CANADIEN

Correction, it is you (with the occasional help of others who share the same lack of understanding of the Bible but not your arrogance/lack of manners/childish behaviour etc. etc. etc.) takse texts in the Bbil and says "Look, it described this or that phenomenum recently discovered by science" when anybody with the bible, good reading skills and understanding of science knows that no, it doesn't. And trumpets archeological findings and scream "This proves the Bbible to be true" is true, when any person of FAITH (you know, that five letter words that is almost as absent from your postings as any sign of understanding of most things) knows that they need FAITH.

Speaking from experience, I see.

You win betsy, you win. And I will stop doing it... the moment you stop arguing that 1 + 1 = 7. After all, if I have toi stop doing something that I'm not doing, fairness demands that you stop doing something you're not doing.

11 out of 12. according to betsy's definition, betsy is a new atheist. Now, my turn: Angry... at betsy, once or twice, but only because I forgot how much of a joke she is Utterly confused... by betsy's non-sense (since we have confused and utterly confused, that most be two points) Relativist (since I know that I am intellectually bright compraired to betsy) Oops, that was an ad hominem Five out of 12. Thank betsy for giving me the opportunity to prove that I am NOT a new atheist.

If it were over, she wouldn't keep coming back to it. What I find particularly laughable is that even when she agrees with others (re the Flood), she backtracks, claims weare saying things we're not saying, that we are talking about things we do not even mention, starts to argue then says there is nothing to argue about.

FACT. You're doing who speaks about a finite creation and the Flood in the same sentence. Nobody else. This thread and others are littered with debunked so called facts of yours. The notion that the Bible describes gravity or the expending universe being only the first two that comes to mind. Not kimmy, but also cybercoma, and I, and probably about everybody on this site who has an understanding of science KNOWS that a flood that would life an ark about 16000 ft above sea level without flooding eveything on the planet is a physical impossibility. And we have posted on this issue as well. As far as the Flood is concerned, we share the same position. And yes, I have read Kimmy's post. One reading was enough to prove to me that she KNOWS that the Flood is a physical impossibility. Anyone who concludes that Kimmy's is acting as if the Flood occured needs to go get English reading lessons. starting at the daycare level. As for the rest of your exercise in self-confusion, I was about to address it line by line, but why bother. Your comments about the Flood can be summarized as: "Well, I agree that the Flood is an impossibility. So there's no argument. But wait, there's this, and this, and this that could have made it possible. Oh well, it is impossible so there's no argument. But wait, there is still a debate going on, and who knows, maybe some day there will be a proof of it, and there are other possible scenarios, so I cannot say for sure it is impossible. Therefore, there's no argument. And why do you keep using a supposition (the impossibility of the Flood, which I agree is a fact, but think is a supposition) to contradict another fact I have posted and which you don't even mention?" Even at their worse, politicians could learn from you about the fine of backtracking and self-contradiction. As for kimmy's position, which also happen to be mine on this issue, it can be summarized as: "a local Flood that would result in an ark ending on top of Mount Ararat is a physical impossibility, and so is a global Flood that would have had the same result." Could not be clearer, and your insistence that we are talking about other things or that kimmy acts as if the Flood occured is simply a demonstration of your poor reading skills. You say the argument is over. Fine. So stop arguing, will you? PS: Katrina didn't bring any object, man-made or otherwise, to the top of the highest peaks of the Rockies.

Less we forget. It is only when you decide something is a fact, meaning that it cannot be contradicted, can one debate it (with the understanding that you have already won the debate). Sorry, doesn't work that way. Actually, neither kimmy, or myself, cybercoma, or anyone else here has mentioned finite creation and the Flood in the same post. Earth to betsy. The whole point put forward by kimmy, cybercoma, myself, is that the Flood was physically IMPOSSIBLE. How you can miss the FACT that this is what we are getting at is quite frankly beyond baffling. And the impossibility of a regional flood that would lift a boat to the top of Mount Ararat has been demonstrated. WOOHOO, betsy. That's the point. It IS an allegory.

The probability of a regional drought, whether or not it is cited as a fact, is indeed a subject for debate. Is it possible, yes or no? And unless the geology of the whole Middle East and Eastern Asia was different that what it was today, a flood that would bring an ark to the flanks of Mt. Ararat could not have been localised. Mt. Ararat sits at a bit over 16000 feet (someone else put the numbers here, correct me if I am wrong. Which means that the water needs to rise to over 16000 feet in that particular area of the world, the Mesopotamian plain and the mountains to the north. So let's argue for a second that there was a drought so severe that was no water anywhere inthe word, and that all the water in the lakes and oceans of the world started to flow to the plain.... and rising, and rising... 1500 feet... the water is spilling out the lower parts of the plain into most of what is now Iraq and the eastern parts of the Arabian peninsula. 3000 feet... by now, the water is spilling into most of the Arabian peninsula. southern Turkey, Israel, Syria (except the mountainous areas),... most of Africa, and one third of Iran, half of Afghanistan, most of the Indian sub-continent, Indochina, huge parts of China, Korea, southeastern Siberia 10000 feet.... the only parts of the Eurasian continent NOT flooded are some parts of the Alps, the Caucasus, the Hindu Kush, the Tibetan plateau, the Himalayas, and some Siberian mountain ranges. Africa is entirely under water, except for parts of the Eastern African plateau, the Tibesti and Maroccan Atlas. And I haven't even taken into account the fact that water would also spill out into the oceans. You can talk all you want about the water cycle (and misunderstand in the process that wate r is still subject to gravity between the time in is on the goround and it evaporates), you can talk all you want about droughts elsewhere in the world. Doesn't change one simple fact... unless you build a wall around Mesopotamia that is at least 16000 feet, water will spill out from the area into other areas long before you reach your mark. The flood, if it indeed occured at all, would have HAD to be global to bring an Ark to the flanks of Mount Ararat. If you don't believe me (and I know you don't), try a little experiment at home. Put a small shallow bucket in your bathtub... that the Mesopotamian plain. On the wall, about three inches above the bathtub, put a mark - that's Mount Ararat. Your tub is the rest of the Middle East, the bathrom the rest of the World. Then start pouring water in the bucket. You can even similate the water cycle by running the tap in the sink, taking water from there and dumping it in the bucket. If you can manage to raise the level of water in the bucket to the level of your mark without filling the bathtub and making a mess of your bathroom, I'll stop posting on this thread. Deal?

I hope you meant OSAMA was a Saudi.

Nope. Let's practice freedom of religion because this is the right thing to do.

Interesting passages. Now, it's not that I don't respect the NIV, but I went to the version I use, la Bible de Jrusalem (yes, it is in French - and do yourself a favour: do NOT argue I should be read the Bible in English if I want to post here). And want I found looking at the verses you quote was, shall we say, interesting. The words used were those that would be used to describe not something expending, but rather something being laid out like a curtain or unfolded like a tent. Then I took a look at he Oxford Concise Disctionary (I know, not a source about the Bible, but a very good one about the English language). And found out that the word stretch has more than one meaning, including: Considering the use of the words canopy and tent in some of the verses you quoted, I think it is a fair assumption that they are talking about stretching out in the sense or laying out, which is different from having a Universe in constant expension. So no, the Bible didn't describe the Universe constantly expending in size. Rather, it described the Universe as God's creation, using an imagery that would have made sense to the readers (or listeners) at the times and in the societies where He inspired those texts to be written. That should be good enough for a person of faith.

When I think about what the CBC should be, I think PBS.

Nobody would seriously argue the two things at the same time. Nobody would blame things on people they say dos not exist. But would this not be also a genocide of non-white people in predominently white countries? Yep, they should cease to exist because they do not exist. On the contrary, keep speaking. The more you do, the more you hurt your own cause. Thanks for demonstrating that "anti-white" is a product of your imagination.

Do I really have to back up the fact that 50 cents is more than zero? Do I really have to point out the fact that someone who invests time and money and ends up making a ofrtune is still doing more money, even with a 50% tax rate than if he/she had sat down and done nothing? And do I really need to point out we are not talking about Iraq and the Soviet Union here, no matter how much you insist on aking yourself into a laughingstock with those non-sensical comparisons?

Rioting should not be reserved for anything, except fighting dictatorships. Don't you agree?

Well... still beats your "people don't invest because they might paying more taxes if they become richer" statement... which you will noit back up with examples. He didn't pay much taxes, now did he? Looks closer to something YOU would encourage than a model I want us to follow.

Don't like the message, shoot the messenger (Buffett). Interesting you talk about Apple. Steve Jobs was not earning that much money when he started Apple. And tax rates were higher. It didn't stop him. You might, and I say might, have a point about red tape. But seriously, only a fool would say "I won't try to make more money because I'll be paying more taxes". Of course, feel free to make a foul of yourself by arguing that I am calling for sky-rocketting tax rates.

As Warren Buffett says, this has never preventing him from investing.

You're discounting the fact that God can indeed do things that would appear impossible. But teasing you aside, readig the text itself leaves no doubt that it talks about God unleashing a worldwide flood. One more reason why people of faith should not read the text trying to find ways to make it look like a description of a factual event. My faith tells me this distracts from the message in the story (and especially in its conclusion, the Alliance) - no matter how we stray away from God, God will not destroy humanity; such is His love.

correction. A LOT of Christians KNOW that the creation story in Genesis is allegorical. Or perhaps allegorical is the wrong word here. Let's say they know that there is nothing in there that contradicts other facts, like macro-evolution.

What I believe has been clear for quite a while, but NOW you get it? Whatever.

Now now, admit it, that's not your argument.

So now, we're supposed to believe that you are THAT obtuse?

How dare you not state what your point is?

From somebody who has proved unable to understand that the creation story in Genesis is allegorical. That's too precious. I can feel the collective shudder from everyone who tries to imagine how bad it must have been the first time. Perhaps I should rephrase my previous statement. I understand it better than you. Which is actually not saying a lot.