Le 2024-07-02 à 08:41, Vincent Maycock a écrit :
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 18:11:29 +1000, Daniel70
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote on 2/7/24 4:00 am:
>>> "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:XJygO.85633$ikOc.39622
>>> @fx10.ams4:
>>>> "Kualinar" wrote in message news:v5u9oe$137u1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> bertietaylor a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>
>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>
>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>
>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>
>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>>
>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked out the
>> Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made about 6,000 B.C.??
>
> It was 4004 B.C., per one Bishop Usher's calculation based on the
> Bible and various esoteric reasonings. This was a pre-scientific
> attempt at calculating the age of the earth, the result of which has
> been challenged even by modern young earth creationists.
That Bishop wrongly assumed that the bible's old testament constituted
an accurate historical and generational record showing a complete and
totally unbroken «family tree» going from Adam & Eve to Noah then all
the way to Jesus.

Le 2024-07-01 à 14:03, Mitchell Holman a écrit :
> "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:kzqgO.98630$nACc.37320
> @fx07.ams4:
>
>> "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v5sktq$mvqh$1@dont-email.me...
>> <>
>>> if one wishes to be a Biblical literalist, then a flat, stationary
>>> Earth at the center of a 6-Day Creation is the most faithful
>>> reading of the Bible.
>>>
>>> Dawn
>>
>> True if based on some isolated passage.
>> But not true when one sees it in context
>> of the whole Bible.
>>
>
> Show us this "context".
>
> Start with:
>
>
>
>
> 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
>
> Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
>
> Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
>
> Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation
> so that it never can be shaken."
>
> Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned
> it, and himself fixed it fast..."
ALL of that was told by anonymous peoples who had NO way of knowing that
the Earth rotate on it's axis and orbit the Sun. NO trace of «divine
inspiration» here. Then, enter a massive, multi-generational, game of
telephone before being put in writing by anonymous scribble.

Le 2024-07-02 à 09:13, Mitchell Holman a écrit :
> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:v60cus$1ii27$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Dawn Flood wrote on 1/7/24 8:06 am:
>>> On 6/30/2024 8:08 AM, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>> I'm not talking about hundreds/thousands of years ago. Anyone who
>>>> TODAY thinks the "Earth is flat" is insane. The Sun is round. The
>>>> moon is round. All of the planets are round (you can see them
>>>> yourself in a telescope). There are many photos of the round
>>>> Earth.
>>>>
>>>> STILL clinging to "The Earth is flat" nonsense - in the face of
>>>> tons of evidence that it is, indeed, round - is the very definition
>>>> of insane.
>>>>
>>>> Stars and planets are round for a reason. Gravity. Once an object
>>>> gets past a certain size/mass, it WILL be round. Small
>>>> asteroids/comets/meteors and such are irregularly shaped because
>>>> the gravity of the body is not strong enough to round it out.
>>>>
>>>> Polaris is not the center of anything. Science is not a "religion".
>>>> Facts are facts. You "Flat Earth" people are Kooktards.
>>>> Conspiretards. IOW, insane.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I agree with you, of course, 100%!!
>>>
>>> But, if one wishes to be a Biblical literalist, then a flat,
>>> stationary Earth at the center of a 6-Day Creation is the most
>>> faithful reading of the Bible.
>>>
>>> Dawn
>>
>> Dawn, what part of The Bible are you reading to arrive at a 'flat'
>> earth??
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew 4:
> ...the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
> mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the
> world, and the glory of them
>
>
> Amos 9:6
> The One who builds His upper chambers in the
> heavens And has founded His vaulted dome
> over the earth
>
>
> Revelation 7:1
> After this I saw four angels standing at the
> four corners of the earth
>
>
> Revelation 7:3
> and will go out to deceive the nations in
> the four corners of the earth
>
>
> Job 28:24
> for he views the ends of the earth
> and sees everything under the heavens.
>
>
> Deuteronomy 28:49
> The Lord will bring a nation against you from
> far away, from the ends of the earth
>
>
> Daniel 4:10-11.
> ...the king saw a tree of great height at the
> centre of the earth...reaching with its top to
> the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds
>
>
>
>
>
ALL of those are just myths and fireside stories weaved by peoples
ignorant of the reality of the world and attempting to explain things.

Kualinar <kuakinar@videotron.ca> wrote in news:v6177e$1mjru$3@dont-
email.me:

> Le 2024-07-02 à 09:13, Mitchell Holman a écrit :
>> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:v60cus$1ii27$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Dawn Flood wrote on 1/7/24 8:06 am:
>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:08 AM, Tyrone wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>> I'm not talking about hundreds/thousands of years ago. Anyone who
>>>>> TODAY thinks the "Earth is flat" is insane. The Sun is round. The
>>>>> moon is round. All of the planets are round (you can see them
>>>>> yourself in a telescope). There are many photos of the round
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> STILL clinging to "The Earth is flat" nonsense - in the face of
>>>>> tons of evidence that it is, indeed, round - is the very definition
>>>>> of insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stars and planets are round for a reason. Gravity. Once an object
>>>>> gets past a certain size/mass, it WILL be round. Small
>>>>> asteroids/comets/meteors and such are irregularly shaped because
>>>>> the gravity of the body is not strong enough to round it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Polaris is not the center of anything. Science is not a "religion".
>>>>> Facts are facts. You "Flat Earth" people are Kooktards.
>>>>> Conspiretards. IOW, insane.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I agree with you, of course, 100%!!
>>>>
>>>> But, if one wishes to be a Biblical literalist, then a flat,
>>>> stationary Earth at the center of a 6-Day Creation is the most
>>>> faithful reading of the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> Dawn
>>>
>>> Dawn, what part of The Bible are you reading to arrive at a 'flat'
>>> earth??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew 4:
>> ...the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
>> mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the
>> world, and the glory of them
>>
>>
>> Amos 9:6
>> The One who builds His upper chambers in the
>> heavens And has founded His vaulted dome
>> over the earth
>>
>>
>> Revelation 7:1
>> After this I saw four angels standing at the
>> four corners of the earth
>>
>>
>> Revelation 7:3
>> and will go out to deceive the nations in
>> the four corners of the earth
>>
>>
>> Job 28:24
>> for he views the ends of the earth
>> and sees everything under the heavens.
>>
>>
>> Deuteronomy 28:49
>> The Lord will bring a nation against you from
>> far away, from the ends of the earth
>>
>>
>> Daniel 4:10-11.
>> ...the king saw a tree of great height at the
>> centre of the earth...reaching with its top to
>> the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ALL of those are just myths and fireside stories weaved by peoples
> ignorant of the reality of the world and attempting to explain things.
>

But they are believed as "God's Revealed Truth"
by the faithful, no matter how nonsensical they are.

Mitchell Holman wrote on 2/07/2024 4:03 am:
> "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:kzqgO.98630$nACc.37320
> @fx07.ams4:
>> "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v5sktq$mvqh$1@dont-email.me...
>> <>
>>> if one wishes to be a Biblical literalist, then a flat, stationary
>>> Earth at the center of a 6-Day Creation is the most faithful
>>> reading of the Bible.
>>>
>>> Dawn
>>
>> True if based on some isolated passage.
>> But not true when one sees it in context
>> of the whole Bible.
>
> Show us this "context".
>
> Start with:
>
> 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
>
> Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
>
> Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
>
> Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation
> so that it never can be shaken."

Hmm!! Somebody should tell the world populus that Earthquakes don't exist!!

> Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned
> it, and himself fixed it fast..."
> --
Daniel

Mitchell Holman wrote on 2/07/2024 11:13 pm:
> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:v60cus$1ii27$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Dawn Flood wrote on 1/7/24 8:06 am:
>>> On 6/30/2024 8:08 AM, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>> I'm not talking about hundreds/thousands of years ago. Anyone who
>>>> TODAY thinks the "Earth is flat" is insane. The Sun is round. The
>>>> moon is round. All of the planets are round (you can see them
>>>> yourself in a telescope). There are many photos of the round
>>>> Earth.
>>>>
>>>> STILL clinging to "The Earth is flat" nonsense - in the face of
>>>> tons of evidence that it is, indeed, round - is the very definition
>>>> of insane.
>>>>
>>>> Stars and planets are round for a reason. Gravity. Once an object
>>>> gets past a certain size/mass, it WILL be round. Small
>>>> asteroids/comets/meteors and such are irregularly shaped because
>>>> the gravity of the body is not strong enough to round it out.
>>>>
>>>> Polaris is not the center of anything. Science is not a "religion".
>>>> Facts are facts. You "Flat Earth" people are Kooktards.
>>>> Conspiretards. IOW, insane.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I agree with you, of course, 100%!!
>>>
>>> But, if one wishes to be a Biblical literalist, then a flat,
>>> stationary Earth at the center of a 6-Day Creation is the most
>>> faithful reading of the Bible.
>>>
>>> Dawn
>>
>> Dawn, what part of The Bible are you reading to arrive at a 'flat'
>> earth??
>
> Matthew 4:
> ...the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
> mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the
> world, and the glory of them

Just like if YOU were to look towards the horizons on a global World.
> Amos 9:6
> The One who builds His upper chambers in the
> heavens And has founded His vaulted dome
> over the earth

'vaulted'?? Doesn't that imply a spherical 'roof'?? Or, at least,
semi-circular?

> Revelation 7:1
> After this I saw four angels standing at the
> four corners of the earth

Ah! Right! This might take a bit of thought! ;-(

> Revelation 7:3
> and will go out to deceive the nations in
> the four corners of the earth

Ditto!

> Job 28:24
> for he views the ends of the earth
> and sees everything under the heavens.

Back to looking towards a (circular'ish) horizon.

> Deuteronomy 28:49
> The Lord will bring a nation against you from
> far away, from the ends of the earth

Yeap, at best, on a spherical world, you can get no further than half a
globe away!!

> Daniel 4:10-11.
> ...the king saw a tree of great height at the
> centre of the earth...reaching with its top to
> the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds

So tall you could see it .... all the way to the Horizon!! But, surely,
if it were at the centre of the Earth NOBODY could see it ..... Oh!!
Hang on! That would be for a Global World!!
--
Daniel

Den 02.07.2024 19:29, skrev Mitchell Holman:
> Kualinar <kuakinar@videotron.ca> wrote in news:v6177e$1mjru$3@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> Le 2024-07-02 à 09:13, Mitchell Holman a écrit :
>>> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>> news:v60cus$1ii27$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> Dawn Flood wrote on 1/7/24 8:06 am:
>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:08 AM, Tyrone wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not talking about hundreds/thousands of years ago. Anyone who
>>>>>> TODAY thinks the "Earth is flat" is insane. The Sun is round. The
>>>>>> moon is round. All of the planets are round (you can see them
>>>>>> yourself in a telescope). There are many photos of the round
>>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> STILL clinging to "The Earth is flat" nonsense - in the face of
>>>>>> tons of evidence that it is, indeed, round - is the very definition
>>>>>> of insane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stars and planets are round for a reason. Gravity. Once an object
>>>>>> gets past a certain size/mass, it WILL be round. Small
>>>>>> asteroids/comets/meteors and such are irregularly shaped because
>>>>>> the gravity of the body is not strong enough to round it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Polaris is not the center of anything. Science is not a "religion".
>>>>>> Facts are facts. You "Flat Earth" people are Kooktards.
>>>>>> Conspiretards. IOW, insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I agree with you, of course, 100%!!
>>>>>
>>>>> But, if one wishes to be a Biblical literalist, then a flat,
>>>>> stationary Earth at the center of a 6-Day Creation is the most
>>>>> faithful reading of the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dawn
>>>>
>>>> Dawn, what part of The Bible are you reading to arrive at a 'flat'
>>>> earth??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew 4:
>>> ...the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
>>> mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the
>>> world, and the glory of them
>>>
>>>
>>> Amos 9:6
>>> The One who builds His upper chambers in the
>>> heavens And has founded His vaulted dome
>>> over the earth
>>>
>>>
>>> Revelation 7:1
>>> After this I saw four angels standing at the
>>> four corners of the earth
>>>
>>>
>>> Revelation 7:3
>>> and will go out to deceive the nations in
>>> the four corners of the earth
>>>
>>>
>>> Job 28:24
>>> for he views the ends of the earth
>>> and sees everything under the heavens.
>>>
>>>
>>> Deuteronomy 28:49
>>> The Lord will bring a nation against you from
>>> far away, from the ends of the earth
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel 4:10-11.
>>> ...the king saw a tree of great height at the
>>> centre of the earth...reaching with its top to
>>> the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ALL of those are just myths and fireside stories weaved by peoples
>> ignorant of the reality of the world and attempting to explain things.
>>
>
>
> But they are believed as "God's Revealed Truth"
> by the faithful, no matter how nonsensical they are.
>
>

The Earth is flat, anybody can see that!

But I wonder ... is Australia on the underside of the flat Earth?

Or maybe Australia is on the upper side and we (America, Europa and
Asia) are on the underside?

What do you think?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB1A352275DA61629555@185.151.15.190...
> Daniel70 wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>> bertietaylor a Ãf©crit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>
>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>
>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>
>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>
>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>>
>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked out
>> the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made about
>> 6,000 B.C.??
>
> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>
> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
> him this question, just as he did here.

I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.
But you just want to argue. The important thing
is that we are here now, and that we may have
salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ..

Therefore learn of Him, and in the future realm
He will unfold before you the mysteries of this
vast Universe of which we may now have only
a faint glimpse of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNeprtMyAAg&t=305s

"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:VrphO.16381$eAJ1.2158@fx03.ams4:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsB1A352275DA61629555@185.151.15.190...
>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>> bertietaylor a �f©crit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>
>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>>
>>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>>
>>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>>>
>>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked out
>>> the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made about
>>> 6,000 B.C.??
>>
>> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>
>> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>> him this question, just as he did here.
>
> I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.

Not in years you didn't.

"The age of the Earth stems
from when the Earth was created"
is not an answer.

But humor us and post it here.

> But you just want to argue. The important thing
> is that we are here now, and that we may have
> salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ..
>
> Therefore learn of Him, and in the future realm
> He will unfold before you the mysteries of this
> vast Universe of which we may now have only
> a faint glimpse of.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNeprtMyAAg&t=305s
>
>

[Religious troll cross-post to alt.bible removed in follow-up.]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:00:21 +0000
Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:

> "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in
> news:VrphO.16381$eAJ1.2158@fx03.ams4:
>
> > "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> > news:XnsB1A352275DA61629555@185.151.15.190...
> >> Daniel70 wrote:
> >>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
> >>>>>> bertietaylor a _f__crit :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.

You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.

> >>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
> >>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
> >>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..

You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.
The scientific 'community' is clearly steeped in the worship of
Helios-Apollo. You are intentionally avoiding this fact.

> >>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.

> >>>> How old does your Bible say it is?

You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.

> >>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked
> >>> out the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made
> >>> about 6,000 B.C.??

You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.

> >>
> >> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
> >>
> >> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
> >> him this question, just as he did here.
> >
> > I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.

You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.

> Not in years you didn't.
>
> "The age of the Earth stems
> from when the Earth was created"
> is not an answer.
>
> But humor us and post it here.

The subject is neither the age of the earth as believed by some
atheist lickspittle nor by the credo of some Christian wing nut. The
subject of this thread is in the subject line:

"Brief Exposure of The Pagan Religion of Heliocentrism"

This is the subject you are attempting to divert the thread away from.
You are doing this intentionally, with the purpose of derailing the
evidence that shows NASA is using taxpayer money to iconify and promote
Helios-Apollo worship. You want people to argue about atheism vs.
christianism, or creationism vs. evolution. But you don't want
discussion about the sun cult religion of the ruling class. It is
obvious that is the intent of your distraction.

It is established and verifiable that Heliocentrism is a very ancient
religion of the ruling class many centuries before the scientific age.
It's not an opinion or a conjecture but clearly established in the
historical record. Why are you distracting from the exposure of
the religion of the ruling class with your own astroturf peasant
religions?

Both atheism and Christianity are peasant religions invented by the same
ruling class to keep the people divided and fighting each other instead
of fighting their rulers. You are slaves, playing slave games according
to your master's rule book.

Let's get back on topic. This thread exposes how the ruling class
concocted heliocentrism more than 2500 years ago, and codified their
sun worship under the deity named Helios-Apollo. They already named the
planets after their deities, and displayed their minor deities orbiting
their sun god, long before the modern 'scientific' version of
heliocentrism. So history shows it is a ancient religion. So atheist
materialists who claim it as, 'science' are being either stupid or
disingenuous, since heliocentrism is a religion of solar worship more
than 2000 years prior to modern heliocentric theory.

I suppose it is too much to ask for something other than addle-pated
retorts and popinjay reguritata you read in some textbook or ruling
class publication.

> > But you just want to argue. The important thing
> > is that we are here now, and that we may have
> > salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ..

This is not the subject of the thread. You are attempting to distract
from the subject and slide the forum into arguing over your own
religious woo woo. If the majority of the people realized that their
rulers worship a sun devil that would do more for 'salvation' of the
nations than the last 1500 years of the decrepit Christian religion,
which worships the same sun devil, Apollo.

> > Therefore learn of Him, and in the future realm
> > He will unfold before you the mysteries of this
> > vast Universe of which we may now have only
> > a faint glimpse of.

Again the subject is the heliocentric religion of Apollo worship. Stick
to the subject and stop distracting. NASA publicly worships Apollo,
using taxpayer funds to promote the religion of Rome. NASA publicly
promotes the pantheon of the Roman gods. That is their religion. It is
in their iconography. It is in their imagery. It is in their very
spoken and written words. They are sun worshipers. Why are sun
worshipers using so-called science and space and taxpayer money to force
their religion on the public?

The Roman deity of the ruling class does not exist. There is no Apollo.
There is no Shiva, or Kalki, or Helios, or any of their versions of
their deity. They attack Christians and the Christian deity, but nobody
ever bothers to attack their solar deity.

Apollo is a figment of their imagination. Their luciferian pipe dreams
are the product of diseased minds given them by the devil, who is their
true god and master. Why does anyone tolerate their sun god religion
being plastered all over the country at taxpayer expense? Why are people
arguing about occasional Christian prayers made in public while NASA
expends billions of dollars paying for tribute to the luciferian deity
Apollo? Are you all really that stupid? Or are you complicit?

To refresh your memory and defeat the forum sliding tactics of the
trolls the original expose of the heliocentric religion is reproduced
below. Every time I notice a troll forum sliding I will re-post the
original article.

Notice that Kualinar has not responded. Nor has he apologized for the
misinformation he presented. Likely he nymshifted to start arguing
about biblical creation to derail the thread from the original subject
of the heliocentric religion of Apollo being promoted for decades at
taxpayer expense.

The copied portion begins.

> Apollo is NOT a Sun god, but the god of MEDICINE as well as the
> MESSENGER of the gods of the Roman pantheon.
> Apollo never required any live sacrifices.
>
> Get your religions straight and stop pooping your blatant lies.

You say, "Apollo is NOT a Sun god." History says the opposite. They
absolutely do consider Apollo to be their sun god, as shown below in
quotes. It is you who needs to iron out the wrinkles in religions.

First proof of Apollo as sun god:

"In spaceflight, the 1960s and 1970s NASA program for orbiting and
landing astronauts on the Moon was named after Apollo, by NASA manager
Abe Silverstein: Apollo riding his chariot across the Sun was
appropriate to the grand scale of the proposed program. — Abe
Silverstein, Release 69-36"

Yet Kualinar says, "Apollo is NOT a Sun god." And he is wrong. Will he
recant his lie?

Second proof of Apollo as sun god:

"Apollo has a unique connection to modern culture through space travel.
Drawing on his association with the sun (an association that, contrary
to popular belief, did not enter Apollo’s theology until relatively
late), NASA named their famous moon-bound space program after Apollo.
They hoped to emulate the exceptionally accurate archer in their
journey to the moon." {https://mythopedia.com/topics/apollo}

Yet Kualinar says, "Apollo is NOT a Sun god." And he is wrong. Will he
recant his lie?

By, "relatively late" the author considers 500 BC to be 'relatively
late' in the long history of Apollo worship. Apollo has been variously
represented as a sun god for over 2500 years. For you to call that a
lie, makes you the liar!

Yet Kualinar says, "Apollo is NOT a Sun god." And he is wrong. Will he
recant his lie?

Even more historians know and express the connection between Apollo and
Helios as the same sun-god.

Third proof of Apollo as sun god:

"Phoebus-Apollo was the god of light in a twofold signification: first,
as representing the great orb of day which illumines the world; and
secondly, as the heavenly light which animates the soul of man. He
inherited his function as sun-god from Helios, with whom, in later
times, he was so completely identified, that the personality of the one
became gradually merged in that of the other. We, accordingly, find
Helios frequently confounded with Apollo, myths belonging to the former
attributed to the latter; and with some tribes—the Ionic, for
instance—so complete is this identification, that Apollo is called by
them Helios-Apollo."
{https://thedelphiguide.com/apollo-the-greekest-of-greek-gods/}

On 7/1/2024 4:16 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> % wrote on 1/7/24 8:10 am:
>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2024 8:08 AM, Tyrone wrote:
>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 11:04:12 PM EDT, "Dawn Flood"
>>>> <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/29/2024 7:35 PM, Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2024 at 9:02:37 AM EDT, "Saros Cycle" <18@11.8>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the earth is level and stationary, not a ball orbiting
>>>>>>> a burning ball of hydrogen and helium gas. All the heavenly
>>>>>>> bodies orbit Polaris exactly as your eyes show you. The
>>>>>>> heliocentric religion has bewitched your mind to deny what you
>>>>>>> see with your own eyes. Polaris is the center of the
>>>>>>> celestial sphere, around which all things orbit
>>>>>>> unchangingly for thousand of years. Polaris is not light
>>>>>>> years distant. It is close to the earth as are the other heavenly
>>>>>>> lights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does it feel like to be insane?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many of them are not crazy:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/index.html
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about hundreds/thousands of years ago.  Anyone
>>>> who TODAY thinks the "Earth is flat" is insane. The Sun is round.
>>>> The moon is round. All of the planets are round (you can see them
>>>> yourself in a telescope). There are many photos of the round
>>>> Earth.
>>>>
>>>> STILL clinging to "The Earth is flat" nonsense - in the face of
>>>> tons of evidence that it is, indeed, round - is the very
>>>> definition of insane.
>>>>
>>>> Stars and planets are round for a reason. Gravity. Once an object
>>>> gets past a certain size/mass, it WILL be round. Small
>>>> asteroids/comets/meteors and such are irregularly shaped because
>>>> the gravity of the body is not strong enough to round it out.
>>>>
>>>> Polaris is not the center of anything. Science is not a
>>>> "religion". Facts are facts. You "Flat Earth" people are
>>>> Kooktards. Conspiretards. IOW, insane.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I agree with you, of course, 100%!!
>>>
>>> But, if one wishes to be a Biblical literalist, then a flat,
>>> stationary Earth at the center of a 6-Day Creation is the most
>>> faithful reading of the Bible.
>>>
>>> Dawn
>>
>> if it was flat everything would walk standing up
>
> Really?? So that would mean there would be no four footed/hooved
> creatures!!

Honey, you may be dealing with a chatbot here.

Dawn

Dawn Flood wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 4:16 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
>> % wrote on 1/7/24 8:10 am:
>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:08 AM, Tyrone wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 11:04:12 PM EDT, "Dawn Flood"
>>>>> <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/29/2024 7:35 PM, Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2024 at 9:02:37 AM EDT, "Saros Cycle" <18@11.8>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the earth is level and stationary, not a ball orbiting
>>>>>>>> a burning ball of hydrogen and helium gas. All the heavenly
>>>>>>>> bodies orbit Polaris exactly as your eyes show you. The
>>>>>>>> heliocentric religion has bewitched your mind to deny what you
>>>>>>>> see with your own eyes. Polaris is the center of the
>>>>>>>> celestial sphere, around which all things orbit
>>>>>>>> unchangingly for thousand of years. Polaris is not light
>>>>>>>> years distant. It is close to the earth as are the other
>>>>>>>> heavenly lights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does it feel like to be insane?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many of them are not crazy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not talking about hundreds/thousands of years ago.  Anyone
>>>>> who TODAY thinks the "Earth is flat" is insane. The Sun is round.
>>>>> The moon is round. All of the planets are round (you can see them
>>>>> yourself in a telescope). There are many photos of the round
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> STILL clinging to "The Earth is flat" nonsense - in the face of
>>>>> tons of evidence that it is, indeed, round - is the very
>>>>> definition of insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stars and planets are round for a reason. Gravity. Once an object
>>>>> gets past a certain size/mass, it WILL be round. Small
>>>>> asteroids/comets/meteors and such are irregularly shaped because
>>>>> the gravity of the body is not strong enough to round it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Polaris is not the center of anything. Science is not a
>>>>> "religion". Facts are facts. You "Flat Earth" people are
>>>>> Kooktards. Conspiretards. IOW, insane.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I agree with you, of course, 100%!!
>>>>
>>>> But, if one wishes to be a Biblical literalist, then a flat,
>>>> stationary Earth at the center of a 6-Day Creation is the most
>>>> faithful reading of the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> Dawn
>>>
>>> if it was flat everything would walk standing up
>>
>> Really?? So that would mean there would be no four footed/hooved
>> creatures!!
>
> Honey, you may be dealing with a chatbot here.
>
> Dawn

do you know of any other way to walk

Le 2024-07-04 à 23:01, Saros Cycle a écrit :
> [Religious troll cross-post to alt.bible removed in follow-up.]
>
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:00:21 +0000
> Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in
>> news:VrphO.16381$eAJ1.2158@fx03.ams4:
>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>>> news:XnsB1A352275DA61629555@185.151.15.190...
>>>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>>>> bertietaylor a _f__crit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>
> You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.
Not at all.
YOU are attempting to divert the discussion.
>
>>>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>
> You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.
> The scientific 'community' is clearly steeped in the worship of
> Helios-Apollo. You are intentionally avoiding this fact.

The scientific community DO NOT worship ANY god.
YOU are lying when you pretend that science is a religion, that
scientists are «worshipping Helios-Apollo»

>
>>>>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>
> You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.
Not at all.
YOU are attempting to hijack this discussion.
>
>>>>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>
> You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.
Not at all.
YOU are attempting to hijack this discussion.
>
>>>>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked
>>>>> out the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made
>>>>> about 6,000 B.C.??
>
> You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.
Not at all.
YOU are attempting to hijack this discussion.
>
>>>>
>>>> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>>>> him this question, just as he did here.
>>>
>>> I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.
>
> You are attempting to forum slide the discussion away from the subject.
Not at all.
YOU are attempting to hijack this discussion.
>
>> Not in years you didn't.
>>
>> "The age of the Earth stems
>> from when the Earth was created"
>> is not an answer.
>>
>> But humor us and post it here.
>
> The subject is neither the age of the earth as believed by some
> atheist lickspittle nor by the credo of some Christian wing nut. The
> subject of this thread is in the subject line:
>
> "Brief Exposure of The Pagan Religion of Heliocentrism"
There is NO heliodentrism, but a scientific heliocentric model that
work, can make predictions.
>
> This is the subject you are attempting to divert the thread away from.
> You are doing this intentionally, with the purpose of derailing the
> evidence that shows NASA is using taxpayer money to iconify and promote
> Helios-Apollo worship. You want people to argue about atheism vs.
> christianism, or creationism vs. evolution. But you don't want
> discussion about the sun cult religion of the ruling class. It is
> obvious that is the intent of your distraction.
There is NO Helios-Apollo worship in the NASA. The NASA DO NOT promote
ANY worship.
There is NO Sun cult.
>
> It is established and verifiable that Heliocentrism is a very ancient
> religion of the ruling class many centuries before the scientific age.
> It's not an opinion or a conjecture but clearly established in the
> historical record. Why are you distracting from the exposure of
> the religion of the ruling class with your own astroturf peasant
> religions?
YOU are attempting to make us believe that a non-existent cult must
exist. The Apollo cult died when the Roman state religion became Christian.
>
> Both atheism and Christianity are peasant religions invented by the same
> ruling class to keep the people divided and fighting each other instead
> of fighting their rulers. You are slaves, playing slave games according
> to your master's rule book.
Atheism IS NOT a religion. It is as much a religion as laying on a couch
is a professional sport, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
Atheism is absolutely a NON-religion, an absence of religion.
>
> Let's get back on topic. This thread exposes how the ruling class
> concocted heliocentrism more than 2500 years ago, and codified their
> sun worship under the deity named Helios-Apollo. They already named the
> planets after their deities, and displayed their minor deities orbiting
> their sun god, long before the modern 'scientific' version of
> heliocentrism. So history shows it is a ancient religion. So atheist
> materialists who claim it as, 'science' are being either stupid or
> disingenuous, since heliocentrism is a religion of solar worship more
> than 2000 years prior to modern heliocentric theory.
The only thing that happened 2500 years ago was realizing that the Earth
is a globe. Back then, it was believed that the Earth was at the centre
of everything. It was NOT heliocentric but totally GEOCENTRIC.
In the heliocentric model, the Sun is not a divine entity, but a massive
ball of very hot gases fuelled by thermonuclear reaction at it's centre.
>
> I suppose it is too much to ask for something other than addle-pated
> retorts and popinjay reguritata you read in some textbook or ruling
> class publication.
>
>>> But you just want to argue. The important thing
>>> is that we are here now, and that we may have
>>> salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ..
>
> This is not the subject of the thread. You are attempting to distract
> from the subject and slide the forum into arguing over your own
> religious woo woo. If the majority of the people realized that their
> rulers worship a sun devil that would do more for 'salvation' of the
> nations than the last 1500 years of the decrepit Christian religion,
> which worships the same sun devil, Apollo.
Christianity worship Yahweh, NOT Apollo.
>
>>> Therefore learn of Him, and in the future realm
>>> He will unfold before you the mysteries of this
>>> vast Universe of which we may now have only
>>> a faint glimpse of.
>
> Again the subject is the heliocentric religion of Apollo worship. Stick
Again... The heliocentric model IS NOT a religion.
> to the subject and stop distracting. NASA publicly worships Apollo,
Again... The NASA DO NOT worship ANY god.
> using taxpayer funds to promote the religion of Rome. NASA publicly
Again... The NASA DO NOT promote ANY religion.
> promotes the pantheon of the Roman gods. That is their religion. It is
> in their iconography. It is in their imagery. It is in their very
> spoken and written words. They are sun worshipers. Why are sun
> worshipers using so-called science and space and taxpayer money to force
> their religion on the public?
>
> The Roman deity of the ruling class does not exist. There is no Apollo.
> There is no Shiva, or Kalki, or Helios, or any of their versions of
> their deity. They attack Christians and the Christian deity, but nobody
> ever bothers to attack their solar deity.
And... Some empty claims.
>
> Apollo is a figment of their imagination. Their luciferian pipe dreams
> are the product of diseased minds given them by the devil, who is their
> true god and master. Why does anyone tolerate their sun god religion
> being plastered all over the country at taxpayer expense? Why are people
> arguing about occasional Christian prayers made in public while NASA
> expends billions of dollars paying for tribute to the luciferian deity
> Apollo? Are you all really that stupid? Or are you complicit?
Following that reasoning, the armies of the USA are using tax payers
money to promote the cult of Mars-Ares, the god of war, with a DAILY
budget close to the YEARLY budget of the NASA.
>
> To refresh your memory and defeat the forum sliding tactics of the
> trolls the original expose of the heliocentric religion is reproduced
> below. Every time I notice a troll forum sliding I will re-post the
> original article.
Again, the heliocentric MODEL is NOT a religion. Nor even close.
>
> Notice that Kualinar has not responded. Nor has he apologized for the
> misinformation he presented. Likely he nymshifted to start arguing
> about biblical creation to derail the thread from the original subject
> of the heliocentric religion of Apollo being promoted for decades at
> taxpayer expense.
>
> The copied portion begins.
>
>> Apollo is NOT a Sun god, but the god of MEDICINE as well as the
>> MESSENGER of the gods of the Roman pantheon.
>> Apollo never required any live sacrifices.
>>
>> Get your religions straight and stop pooping your blatant lies.
>
> You say, "Apollo is NOT a Sun god." History says the opposite. They
> absolutely do consider Apollo to be their sun god, as shown below in
> quotes. It is you who needs to iron out the wrinkles in religions.
>
> First proof of Apollo as sun god:
>
> "In spaceflight, the 1960s and 1970s NASA program for orbiting and
> landing astronauts on the Moon was named after Apollo, by NASA manager
> Abe Silverstein: Apollo riding his chariot across the Sun was
> appropriate to the grand scale of the proposed program. — Abe
> Silverstein, Release 69-36"
NON relevant. NOT a proof.
>
> Yet Kualinar says, "Apollo is NOT a Sun god." And he is wrong. Will he
> recant his lie?
>
> Second proof of Apollo as sun god:
>
> "Apollo has a unique connection to modern culture through space travel.
> Drawing on his association with the sun (an association that, contrary
> to popular belief, did not enter Apollo’s theology until relatively
> late), NASA named their famous moon-bound space program after Apollo.
> They hoped to emulate the exceptionally accurate archer in their
> journey to the moon." {https://mythopedia.com/topics/apollo}
NON relevant. NOT a proof.
>
> Yet Kualinar says, "Apollo is NOT a Sun god." And he is wrong. Will he
> recant his lie?
>
> By, "relatively late" the author considers 500 BC to be 'relatively
> late' in the long history of Apollo worship. Apollo has been variously
> represented as a sun god for over 2500 years. For you to call that a
> lie, makes you the liar!
>
> Yet Kualinar says, "Apollo is NOT a Sun god." And he is wrong. Will he
> recant his lie?
>
> Even more historians know and express the connection between Apollo and
> Helios as the same sun-god.
>
>
> The ruling class of the United States worship the Roman deity, Apollo.
> They adorn all their capitol buildings with Roman deities, Roman
> statues, and Roman frescoes of their deities. Meanwhile hordes of
> useful idiots argue about distractions that matter not. You are slaves.
> And I hate to say it but you deserve to be slaves.
The ruling class of the USA actually worship Jesus and the Christian god
as well as the Holy Dollar.
>

Kualinar <kuakinar@videotron.ca> wrote in
news:v6906i$3abuk$2@dont-email.me:

> Le 2024-07-04 à 23:01, Saros Cycle a écrit :
>> [Religious troll cross-post to alt.bible removed in follow-up.]
>>
>> This is the subject you are attempting to divert the thread away
>> from. You are doing this intentionally, with the purpose of derailing
>> the evidence that shows NASA is using taxpayer money to iconify and
>> promote Helios-Apollo worship. You want people to argue about atheism
>> vs. christianism, or creationism vs. evolution. But you don't want
>> discussion about the sun cult religion of the ruling class. It is
>> obvious that is the intent of your distraction.
> There is NO Helios-Apollo worship in the NASA. The NASA DO NOT promote
> ANY worship.

By "Saros Cycle" standards everyone
referring to any day of the week is
worship since they are all named for
Nordic gods.

Dawn Flood wrote on 5/7/24 9:12 pm:
> On 7/1/2024 4:16 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
>> % wrote on 1/7/24 8:10 am:
>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:08 AM, Tyrone wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 11:04:12 PM EDT, "Dawn Flood"
>>>>> <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/29/2024 7:35 PM, Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2024 at 9:02:37 AM EDT, "Saros Cycle" <18@11.8>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the earth is level and stationary, not a ball orbiting
>>>>>>>> a burning ball of hydrogen and helium gas. All the heavenly
>>>>>>>> bodies orbit Polaris exactly as your eyes show you. The
>>>>>>>> heliocentric religion has bewitched your mind to deny what you
>>>>>>>> see with your own eyes. Polaris is the center of the
>>>>>>>> celestial sphere, around which all things orbit
>>>>>>>> unchangingly for thousand of years. Polaris is not light
>>>>>>>> years distant. It is close to the earth as are the other
>>>>>>>> heavenly lights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does it feel like to be insane?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many of them are not crazy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not talking about hundreds/thousands of years ago.  Anyone
>>>>> who TODAY thinks the "Earth is flat" is insane. The Sun is round.
>>>>> The moon is round. All of the planets are round (you can see them
>>>>> yourself in a telescope). There are many photos of the round
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> STILL clinging to "The Earth is flat" nonsense - in the face of
>>>>> tons of evidence that it is, indeed, round - is the very
>>>>> definition of insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stars and planets are round for a reason. Gravity. Once an object
>>>>> gets past a certain size/mass, it WILL be round. Small
>>>>> asteroids/comets/meteors and such are irregularly shaped because
>>>>> the gravity of the body is not strong enough to round it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Polaris is not the center of anything. Science is not a
>>>>> "religion". Facts are facts. You "Flat Earth" people are
>>>>> Kooktards. Conspiretards. IOW, insane.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I agree with you, of course, 100%!!
>>>>
>>>> But, if one wishes to be a Biblical literalist, then a flat,
>>>> stationary Earth at the center of a 6-Day Creation is the most
>>>> faithful reading of the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> Dawn
>>>
>>> if it was flat everything would walk standing up
>>
>> Really?? So that would mean there would be no four footed/hooved
>> creatures!!
>
> Honey, you may be dealing with a chatbot here.
>
> Dawn

He could be, Dawn, but he isn't!
--
Daniel

On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:22:12 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
<VrphO.16381$eAJ1.2158@fx03.ams4> wrote:

>"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB1A352275DA61629555@185.151.15.190...
>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>> bertietaylor a Ãf©crit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>
>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>>
>>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>>
>>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>>>
>>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked out
>>> the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made about
>>> 6,000 B.C.??
>>
>> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>
>> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>> him this question, just as he did here.
>
>I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.

That one sentence proves you have no idea what you are
talking about. The Earth has no "exact age". It is a
physical impossibility.

>But you just want to argue. The important thing
>is that we are here now, and that we may have
>salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ..
>
>Therefore learn of Him, and in the future realm
>He will unfold before you the mysteries of this
>vast Universe of which we may now have only
>a faint glimpse of.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNeprtMyAAg&t=305s

--

Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy) and
the Green Raw Deal.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?

"Attila" wrote in message news:hh3i8jl7kod8dn8u3q4souchfvp4jjao2t@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>>> bertietaylor a Ãf©crit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>>>
>>>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked out
>>>> the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made about
>>>> 6,000 B.C.??
>>>
>>> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>>
>>> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>>> him this question, just as he did here.
>>
>>I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.
>
> That one sentence proves you have no idea what you are
> talking about. The Earth has no "exact age". It is a
> physical impossibility.

Then you believe it had no beginning. Which
proves you have no idea what you are talking
about.

Thank you.

>
>>But you just want to argue. The important thing
>>is that we are here now, and that we may have
>>salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ..
>>
>>Therefore learn of Him, and in the future realm
>>He will unfold before you the mysteries of this
>>vast Universe of which we may now have only
>>a faint glimpse of.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNeprtMyAAg&t=305s

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 11:55:59 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
<1rgiO.39468$eAJ1.13648@fx03.ams4> wrote:

>"Attila" wrote in message news:hh3i8jl7kod8dn8u3q4souchfvp4jjao2t@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>>>> bertietaylor a Ãf©crit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked out
>>>>> the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made about
>>>>> 6,000 B.C.??
>>>>
>>>> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>>>> him this question, just as he did here.
>>>
>>>I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.
>>
>> That one sentence proves you have no idea what you are
>> talking about. The Earth has no "exact age". It is a
>> physical impossibility.
>
>Then you believe it had no beginning.

That is a moronic conclusion. There are many processes that
occur over time to produce a final product. Frequently it
is not possible to isolate exactly when that product
actually first existed.

>Which
>proves you have no idea what you are talking
>about.

I would contend that is exactly what you proved about
yourself.
>
>Thank you.
>
Glad to help.
>
>>
>>>But you just want to argue. The important thing
>>>is that we are here now, and that we may have
>>>salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ..
>>>
>>>Therefore learn of Him, and in the future realm
>>>He will unfold before you the mysteries of this
>>>vast Universe of which we may now have only
>>>a faint glimpse of.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNeprtMyAAg&t=305s

--

Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy) and
the Green Raw Deal.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?

"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:1rgiO.39468$eAJ1.13648@fx03.ams4:

> "Attila" wrote in message
> news:hh3i8jl7kod8dn8u3q4souchfvp4jjao2t@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>>>> bertietaylor a �f©crit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked
>>>>> out the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made
>>>>> about 6,000 B.C.??
>>>>
>>>> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>>>> him this question, just as he did here.
>>>
>>>I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.
>>
>> That one sentence proves you have no idea what you are
>> talking about. The Earth has no "exact age". It is a
>> physical impossibility.
>
> Then you believe it had no beginning.

Evasion noted.

What is the "exact age" of a loaf of bread?

When you took it out of the oven?

Ten seconds before that?

Ten seconds after that?

Astronomy and cosmology always deal
with approximations.

Now back the question you keep dodging.

In your opinion what is the approximate
age of the Earth, in years?

(This is where Andrew bails out of
the thread, every....single....time...)

"Attila"wrote in message news:kkhj8jlueq4580uhk4ggviiddmbdf834kn@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Attila" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> bertietaylor a Ãf©crit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked out
>>>>>> the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made about
>>>>>> 6,000 B.C.??
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>>>>> him this question, just as he did here.
>>>>
>>>>I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.
>>>
>>> That one sentence proves you have no idea what you are
>>> talking about. The Earth has no "exact age". It is a
>>> physical impossibility.
>>
>>Then you believe it had no beginning.
>
> That is a moronic conclusion.

Then you believe it did have a beginning.

> There are many processes that
> occur over time to produce a final product.

But you believe that, it did haappen.

> Frequently it is not possible to isolate exactly
> when that product actually first existed.

Not "always", but "frequestly" you say.

>>Which proves you have no idea what you are talking
>>about.

If you knew otherwise, you would explain.

But you cannot do so.

Thank you.

Le 2024-07-05 à 11:09, Mitchell Holman a écrit :
> Kualinar <kuakinar@videotron.ca> wrote in
> news:v6906i$3abuk$2@dont-email.me:
>
>> Le 2024-07-04 à 23:01, Saros Cycle a écrit :
>>> [Religious troll cross-post to alt.bible removed in follow-up.]
>>>
>>> This is the subject you are attempting to divert the thread away
>>> from. You are doing this intentionally, with the purpose of derailing
>>> the evidence that shows NASA is using taxpayer money to iconify and
>>> promote Helios-Apollo worship. You want people to argue about atheism
>>> vs. christianism, or creationism vs. evolution. But you don't want
>>> discussion about the sun cult religion of the ruling class. It is
>>> obvious that is the intent of your distraction.
>> There is NO Helios-Apollo worship in the NASA. The NASA DO NOT promote
>> ANY worship.
>
>
> By "Saros Cycle" standards everyone
> referring to any day of the week is
> worship since they are all named for
> Nordic gods.
>
> And, for French speakers, it's the Roman gods as they are named after
those :
Lundi = Day of the Moon
Mardi = Day of Mars
Mercredi = Day of Mercury = Apollo as Apollo is associated with the
planet Mercury.
Jeudi = Day of Jupiter
Vendredi = Day of Venus
Samedi = Day of Saturn
Dimanche, formerly Soldi = Day of the Sun.

Le 2024-07-06 à 14:55, Andrew a écrit :
> "Attila" wrote in message
> news:hh3i8jl7kod8dn8u3q4souchfvp4jjao2t@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>>>>   bertietaylor a Ãf©crit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        How old does your Bible say it is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't there a C of E  Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked out
>>>>> the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made about
>>>>> 6,000 B.C.??
>>>>
>>>>    Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>   But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>>>> him this question, just as he did here.
>>>
>>> I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.
>>
>> That one sentence proves you have no idea what you are
>> talking about.  The Earth has no "exact age".   It is a
>> physical impossibility.
>
> Then you believe it had no beginning. Which
> proves you have no idea what you are talking
> about.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
Not at all. The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, ±50 million
years.
It is extremely improbable that this bracket could ever get narrower
than that.

So, the Earth absolutely have a beginning. It do have a finite age. It's
just that that age is a bit fuzzy.

Looks like it's YOU who have no idea what you are talking about.

Kualinar <kuakinar@videotron.ca> wrote in news:v6h33g$ub0a$2@dont-
email.me:

> Le 2024-07-06 à 14:55, Andrew a écrit :
>> "Attila" wrote in message
>> news:hh3i8jl7kod8dn8u3q4souchfvp4jjao2t@4ax.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>   bertietaylor a Ãf©crit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        How old does your Bible say it is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't there a C of E  Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked
out
>>>>>> the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made
about
>>>>>> 6,000 B.C.??
>>>>>
>>>>>    Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>   But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>>>>> him this question, just as he did here.
>>>>
>>>> I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.
>>>
>>> That one sentence proves you have no idea what you are
>>> talking about.  The Earth has no "exact age".   It is a
>>> physical impossibility.
>>
>> Then you believe it had no beginning. Which
>> proves you have no idea what you are talking
>> about.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
> Not at all. The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, ±50 million
> years.
> It is extremely improbable that this bracket could ever get narrower
> than that.
>
> So, the Earth absolutely have a beginning. It do have a finite age.
It's
> just that that age is a bit fuzzy.
>
> Looks like it's YOU who have no idea what you are talking about.
>

I have resorted to asking Andrew
for his OPINION is of the age of the
Earth since his research skills are
lacking, he runs away from even that.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 05:31:34 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
<EUviO.41652$SpN6.4820@fx09.ams4> wrote:

>"Attila"wrote in message news:kkhj8jlueq4580uhk4ggviiddmbdf834kn@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Attila" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>>>> Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Kualinar" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> bertietaylor a Ãf©crit :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Big bang is even more nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Despite the 1000's of supporting evidences ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it in harmony with the laws of science,
>>>>>>>>> or is it _contrary to_ the laws of science?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If one wants the truth, they will go with
>>>>>>>>> the science, not contrary to the science..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How old does your Bible say it is?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wasn't there a C of E Minister who, in the late 1800's, worked out
>>>>>>> the Biblical World was about 6,000 years old?? or was it made about
>>>>>>> 6,000 B.C.??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin Luther came to the same conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But "Andrew" always runs away when I ask
>>>>>> him this question, just as he did here.
>>>>>
>>>>>I previously gave you the exact age of the Earth.
>>>>
>>>> That one sentence proves you have no idea what you are
>>>> talking about. The Earth has no "exact age". It is a
>>>> physical impossibility.
>>>
>>>Then you believe it had no beginning.
>>
>> That is a moronic conclusion.
>
>Then you believe it did have a beginning.
>
>> There are many processes that
>> occur over time to produce a final product.
>
>But you believe that, it did haappen.

Of course it did but not at a particular point in time. It
took millions of years. There is no such thing as an
"exact" age of the Earth.

>
>> Frequently it is not possible to isolate exactly
>> when that product actually first existed.
>
>Not "always", but "frequestly" you say.

Since a product can be anything at all, yes.

>
>>>Which proves you have no idea what you are talking
>>>about.
>
>If you knew otherwise, you would explain.

If an explanation is required you would not understand. If
you understood no explanation would be necessary.

>
>But you cannot do so.
>
>Thank you.

Anytime.

--

Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy) and
the Green Raw Deal.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?

Attila wrote on 9/7/24 9:42 pm:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 05:31:34 -0700, "Andrew"
> <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id

<Snip>

>> If you knew otherwise, you would explain.
>
> If an explanation is required you would not understand.

Or, maybe, YOU are hopeless at explaining an idea!!

> If you understood no explanation would be necessary.

WOW!! What Gobble-de-gook!! Have YOU got tickets on yourself!!

"Believe ME! If you don't believe me, you are an imbecile!!"
--
Daniel