Religious

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Actor

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do every minute of every day, and the invisible man has a special list of ten things He does not want you to do, and if you any of these ten things He has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where He will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever till the end of time. But He loves you. - George Carlin

You forgot the most important part.

"He loves you... and he NEEDS MONEY!"

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Not only am I married but I robbed the cradle.

You converted to Islam and married a nine year old!!!

Just kidding.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, your daughter is getting married? Congratulations!

Are you going to be in S.E. Florida? If so, maybe we could meet one another. I would give you the opportunity to buy me a brewski.

Boxcar

2 Chronicles 15:13

[Hank]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...what you say here makes no sense whatsoever. Luke says that there was a repentant thief, while both Mark and Matthew report that BOTH thieves were ridiculing Jesus. If John was aware of the conflicting inclusions of this incident in the other gospels...then he, being an "eye-witness", should have felt the obligation to present his OWN report on the matter, to set the record straight.

How can an eye-witness to an event remain silent when conflicting reports of this event are circulating about?

The thing is in all probability "John" was NOT there.Think about it, the Apostles were terrified and in hiding and the time of the Crucifixion.Mary Magdalene was probable the actual eyewitness and author of "JOHN".

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Hank

Mary Magdalene was probable the actual eyewitness and author of "JOHN".

You think that she could read and write eh. Doubtful

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...what you say here makes no sense whatsoever. Luke says that there was a repentant thief, while both Mark and Matthew report that BOTH thieves were ridiculing Jesus. If John was aware of the conflicting inclusions of this incident in the other gospels...then he, being an "eye-witness", should have felt the obligation to present his OWN report on the matter, to set the record straight.

How can an eye-witness to an event remain silent when conflicting reports of this event are circulating about?

Perhaps because John (aside from the fact that his gospel has a markedly different overall focus than the three synoptic gospels) would have agreed with the previous reasoning that I laid out as to why Luke included the repentant thief in his Gospel while the other two synoptic writers did not, and John therefore saw no "conflict" or need to "set the record straight" by adding to Luke's account in that regard, since the three synoptic accounts taken as a whole presented the record in its entirety, and in a way that could be reconciled to resolve any seeming differences. (John also did not record Jesus saying, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," as only Luke did, nor did he mention Jesus speaking to the women who were following him and weeping as he walked toward Golgotha, again as only Luke did. Does that mean that those incidents did not happen, also?) Would it give the Gospels any greater credibility if each of the writers had given the same word-for-word account? You would be the first to justifiably point that out as evidence of collusion or doctoring of the text.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

You think that she could read and write eh. Doubtful

Of course she was not likely to be literate.But then Again the same could be said for the Apostles Matthew and John.Witness testimony given then written by literate believers. Of course you know the early Gospel manuscripts were nameless and the actual authors unknown.The assertion of Mark Matthew Luke and John was added later to provide Apostolic Authority.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You don't have to yell. I understand that partial vacuums are nearly empty space in that in your fantasy world, this means the space is totally empty. And I also understand your need to redefine "average". Whatever it takes to make lame theories work....

You remind me of Humpty Dumpty who told Alice something along these lines -- to paraphrase: "Words mean whatever I choose them to mean".

I am correct, you are too dense to understand what average density means.

Let's do a simple analogy of interstellar space. Imagine the scale of atoms expanded to that of a tennis ball. The scales of atomic structure are truly tiny. Hydrogen is the smallest atom with a diameter of about 5.3 × 10-11 meters. About ten million hydrogen atoms would fit across the head of a pin! Comparing atomic diameter to one centimeter. If atoms were placed side by side, 100 million atoms would stretch 1 cm. Now the numbers of atoms placed side by side to fill one kilometer is 100,000 times 100 million or 100,000,000,000,000 (100 trillion)

Or in miles if one tennis ball equals the diameter of one atom,

3.937x10-9/2.5 = .3937/x
(3.937x10-9)x = 0.98425
x = .98425/3.937x10-9
x = 2.5 x 108 inches
x = 2.083 x 107 feet
x = 3945 miles

In this scaled-up illustration of the relative emptiness of interstellar space, imagine a gigantic empty cube resting in the middle of the United States, with the center of its base at Omaha, Nebraska. The base extends east/west into the margins of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and north/south from Canada into Mexico. The vertical dimension of the cube extends upward from the surface of the earth to an altitude of 4000 miles (about 13 times higher than the space shuttle's normal orbiting altitude). And in the middle of this enormous cube, at its precise center over Omaha, Nebraska, about 2000 miles in altitude (still over 6 times the Shuttle's usual altitude), a single tennis ball is floating. A pretty good definition of "empty." That's how empty interstellar space is.

I step further. Lets "cram in" 10 more hydrogen atoms into this illustration. .

There are varying distances between each atom. If we average the distance we will get one number, let's say 1 tennis ball per 100 cubic mile, THIS DOES NOT mean our 4000 mile wide cube is homogeneously filled with small pieces of tennis balls, or tiny fragments spread out into each cubic mile or cubic i/2 inch as you think. At any moment, some atoms are almost touching and some are at opposite ends of this 3945 miles wide cube. Again since atoms do not "dissolve" as you seem to think, and are discrete bits of not easily divisible matter, what is contained in the space between the atoms almost almost touching and those 4,000 mile apart?

Inquiring minds want to know, Mr Physicist/mathematician/religious expert.

Or should I call you just a junk scientist?

PS: Btw, we have already told you, a similar comparison can be used to show the emptiness regarding the relationship between nuclear size (10-13 m) and atomic size (10 -8 m). A good example is the analogy of a grain of sand to a football field.

So instead of just repeating mindlessly "nearly empty space does not mean space is totally empty". Tell me what exists in interstellar or intergalactic space between atoms, or the space within an atom itself between the nuclei and the orbiting electron?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am correct, you are too dense to understand what average density means.

Let's do a simple analogy of interstellar space. Imagine the scale of atoms expanded to that of a tennis ball. The scales of atomic structure are truly tiny. Hydrogen is the smallest atom with a diameter of about 5.3 × 10-11 meters. About ten million hydrogen atoms would fit across the head of a pin! Comparing atomic diameter to one centimeter. If atoms were placed side by side, 100 million atoms would stretch 1 cm. Now the numbers of atoms placed side by side to fill one kilometer is 100,000 times 100 million or 100,000,000,000,000 (100 trillion)
I step further. Lets "cram in" 10 more hydrogen atoms into this illustration. .

There are varying distances between each atom. If we average the distance we will get one number, let's say 1 tennis ball per 100 cubic mile, THIS DOES NOT mean our 4000 mile wide cube is homogeneously filled with small pieces of tennis balls, or tiny fragments spread out into each cubic mile or cubic i/2 inch as you think. At any moment, some atoms are almost touching and some are at opposite ends of this 3945 miles wide cube. Again since atoms do not "dissolve" as you seem to think, and are discrete bits of not easily divisible matter, what is contained in the space between the atoms almost almost touching and those 4,000 mile apart?

Inquiring minds want to know, Mr Physicist/mathematician/religious expert.

Or should I call you just a junk scientist?

PS: Btw, we have already told you, a similar comparison can be used to show the emptiness regarding the relationship between nuclear size (10-13 m) and atomic size (10 -8 m). A good example is the analogy of a grain of sand to a football field.

So instead of just repeating mindlessly "nearly empty space does not mean space is totally empty". Tell me what exists in interstellar or intergalactic space between atoms, or the space within an atom itself between the nuclei and the orbiting electron?

Why should I care what exits "between atoms" when the real question is: Why are there there are any atoms in "empty space" (a/k/a nothingness)?

Did anyone ever tell you that you're close but no cigar? Or that "close", "almost" or "nearly" only counts in death, horseshoes and hand grenades?

But thank you for teachin' us that empty space ain't really empty after all.
Maybe next you can educate us on how "empty space" is filled with quarks.

Have a great day. I am, as I'm enjoying my second cup of Columbian java.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You converted to Islam and married a nine year old!!!

Just kidding.

Heck no. She was ten years older than that. (Just kidding.)

2 Chronicles 15:13

Huh?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Would it give the Gospels any greater credibility if each of the writers had given the same word-for-word account? You would be the first to justifiably point that out as evidence of collusion or doctoring of the text.

Absolutely 100% on the mark. Differences in various accounts truly lends credibility to the passages. And there wouldn't be a skeptic alive who wouldn't charge the writers with collusion -- just like there aren't any skeptics alive who can't understand that differences do not necessarily equate with contradictions. They always want it both ways.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Originally Posted by The Junk Scientist

Why should I care what exits "between atoms" when the real question is: Why are there there are any atoms in "empty space" (a/k/a nothingness)?

You should care because for weeks now, you have denied vehemently SPACE CAN EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF MATTER. I just demonstrated that there are empty spaces between atoms and within the atomic structure itself. No, the real question is why do you pretend expertise in anything? Sounds to me you are trying to create something from nothing....... The pretense of one cogent thought from the vast nothingness between your ears

Later. Much much later.

[Greyfox]

"Paging hcap. Paging hcap.
Come in hcap. This is earth calling.
Come in hcap. This is earth calling.
You seem to be lost in SPACE.
hcap this is earth calling......"

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You should care because for weeks now, you have denied vehemently SPACE CAN EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF MATTER. I just demonstrated that there are empty spaces between atoms and within the atomic structure itself. No, the real question is why do you pretend expertise in anything? Sounds to me you are trying to create something from nothing....... The pretense of one cogent thought from the vast nothingness between your ears

Later. Much much later.

Okay...Hmm...lemme see if I can reword this to your liking: Space cannot exist independently of SOMETHING. That is even broader term than "matter". Atoms, quarks, gravity, etc, etc. are something.

Off now to have my 3rd cup of java.

Boxcar
P.S. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for your lesson on quacks -- oops I mean quarks.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

"Paging hcap. Paging hcap.
Come in hcap. This is earth calling.
Come in hcap. This is earth calling.
You seem to be lost in SPACE.
hcap this is earth calling......"

I think his mother ship beamed him up to empty space! He could be out of range in a near perfect vacuum somewhere.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Would it give the Gospels any greater credibility if each of the writers had given the same word-for-word account? You would be the first to justifiably point that out as evidence of collusion or doctoring of the text.

When a piece of writing is purported to be dictated by God himself, through the Holy Spirit...then there cannot be contradictions or glaring mistakes. If God is indeed "perfect", then his word must also be "perfect". YES...I can already hear your objection -- "God is perfect but man is imperfect, so some error is bound to be found in these ancient documents". Again, I disagree. The HOLY SPIRIT was supposedly engaged in the creation of these works...so perfection should be EXPECTED. There should be no contradictions and no erroneous speculations -- like the reporting of the sun revolving around the earth, or the sun standing still for 24 hours -- because these obvious errors have far-reaching side effects. They cause the torture and execution of innocent people...and send faithful Christians on misguided journeys for the discovery of "missing days".

Aristotle can be forgiven for supposing that the sun revolved around the earth...but God can not...