Does It Make You Happy To Mock God?

[goodlife]

Gal:6v7

[grasscarp]

To Peter Pedant - I presented Makarios with a bunch of flowers in Cyprus in about 1953. I don't remember him though.
To hypognosis - no, that was not a code for thick people or a code for anything. I found it an interesting and convincing article. Am I thick? Probably......

[vulcan42]

I'll not ask goodlife as he never answers unless it's to quote more scriptures,so can anybody suggest a reason for him to award BA to jourdain2? I've nothing against joudrain2 or the answer but as it's asking goodlife to stop posting, giving best answer seems perverse.

[grasscarp]

...... or has a sense of humour!

[TWR]

Are you bible basher Goodlife? does it not make you think, the more people like you bash the public about religion, the more people will say feck off, I have my way's in believing in god, I do not do to church, if the church was that good it would release the Millions it has been left to help starving people in this country.

[vulcan42]

Yes grasscarp that could be it, It's fascinating to think he has one.

[beso]

//Since this war between good and evil destruction is in the name of the One God it will be interesting to see which way the hammer falls in the end, but I doubt divine intervention will happen.//

The whole concept of "the one true god" is the problem because it is the ultimate dogma where the agenda become utterly about compliance lest an alternative "one true god" overtake the fountain of legitimacy afforded by extreme devotion.

Moderates and Apologists speak of "moderates" and "extremists" but the fact remains that the Abrahamic religions are fundamentally in violent.

[trt]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Hypognosis]

Re: Clanad's post on page 2 (apologies if already pointed out; I am catching up on this thread)

//and clearly indicate bacterial fossils extending to within a few hundred thousand of years following the estimated creation of Earth (3.8 billions of years ago)//

The opening paragraph of the berkeley article you link to says:

"The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!"

The difference between 3.8 billion and 3.5 billion is, of course 300 million.

300 million years ago is the era of the supercontinent of Pangea, the collapse of the Carboniferous forests into vast deserts and the start of the Permian. Before the first mammals.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian

There is also an indeterminite length of time between first formation of earth and "oldest surviving rocks (exposed on the surface)". Formation of the planet is often stated to be over 4 billion years ago and the cooling and solidification of the surface was somewhat delayed by the "late heavy bombardment". The theory behind moon formation, being caused by a massive impactor, also implies the long-standing existence of a proto earth. Age of oldest known moon rock therefore constrains minimum age of earth.

[Hypognosis]

* indeterminate

Also, the 300 million years ago paragraph was just for the purposes of perspective.

Perhaps not the best choice for comparison given that it is easier to branch out new life forms from a pre-existing set than it is to start life from scratch. (Note: there was a mass extinction at the end of the Permian, with 90% of all species wiped out; recovery of diversity took 30 million years, the article reckons).

Cyanobacteria is an interesting choice though: without photosynthesis for millions of years, there would have been no atmospheric oxygen. Oxidative reactions generate lots of energy, enabling cellular life to perform more complex tasks, form colonies, specialise into functional structures to enable motility, sense the environment and so on. Life would never have advanced without their 'effluent' (oxygen is a metabolic waste product, for them).