 4

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the
land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived......

Now since Cain is one of the two sons of the first man, where the heck
did Cain's wife come from ? ????


Steve

I heard a couple of explanations for this. One was that Adam and Eve
had more children, and Cain was actually banging his sister, but that
was alright back then because Adam's and Eve's DNA was perfect and
there were no undesirable traits to worry about passing on to the next
generation.

Another take was that there are two separate "creations" of man in
Genesis. The first one does not involve Adam, and some have suggested
that "these" men are products of evolution, while Adam (and Eve) were
a separate, *special* creation, and it is those who carry Adam's
bloodline who were the first Hebrews. Cain supposedly mated with one
of the women from the earlier creation of man already populating
Earth.

I supposed the simplest explanation is the one that covers them
all..."God just created another miracle to solve that problem."

(Cousin Ricky) wrote in message . com...
"Hilton Evans" wrote in message link.net...

BTW: He never got back to you because you forgot
to tell him which version of The Bible to check.G

What do you mean which version? There's only ONE version, the 1611
Authorized Version in the original English.

"If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough
for me."
--An unnamed Southern Congressman
--or Congressman Sonny Bono?
--or Archbishop Timothy Archer?
--or a Myrtle Beach _Sun News_ reader?
--or Governor Ma Ferguson?
--or a priest in Little Rock?
--or H.L. Mencken
--or ???

I believe Dan Barker said that a woman in his church came up with that line.

Doogie Hoosier wrote:

bwhiting wrote in message ...

Yes, wasn't Usher's exact moment stated as Oct. 23, 4004 BC
at 9:30 am? It's a shame no one asked him if that was EST, GMT,
Pacific Daylight Time, or Chinese Standard time?? ;-)
Tom W.


Greenwich Mean.

Actually, I don't think GMT even existed as yet, in Bishop Usher's
day...wasn't that around 1800 or so, with British Shipping, and such?
TW

I supposed the simplest explanation is the one that covers them
all..."God just created another miracle to solve that problem."


NO, the simplest explanation is the non-literal interpretation
of basic evolution as God's creation mechanism, which for man began
about 3-5 million years ago. (A minor thestic miracle in itself, but
much more palatable and agreeable to scientific findings).
TW

Doogie Hoosier wrote:

Another take was that there are two separate "creations" of man in
Genesis. The first one does not involve Adam, and some have suggested
that "these" men are products of evolution, while Adam (and Eve) were
a separate, *special* creation, and it is those who carry Adam's
bloodline who were the first Hebrews. Cain supposedly mated with one
of the women from the earlier creation of man already populating
Earth.

In the context of the nature of the bible in confirming the special
status of Abraham and the chosen people, I suspect this is the "real answer"

Steve
--
Steve Taylor
Technical Director
Astronomy Centre
http://www.astronomycentre.org.uk

bwhiting wrote:


I heard a couple of explanations for this. One was that Adam and Eve
had more children, and Cain was actually banging his sister, but that
was alright back then because Adam's and Eve's DNA was perfect and
there were no undesirable traits to worry about passing on to the next
generation.


I have a problem with the definition of "perfect" DNA there.....by
who's definition of perfect, considering the 50 billion combinations
of a DNA molecule. (?) And the fact that DNA is constantly evolving
in many species.
TW


And you still have to explain the diversity of the subsequent human
race, as well as Genetic diseases - such as Tay-sachs or Cystic Fibrosis.

Steve
--
Steve Taylor
Technical Director
Astronomy Centre
http://www.astronomycentre.org.uk

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:59:39 -0400, bwhiting
wrote:

I think its more like 3 million years now with the new Hipparcos
data....

I think there are many questions regarding possible statistical biases
in the Feast-Catchpole calculations. There have been several follow-on
papers disputing some of their conclusions.

However, the Hipparcos calibration of the Cepheid scale is certainly
something that one can use to argue with those that question the
distance in general terms. Very few assumptions are needed to arrive
at the approximate distance to the *nearest* galaxy comparable to our
own.

The problem I have with creationist arguments about age is that if the
"light created in transit" idea is true, then almost everything we see
in the Universe is an illusion (including much of our own galaxy). The
idea of "truth" kinda breaks down if that is the case -- so what's the
use of trying to understand anything? I could argue everything is an
illusion. I simply state the distance and if *they* want to argue, I
start with an explanation of Cepheids and the fact that the Hipparcos
data verified/calibrated that yardstick with simple geometry.

If my senses and logical mind tell me something that conflicts with my
beliefs, then perhaps it is time to reconsider my beliefs. I think
"truth" is contained in all things, not just one book.

---
Michael McCulloch