digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

10 Deepest Caves in the World

environmentalgraffiti.com — So what about those caves that create the enigma, that fuel the stuff of legends; caves that appear bottomless and that seem to extend to the very center of the earth? What are the ten deepest caves on our planet?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mareacaspica, on 05/19/2008, -10/+25so can i like get to the center of the earth and stuff ? :D
    • domfosnz, on 05/19/2008, -1/+11You just got to be careful you don't fall out the other side.
    • breadfred, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Over 2km deep - that is proper deep. And it won't be down in a straight line either. Kudos for the spelonkeers who dare to go where no man has gone before!
      • michaelb323, on 05/19/2008, -8/+1If you feel through the center of the earth you would begon to fall faster and faster out the other side until you shot out of a hole somewhere in China like a speeding bullet. You would then fly into space and begin to orbit earth.
        • consoneo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5You're wrong. You would never leave Earth's orbit. You would reach equilibrium in the center of the earth if there were a hole that went through the entire planet in a straight line.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4The rotation of the Earth might make it a somewhat bumpy ride until you did, though :(
        • h37s3m, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2actually you're both wrong, since rotational momentum is conserved, you would rotate at the same rate as the earth. and since you start falling at the top of the earths crust, your maximum kinetic energy would equal your max potential energy so when you shoot out the other end, you would land safely on the land of china
        • michaelb323, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1I R A successful troll, 4chan will be pleased.
    • noahhoward, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5And be crushed into a singularity when you got there? Sure.
      • yuanzhoulu, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4you won't be crushed to a singularity if you drill a hole (hypothetically, temperature and molten rock issues asied) to the middle of the earth. if the earth were solid and you drilled such a hole and sat at the center, you'd feel just as if you were in outer-space -- weightless.

        if you don't understand why, read up on Newton's Shell Theorem.
        • wjackson, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1That's probably the neatest thing I've read all day.
        • yaddayaddayoda, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1What's even better... if you drilled that hole all the way through the earth to the other side and jumped in, you would go down, then up the other side *almost* to the surface, then down again and up to *almost* where you started from, again and again and again, oscillating back and forth a slightly smaller amount each time (due to wind resistance) until you bobbed to a stop in the weightless center. To an outside observer, you would have the appearance of a weight on the end of a spring, bobbing up and down until you came to a stop.

          Bonus points to anyone who figures out what the air pressure would be at the center of the earth (neglecting the temperature change).
    • OwdenBowden, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2You forgot number 11 - Rosie O'Donnell's ass
    • frebro, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Anyone interested in extreme spellunking can watch Bill Stone's TED-talk "Journey to the center of the Earth ... and beyond!": http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/141
    • Stormwern, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2The earth's crust is only 10km thick, so you'd have to swim through lava the remaining 6000km.
      • akh4x0r, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Why would I be swimming through lava if it's still the Earth's crust?
    • DustinHill, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4I'm shocked to not see my whore of an ex-wife on this list. No, I'm not kidding.
      • yaddayaddayoda, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1@DustinHill, you've got to let that bitterness go, man. Don't let it eat you up inside.
  • chazizzle, on 05/19/2008, -12/+91where's pamela anderson?
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1What?
    • DteK, on 05/19/2008, -7/+5or that slut from Indiana I banged on spring break, surely she should have made this list.

      btw this reminds me of that joke from the beginning of predator when they are on the chopper

      Jesse Ventura: ....So I said "jeez ya got a big pussy, jeez you got a big pussy," she said "why did you say it twice", I said "I didnt"!
    • trogdorBURN, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1got her.
  • SeaweedWater, on 05/19/2008, -9/+23411.Paris Hilton
    • mikesbaker, on 05/19/2008, -17/+1112. Your mother
      • BXRWXR, on 05/19/2008, -9/+20It's Your Mom.

        Get it right, you dumb *****.
        • mikesbaker, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2eat ***** and die - did I get that one right?
    • MrSarcasm, on 05/19/2008, -6/+2Hmm I don't know. I'd kind of hit her... yes, with my *****. How bad could it be? How could would it be?..
      • redxninja, on 05/19/2008, -0/+11You could get her pregnant and get a free ride like KFed.
      • snotrokit, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4I am not sure if pennicillin would do the trick or not.
    • digidelia, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5wouldn't she have the widest cave, too?
    • STPZ, on 05/19/2008, -0/+312. Paris Hilton's head
  • crazyjake, on 05/19/2008, -8/+84there is about 100+ mom jokes here...
    • Checkerd, on 05/19/2008, -4/+32You're mom's cave is so deep, you had to walk 15 miles just to be born.

      /lame
    • JacobParker, on 05/19/2008, -4/+9and i thought i was bein origimal when i thought of it lmfao
    • maelnum, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2612. Your mom
      13. Still your mom.
      14. This cave in France....just kidding, still your mom.
    • UpperUpsilon, on 05/19/2008, -7/+7Am I wrong, or should it be
      "there are about 100+ mom jokes here..."
    • cupid311, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Your mom is like a cave: dark, deep, dank, smelly, and full of oddly shaped stalactites and stalagmites. Try to get that image out of your head when you go to bed tonight.....

      /gross
    • SolidSnak, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Damnit, the first thought that came to my mind when I read the title was "Your mom".
    • gmoney1, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Mine too. Damn.
  • westhaven, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1guys you are forgetting cindy ;)
  • RcHer, on 05/19/2008, -12/+7Saw the headline and knew there was going to be some reference about your mom.
  • rrbest, on 05/19/2008, -12/+2No NSFW tag? Then buried!
  • plimpton777, on 05/19/2008, -10/+2Lindsay Lohan
    Scarlet Johansen
  • MCA2142, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1The current economic climate?
  • skewl, on 05/19/2008, -2/+33The list of deepest caves keeps changing. During the last three years, there have been three caves that have been found to be the deepest in the world. People are still at this very moment researching and exploring caves. In the last decade the list of the deepest caves has been changed 7 times.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -11/+7 I know what you mean. People have been researching and exploring your mom's cave for decades, and there's still no consensus!
    • markgl, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Thank you Britannica.
    • jeffsteez, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Can anyone suggest good deep caves that a novice can visit and experience (with a guide)?
      • kingvik, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Your mom is pretty good, but make sure to bring chocolate and flowers if you want to start within a week. If you have to start exploring immediately I would suggest diamonds, but those are expensive; there's another way to begin immediately but it has been out-lawed. *roofies*
    • speedbmp, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1The Question is how do they measure how deep it is? GPS does not work :)
  • MasterThief117, on 05/19/2008, -12/+2Hilary Clinton?
  • Nightsilencer, on 05/19/2008, -15/+9What about the economic hole the united states is sinking into?
  • JerryAscione, on 05/19/2008, -10/+311. Inside Lindsay Lohan's ear.
  • protodon, on 05/19/2008, -9/+2Your mom
  • comicalZombie, on 05/19/2008, -1/+21Just watch out for Deep Crows...
    • Chronoped, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2DEEEEEEEP CROOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!
    • Kali075, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Thats the only reason I clicked on this article
  • Nidy1, on 05/19/2008, -1/+87Dugg for only one page.
  • dropthehammer, on 05/19/2008, -7/+7good points: it is not paginated in an obvious attempt to increase traffic. Bad points: It is just a list of some caves, which despite the description do not really "create the enigma", whatever that means. Final score: No digg, but no bury.
    • shwerm601, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1bury your comment for being impartial
  • JTJ1210, on 05/19/2008, -9/+3WOW, THAT'S A DEEP CAVE!
  • stranglethorne, on 05/19/2008, -7/+2LOL.. zelda chick takes on the caves of "Death Mountain" (or atleast tries to get into the secret fairy fountain cave with a bomb)
    http://digg.com/nintendo/Female_Zelda_fan_takes_Li ...
  • staxofmax, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5Those fools are surely going to awaken the Deep Ones! Repent or perish!
  • Infidelcastr0, on 05/19/2008, -9/+3"Joke about Osama Bin Laden"
  • LlFT, on 05/19/2008, -8/+6your mom, hilton, vaginas,.. its too early for this. (switching to decaf)
  • badassninja, on 05/19/2008, -1/+35This page made me wish I was bad ass and able to explore places like this.
    • maelnum, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8Yeah, I thought about going spelunking into a deep cavern system with only a flashlight, a pickaxe and just my survival instincts and wits to rely on.
      and a little bit of pee came out.
    • speleo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3If you would like to get into cave exploring, look into joining the National Speleological Society.
  • a2fan, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9The Earth's crust is only about 25 miles deep. After that, you reach the mantle which is magma... then comes the iron core. So, to answer the poster's question: "Far less than 25 miles."
    • redxninja, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7Most caves dont really go straight down.
  • Merendino, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8That was actually a very cool read.
  • mparker7410, on 05/19/2008, -9/+2Number One? YOU MOM!
  • insomniacal, on 05/19/2008, -0/+11Too bad photos can't convey the size of these caves.

    I've been to Mammoth Cave, Kentucky several times. Multiple tours available, each one several hours' trek. Always worth the trip.
  • j0hnk377y, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3Obama is a big fan of cave exploring, it's his way of getting away from it all and getting some time to gather his thoughts and re energize his batteries.
  • leerayIG88, on 05/19/2008, -2/+7I live in a hut.
  • uziko, on 05/19/2008, -6/+3that's what she said
  • Mr.Gone, on 05/19/2008, -9/+411: *insert female hollywood/political personality here*
  • PL3NTY, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2No HD images? :(
  • ConquistadorFor, on 05/19/2008, -8/+1i will visit some of them
    i aint scared of zhit
    hola back
  • mrzeero, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3It does not look like they are wearing breathing gear. I am surprised there is breathable air at the bottom of those. It seems like the air would be stagnant. Anybody know?
    • div2n, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10All the caves I've ever known do what cave folk call "breathe" where the air flows in and out depending on a variety of factors including temperature and air pressure of outside vs inside the cave.

      Keep in mind also that many caves have multiple entrances which assist in air flow.
    • a2fan, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Cave environments vary of course. Many caves circulate air via waterflow or pressure changes from multiple openings. Other caves are so full of bat guano that the air is nearly toxic, if not overwhelming near the opening. Some caves have been known store pockets of natural occuring toxic (also sometimes flammable) gases. Just remember to pack your canary.
  • bonerhater, on 05/19/2008, -6/+111. Clinton's sex life
  • PabloMac, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Spelunking is a hobby I could easily get sucked into.
    • speleo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3It does suck you in. I have been doing it for about 10 years and I still love it.
  • jasdf, on 05/19/2008, -1/+11I realize they are deep, but how far below sea-level do they go? If a 5,000' deep cave starts 7,000' above sea-level it isn't quite as interesting (to me).
  • borg359, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4How do they get such precise depth measurements?
  • deathweaver108, on 05/19/2008, -2/+61RIP Gandalf
    • dylio, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!!!!!!!
    • BobScratchit, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Gandalf the Grey, that is what they used to call me. I am Gandalf the White.
  • adrames, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3Uh...what about Lechugilla Cave? It's the 5th deepest in the world. It's nowhere on this list. Oh well, New Mexico is used to getting looked over.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lechuguilla_Cave
    • onionlayer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5from wiki page: "explorers have mapped 118 miles (190 km) of passages and have pushed the depth of the cave to 1,604 feet (489 m), ranking Lechuguilla as the 5th longest cave in the world"

      so it's the 5th longest not the 5th deepest
      • cdahlkvist, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I'm sure that 25 foot long cave in Marianas Trench takes the cake then.

        It may not be a big cave but it's sitting over 36,000 feet below sea level.
      • slaeryx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0check your math, brainiac
        1600ft is by far not even close to anything on the list...



    • cccombobreaker, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1there's a NEW mexico?!
  • mattyd12466, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8obviously he hasn't met my ex wife
  • tinalauren, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Amazing!
  • Jan33, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1"something about Oprah"
  • BradMW, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7It is pitch black; you are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
  • honthraj, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2"How Deep is Your Love?"
  • PaisleyTeal, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1hey, duggar kids-- your mom!
  • deaconyermouf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4So when they say that the cave system is X-feet deep, does that mean that you can traverse X-feet while in the cave, or that the greatest depth (in terms of absolute distance vertically from the surface) is X-feet?
    • speleo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Your second assumption would be correct. The greatest depth is what is a factor here, and not the greatest length.
  • crocheoni, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0505/feature ...

    cool nat geo walk through the deepest cave
  • rheaume, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Otherwise known as 10 of my worst nightmares
    • kitsua, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4You should watch The Descent - you'd love it.
      • rheaume, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2You know, I did and yes, it was freaky as *****...

        Just something about being trapped underground.. large caves maybe but that ***** where people are squeezing through cracks to get to other areas... ugh!
  • kenrayd, on 05/19/2008, -10/+3Another fine example of design and beauty in raw nature - speaking that Somebody with a big heart made this.
    • omgdspmpg, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8your thinly veiled archaic belief system has nothing to do with this.
    • kenrayd, on 05/20/2008, -6/+1Rather shallow opinion there; what will your belief system do for you? Have you lived in a dark hole all your life, so you don't see love everywhere in the natural universe?
      • ApokalypseNow, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8Love does not require the supernatural.
        • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1Evidence for that assertion?
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4Sure, just provide some objective, empirical evidence for the existence of the supernatural and then I'll explain how it isn't required for love.

          Go ahead, I'll wait.
        • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -3/+1As long as you're limited to man-made systems, you'll never see it cause you're blinded by your own limitations. You get the objective demonstration of the supernatural if you pray to know the Creator, setting aside your man-made conditions and bias. Have you tried that yet? If not then, you continue to demonstrate that you follow self-created bias.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5We have yet to observe anything that could be proven to be non-natural. Therefore, we have no reason to assume there is a supernatural cause.

          If we want to discuss supernatural causes, we must first question the explanatory power of supernatural hypotheses. Science is the search for understanding of the world. Understanding necessitates some requirements, such as the ability to predict the consequences of our ideas, so that we can test it and use the knowledge practically in building yet more knowledge. It may be that the cause of the universe, or life, or other phenomena we observe is supernatural. But until supernaturalists can bring themselves down from the sky and see that their "theories" are nothing but elaborate naming schemes all describing facets of our ignorance, nothing will be done.
          Before you question the validity of a search based on naturalistic assumptions, do make sure that your own assumptions are testable in principle and practice, and that their truth will actually tell us something. You cannot name a single discovery that was made on supernatural assumptions, and supernaturalism was the norm for thousands of years. Many supernaturalists have made great contributions to the natural sciences, but that is in spite of their supernaturalism, not because of it. When you look closer, none of the great discoveries we have made have been made on the basis of revelation, scripture, mythology or clairvoyance. None of our great heroes of science have relied solely on supernaturalism, and none of their achievements have been due to it.

          Supernaturalism is an admission of defeat at worst, or a sign of intellectual laziness at best.
        • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1Well most of what you said there, I have no problem with, but to rely solely on the natural for knowledge is a problem.

          At this point I will say that the heart of our little controversy is that the human, cherishing their own conditions for knowledge, recoils from the idea that there is something that we are actually not allowed to understand and that is the question of how the supernatural bridges over to the natural, for example wanting to know how matter could be made from nothing and not getting a satisfactory answer by natural means, therefore rashly denying the Creator.

          Never-the-less, following the Bible's conditions for realizing the supernatural leads to an actual experience with the Creator and that can grow knowledge without limitation, yet even in eternity there will continue to be limitations just from the fact that the creature is on a lesser dimension than the Creator.

          That's really at the heart of why atheists and agnostics and false religionists are not able to retain both supernaturalism and naturalism. Either the false religionist depends on man-made beliefs or the unbeliever depends on man-made conditions. The correct position is to depend on the Creator through His given methods as the best guide in natural and supernatural searching.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/24/2008, -0/+3The problem with going to one source, such as your Bible, for answers to "life's great mysteries" if you will, is that there are an infinite number of potential supernatural entities. No one of them has any more evidence for their case than the others, and believers in each will tell you that theirs is the right one, and go through exactly the same spiel you just did for their particular flavor of the supernatural. Every single supernaturalist will tell you with the utmost conviction that they have their "personal" evidence, so lacking in a way to quantify or qualify the supernatural, it stands to reason that either all of them are true, or none of them are (with the "personal evidence" being a mental construct of the believer). Given that many of these supernatural beliefs are contradictory, not all can be true, so we are left only with none of them being so.

          "for example wanting to know how matter could be made from nothing"
          That would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1I know it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics because it is a result of the supernatural bridging to the natural, one of the areas humans cannot comprehend, yet is none-the-less true and this affirmative is supported objectively as explained below. You limit yourself by relying on only man-made laws.

          You said,
          "No one of them has any more evidence for their case than the others..."

          Not true, as I explained in other comments, my supernatural origins convictions have down-to-earth rationals in addition to spiritual experience of connection with the Creator which you claim is held in common with any other faith.

          The main external rational is that the predictions in Scriptures are uniquely evidenced to be supernatural because of abundance of them and they all have been accurately fulfilled on time as confirmed by archeology and facts of history. There are a few which have yet to be fulfilled, but the ones which have been fulfilled have been systematically laid out by Seventh-day Adventists in such a clear manner so that it is objective evidence that the Bible must have had a supernatural inspiration.

          You will claim that other Christian faiths do the same with different interpretations. No, they do not because they do not consistently follow simple rules of systematic interpretation and avoid speculation.

          Therefore, statistically, whatever is left to be fulfilled as correctly interpreted can be expected with confidence and also about what Scripture explains about the past, the origins of life and matter.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3"I know it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics because it is a result of the supernatural bridging to the natural"
          Objective, empirical evidence?

          "You limit yourself by relying on only man-made laws."
          If I am in any way "limiting" myself, then it is to reality. We have no evidence of the fantasy you (or any other supernaturalist) indulge in, so we have no rational basis to assume it exists.

          "The main external rational is that the predictions in Scriptures are uniquely evidenced to be supernatural because of abundance of them and they all have been accurately fulfilled on time as confirmed by archeology and facts of history."
          Objective, empirical evidence?

          "You limit yourself by relying on only man-made laws."
          I already explained why we cannot rely on the assumption of the existence of the supernatural. If I am in any way "limiting" myself, then the limit is "reality" as opposed to your (or any other) fantasy.

          "You will claim that other Christian faiths do the same with different interpretations."
          No, I said every supernaturalist - not just the ones that follow something akin to your flavor of unevidenced belief.

          "the ones which have been fulfilled have been systematically laid out by Seventh-day Adventists in such a clear manner so that it is objective evidence that the Bible must have had a supernatural inspiration."
          All Biblical prophecies which have so far been 'fulfilled' refer to events in other Biblical books. None of the prophecies predicted anything which has come to pass, but was recorded in a non-Biblical reference. That you can creatively interpret vaguely-worded "prophecy" to fit factual events is no more revealing than interpreting vaguely-worded horoscopes or fortune-cookie wisdom to fit the events if your daily life. None of this is actual evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

          "Therefore, statistically, whatever is left to be fulfilled as correctly interpreted can be expected with confidence and also about what Scripture explains about the past, the origins of life and matter."
          It is true that some bits of the Bible have indeed been confirmed by modern archaeological research. It is also true that some bits of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey have been confirmed by modern archaeological research. If the bits of the Bible which have been confirmed are reason to believe that all the Bible (including the bits about the Judeo-Christian God) is accurate, the bits of the Iliad and Odyssey which have been confirmed are, by that same reasoning, reason to believe that all of the Iliad and Odyssey (including the bits about the Greek pantheon) are accurate.

          You are still attempting to justify your belief system with apologetics. You are still attempting to do science backwards by starting with the conclusion you want to be true, then cherry-picking bits of evidence that suit your needs. You are still making great logical leaps in your reasoning, and working with many unevidenced assumptions. Your definition of "evidence" is still lacking.
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1You continue to mistake reality as limited to man-made systems.

          Until you try prayer in combination with study of Seventh-day Adventist Biblical teaching, then you have no right to define reality.

          By your comment, it is clear that you know near nothing about Biblical prophecy. Many are very specific, not vague at all. Others require other Scripture in order to explain symbolic language, but with that done, it is clear and consistent with all other Scripture. We, Seventh-day Adventists use cross-reference Scripture and history, instead of speculate like other "supernatural" persuations, then the objective evidence will be found. It is supernatural because no human can accurately predict future events as the Bible has. Your Biblical objections are evidence of your ignorance.

          If you don't check it out, then you're only trusting in your bias and borrowed objections. You admitted the value of archeology and that is no apologetics. No one has confirmed one Biblical error - they have all been refuted.

          Have you tried it yet?
        • eir574, on 05/27/2008, -1/+7I've just been lurking here, but this caught my attention:

          "Until you try prayer in combination with study of Seventh-day Adventist Biblical teaching, then you have no right to define reality."

          Your church is the only one with the right to define reality? That's a new one.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5"You continue to mistake reality as limited to man-made systems."
          No, the mistake is yours - you continue to assert the existence of the supernatural without objective, empirical evidence for it. As previously stated, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          "Until you try prayer in combination with study of Seventh-day Adventist Biblical teaching, then you have no right to define reality."
          So now you're claiming the inerrancy of your particular flavor of Christianity - how high-and-mighty of you. Sorry, but you have it backwards again. Until your flavor of the supernatural can demonstrate through empirical, objective evidence that their interpretation of their particular flavor of unevidenced ***** is inerrant, then those who practice it have no right to claim inerrancy, much less define reality.
          Taking this from another angle, I will make the following assertion. "Until you try self-flagellation in combination with aggressive underwear washing and telepathic communion with the invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer, then you have no right to define reality."

          "By your comment, it is clear that you know near nothing about Biblical prophecy blah blah blah"
          You can use those same techniques to justify any so-called "prophecy". Your own supernaturalist bias is coloring your results. Further, as I stated, even if we assume some parts of your mythological text are correct, it does not follow that all parts are.

          "If you don't check it out, then you're only trusting in your bias and borrowed objections."
          If you don't attempt self-flagellation in combination with aggressive underwear washing and telepathic communion with the invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer, you are only trusting in your bias and borrowed objections.

          "You admitted the value of archeology and that is no apologetics."
          When you use a small sampling of archaeological consistencies to justify all the fantasy ***** that happens in your mythological text, it is. As I said, if you accept the Bible to be true based on this, then you must also accept the Iliad and the Odyssey to be true for the same reason.

          "No one has confirmed one Biblical error - they have all been refuted."
          Demonstratably false - to make this claim is intellectually dishonest.
          http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long ...
          http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_na ...
          http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morg ...
          http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101.html
          Further, as I have asked, was the bible inerrant before the First Council of Nicea in 325AD, or only after?
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -4/+1Yes that's right, Seventh-day Adventism is the only one that correctly defines spiritual reality. It's not to the credit of church members but to their Creator who founded the movement.

          You are asserting "small archeological sample", asserting "parts of the text is correct". No it's all correct and backed by scores of archeological discoveries, year after year. You're still showing your Biblical ignorance.

          Any writing which was rejected at the Council of Nicea was simply not Bible.

          You can rant all you want to but I can laugh because you don't know if you don't try and if cannot try, then who'll take you seriously?
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -4/+1It is demonstrably true that no one has confirmed one Biblical error - they have all been refuted.

          All who claim these errors are demonstrably intellectually dishonest because their claims are out of context, misconstrued, misinformed, biased, etc.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4"Yes that's right, Seventh-day Adventism is the only one that correctly defines spiritual reality. It's not to the credit of church members but to their Creator who founded the movement."
          Objective, empirical evidence for this assertion? For this "creator"? For this "spirit"? As I said, how high-and-mighty of you - it must feel good to be correct in everything you ever say and do, Mr. Inerrant, and never having to worry that your self-righteousness doesn't make you look like an *****.

          "You are asserting "small archeological sample", asserting "parts of the text is correct". No it's all correct and backed by scores of archeological discoveries, year after year."
          Objective, empirical evidence for this assertion? Sources? If there are "scores" of discoveries, surely you can provide me with a few links.

          Self-flagellation in combination with aggressive underwear washing and telepathic communion with the invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer - have you tried it? If you don't try it and cannot try, then who'll take you seriously?
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4"It is demonstrably true that no one has confirmed one Biblical error - they have all been refuted."
          I just gave you several pages worth of errors, inconsistencies, and self-contradictions. Refute them all please. If it is demonstratable, then demonstrate it.
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1I refuted what you claimed already and showed you that they're out-of context. Oh you want a link; ok, here you go:

          http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents ...

          As I said, knowing that Adventism is correct spiritually is no credit to the member. It is true regardless of human member and whether or not they live accordingly.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3You have not refuted every contradiction, fallacy, error, and inconsistency in the links I gave you - neither does your link. Please do so - if you wish to assert that your particular interpretation of this unevidenced mythology is inerrant, then the burden is on you refute the problems pointed out.

          Self-flagellation in combination with aggressive underwear washing and telepathic communion with the invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer - have you tried it? Until you do, you cannot dictate the terms of spiritual reality.
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1The demonstration is given when you pray along with Bible reading, then you meet your Maker. It happens quietly usually but it's real none-the-less and you'll know it. Pray also when you review the website. When a scientist wants to confirm something, they experiment and my experiement is for you is to try these actions. If you say that you did, then I'm going to verify by asking an easy prophecy question that has a specific answer. If you don't know when you say you tried it, then we all know that you're still bringing your man-made bias into this matter.

        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Your proposed "experiment" is not one that would yield objective, empirical evidence. Further, you have not provided the asked-for refutations.

          You have not demonstrated to me that you have attempted self-flagellation, aggressive underwear washing, and telepathic communion with the invisible technicolor pachyderm. In refusing to do this, you are bringing your mythological bias into the matter.
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1Here's a better link for answering the mystery prophecy question:

          http://www.bibleuniverse.com/

          Clue: The answer is in the book of Daniel. Take the Bible Prophecy Course.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3That link starts with the unevidenced assumption that your mythological text is inerrant (circular reasoning involved there), and practices apologetics to justify it. With such a flawed base assumption, conclusions drawn from it are similarly flawed.

          Still no refutation of the points made in the links I provided above - the burden of evidence is still on you.

          Self-flagellation in combination with aggressive underwear washing and telepathic communion with the invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer - have you tried it?
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1"Your proposed "experiment" is not one that would yield objective, empirical evidence."

          That's a biased assumption on your part; are you saying that your afraid of the results if you try it?

          Didn't you bring up the mustard seed parable and didn't I explain to you that you were out of context?

        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3"That's a biased assumption on your part; are you saying that your afraid of the results if you try it?"
          That is based on the definitions of the words objective and empirical in relation to scientific inquiry.

          "Didn't you bring up the mustard seed parable and didn't I explain to you that you were out of context?"
          Yes, you attempted to do so. Even if we assume that you are correct in that explanation, that is one down, 735 to go (from skepticsannotatedbible alone).

          Not performing self-flagellation, aggressive underwear washing, and telepathic communion with the invisible technicolor pachyderm is just mythological bias on your part - are you afraid of the results if you try it?
        • Mnementh2230, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3kenrayd - you claim that your particular branch of idiocy is the ONLY correct one. You're making quite a few assumptions here.

          First, that there is a god (and not multiple gods, or no god). Second, that the bible is 100% correct (and not completely incorrect or only partially correct). Thirdly, that your particular religion is the only one who is interpreting it correctly (BIG assumption here, what with pretty much every single person EVER interpreting it differently).

          I'm going to say you've made an ass out of u and mption. Have you tried EVERY other combination of the above (damn near infinite)? Do you see the hypocracy yet? You're claiming you have found the perfect wine when in fact you've only sampled one flavour, and you're defending your assertion to the hilt with bad logic, bad science, and claims that my 8 year old cousin could tell you were false.
        • kenrayd, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1Call them assumptions or whatever, but if you don't check them out, then just ignorant rantings like you guys do only shows that you're afraid of what your colleagues will think if you take my suggestions seriously for praying along with Bible reading and study Seventh-day Adventist teaching on prophecy.

          Give me your one best Bible error, just one and I'll tear it appart and show that it's trash. The big problem with you folks is fear, but with the Creator, there's no fear in love. If you receive that love and repent of your sins, you will find real life.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2"Call them assumptions or whatever, but if you don't check them out, then just ignorant rantings like you guys do only shows that you're afraid"
          I note you *still* haven't checked out the invisible technicolor pachyderm in Shatner's sock drawer. What's the matter, afraid? Unless you try it out, you're just being a hypocrite.

          "The big problem with you folks is fear"
          Without evidence, we cannot make the assertion that the supernatural exists, and thus we've got no reason to fear it. That you misconstrue my non-interest in your fairy tales and their associated rituals as fear is your problem - as I've stated, your rituals cannot produce objective, empirical evidence, so they are rather pointless.

          "Give me your one best Bible error"
          I have given you several pages full of such errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies. Refute them all please - none of this "one best" nonsense. Further, after refuting them, show those pages to someone who shares your faith and ask them to refute them all themselves. Compare your answers when done, then try to determine which of your personal interpretations is the inerrant one.

          "...with the Creator, there's no fear in love. If you receive that love and repent of your sins, you will find real life."
          EVIDENCE?!?
    • alkajazz, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8Oh yes kenrayd lets list some of the loving things in nature!

      Black holes, Supernovas, Gamma Ray Bursts, Radiation, Volcanoes, Disease, Famine, Floods, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Asteroids, Tsunamis, I'm feelin' the love.
      • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -4/+1You're discounting the role of rebel angels in disaster. Cosmic events are divine fireworks. Everybody loves that. Where's your head?
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/23/2008, -0/+5"Where's your head?"
          If you pulled yours out of your ass you might see it. Evidence that these are "rebel angels"?
        • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -4/+1Look within yourself - you have one or two.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/23/2008, -0/+6I'm sorry, I should have been more specific - Objective, empirical evidence?
        • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -4/+1Yes that's what you will have if you try unbiased praying? Did you try it? The Spirit is as real as real gets, but on His conditions and I'm giving you the main one.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/23/2008, -0/+6Unbiased praying is an oxymoron. It only works if you already believe it will work. Sorry. What goes on in your head doesn't affect the external world, anything other is magical thinking.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/23/2008, -0/+6I specifically said to the empty air, "If there is a supernatural force listening, please provide me with some form of objective, empirical evidence for your existence." None was forthcoming.

          Here's a study that shows that prayer has no effect.
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4681771.stm
        • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -3/+1See most my recent comment above. Apok, you actually had a reasonable statement that I overlooked above.

          On your prayer attempt, you only admitted that you brought your human presumptions into your prayer. Did you actually turn off the objections and try it without? On the other hand, who am I to say, patience is a virtue. Your evidence may be forthcoming.

          Static, if He was there before you, I, or anything else it can't be oxymoron, only to you because so far you haven't tried unconditional prayer have you? Why would it work at all it if prayer is merely a human exercise; even belief is a gift of God. If you ever believe, it will be by His mercy on you a sinner who doesn't deserve it.
        • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -3/+1Continue to work with this over the weekend; I'm heading off.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/23/2008, -0/+5I don't need to deserve it kenrayd. I'm not carrying around any "original sin" in the first place and I don't acknowledge anyone fit to tell me what I deserve and don't deserve spiritually. If God has a problem with me, he should let me know, because I'm certainly not going to believe the outragous claims of the likes of you.

          You don't know what an oxymoron is and you are bending over backwards to ignore what everyone is saying. An oxymoron is something that is contradictory by definition. Unconditional prayer. The condition is that we believe there is a God to hear us in the first place. How can you pray if you have no one to talk to?

          It doesn't work for people without faith, and in fact doesn't work for people with. Period. How many devout amputees have prayed to have their limbs regrown successfully? Convincing yourself it does work through fervent mental artistry doesn't change that fact.

          OOoooh, I really want to believe in God, so I'll believe really hard that theres a God and whoa, I have a religious experience so there must be a God. You're having a spiritual masturbatory experience in your head. Its NOT REAL.


        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -4/+1The unconditionals to set aside are man-made conditions which is why there is no oxymoron in genuine prayer. Have you tried it yet?

          You're example of the praying amputee reveals that you're still placing your conditions above God's conditions which is presumption and you get no where that way. The prayers which are answered are out of willingness to submit to God's conditions. The better experience you have submitting to God without man-made conditions, the more you will see answered prayers.

          As I mentioned, belief is a gift of God. If you don't have it, it's a pity, that's all.

          "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."John 6:44
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6"You're example of the praying amputee reveals that you're still placing your conditions above God's conditions blah blah blah"
          Oh look, a "mysterious ways" argument. Or rather, a non-argument, since again, there's no objective, empirical evidence for this position. Followers of any mythology can make the same baseless assertion - yours isn't special.
        • Squidwalk, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6Now now, it's only proper procedure to provide a simple refutation to people using the "mysterious ways" argument.

          kenrayd, if men submit god to man-made conditions and he doesn't hold up, how can anyone tell if that god is an evil or impartial god? If men are to submit god to god-made conditions, it means those men surpass the limitations of being men, and should be considered gods themselves. This would clearly be an affront to your god though.

          I'm a bit interested in your "rebel angels" though. Reminds me of Cartesian skepticism. If you believe in them, how do you get out of that one?
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -4/+1If God doesn't hold up to your man-made conditions, then you lose, that's all. You're trying to make yourself a competitor to God which at the heart, is what the rebel angels have attempted to do.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6"If God doesn't hold up to your man-made conditions, then you lose, that's all. You're trying to make yourself a competitor to God which at the heart, is what the rebel angels have attempted to do."
          ...and you still haven't provided any objective, empirical evidence for the existence of angels, rebel or otherwise. Same goes for your god. Once more, without evidence for the existence of such things, asserting their existence is irrational.
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -4/+1...because you're afraid to try.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6No, as I said, the methods you suggest for obtaining evidence cannot provide objective, empirical evidence, so there is no point in attempting.

          I note that you have not attempted my suggested method of getting in touch with the invisible technicolor pachyderm in William Shatner's sock drawer - afraid to try?
        • lydecker, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6Kenrayd believes there is a point in attempting them, but it would not provide objective empirical evidence you ask for.

          In essence, kenrayd doesn't have the ability to reason God or religion with to objective empirical evidence. By praying, you don't learn anything either, because God still operates how God wants to.

          Kenrayd, what is the theory of prayer? What predictions have we hypothesized about prayer? What observations do we record when testing prayer? What are the possible sources of error in the testing phase? What are the possible explanations for what we observed during prayer?
        • StaticThunder, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6If God can not be held to any man made condition, then I can't test whether he is real or not, thats why I left this discussion. Kenrayd doesn't understand what knowledge is. Arguing with him is useless.

          He'd just say "if you would just try believing, then you would believe." Its too bad that God expects me to have low standards for evidence then.
    • StaticThunder, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Don't forget mosquitoes, malaria, hemorrhagic fevers, cancer, the bubonic plague, gangrene, anthrax, herpes, smallpox, lightning, wildfires, leeches, tapeworms, athlete's foot, leprosy, Huntington's disease, and my favorite, Naegleria, the brain eating amoeba, that you get as punishment for going swimming in warm water.

      Somebody sure loves us a lot, so much I wish they'd stop loving us so much.

      kenrayd, you're like a puddle. You look at the hole you are in and say, "Wow, look how great this hole fits me, somebody must have put it there for me! Boy, they sure are swell!"
      • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -4/+1Oh you of little spiritual intelligence.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5Evidence of this "spirit"?
        • kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -4/+1You have to pray for it, then you'll have it. Have you tried? One human can't give it to another. It has to be direct, because God is no respecter of persons.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5Oh you of little intelligence at all.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/23/2008, -1/+7Sorry, I should have been more specific - objective, empirical evidence?
      • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1Have you tried unbias prayer yet? - otherwise this evidence is on the other side of the wall which you set up.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4I already addressed why prayer is not objective, empirical evidence. Choosing to ignore that which has no evidence does not constitute "setting up a wall". If I ignore the invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer, I am not "setting up a wall", I am just sticking to the facts.

          Have you tried self-flagellation in combination with aggressive underwear washing and telepathic communion with the invisible technicolor pachyderm? If not, you're just hiding behind your own wall.
        • kenrayd, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1But you are assuming that the supernatural is not factual because it doesn't fit into your man-made natural design.

          The supernatural is real, but you really don't know for sure but by rejecting the suggested spiritual exercises, you close the door to your potential for knowing that it is factual. What I have shared are the divine provisions but they are meant to sift out humans who are too proud to serve Him and so far, you are a living demonstration of that.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5"But you are assuming that the supernatural is not factual because it doesn't fit into your man-made natural design."
          No, I'm disregarding assertions of the existence of the supernatural because it lacks evidence. Big difference there.

          "The supernatural is real"
          EVIDENCE?!?

          The invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer is real, but by rejecting the spiritual exercises I mentioned, you close the door to your potential for knowing him. What I have shared are the divine provisions, but they are meant to sift out the humans who are too proud to listen to his mighty trumpet and so far, you are a living demonstration of that.

          All you have provided here is a just-so story - circular reasoning at its finest.
    • alkajazz, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Wtf
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.