Did you get laid off?
Creationists' theory in detail
- Thread starter harmonica
- Start date
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,409
- 1,805
- 170
Of course our ancestors at one time couldnāt talk they lived in the water.
You're the one claiming your people were cave people who came from bacteria. They could only grunt and stuff. That's some hilarious backwards rock people stuff.
Not mine. We were human and close to perfect. We lived for a long time, some over 900 years. Yours were scum that lived in the water and muck. Even scum would wipe their feet of you.
I would agree. It sounds appropriate for someone like you.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,765
- 132,201
- 3,645
Correct. That sums up ding's MO in nutshell. And if you ask him to explain, he won't. And if you try to understand and repeat back to him what you think he meant, you will be wrong. Every time. Without exception. It is the tired, dusty playbook of shameless charlatans.
No. Thatās your perception. My reality is that I have peace through the storm.
If you really practiced what you claim to believe you wouldnāt be here tearing down the beliefs of others. Instead you would be seeking fulfillment, but youāre not. Instead you are here seeking conflict. I feel sorry for you.
What is it that you want me to explain?
I just scanned your past few posts in other threads and couldnāt help but notice how poor of manners you have. Itās not a good look and I hope you donāt behave that way in the real world.
Sorry. Humans have never lived for 900 years.Of course our ancestors at one time couldnāt talk they lived in the water.
You're the one claiming your people were cave people who came from bacteria. They could only grunt and stuff. That's some hilarious backwards rock people stuff
Not mine. We were human and close to perfect. We lived for a long time, some over 900 years. Yours were scum that lived in the water and muck. Even scum would wipe their feet of you.
I would agree. It sounds appropriate for someone like you.
Stop the madness.
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,409
- 1,805
- 170
Sorry. Humans have never lived for 900 years.Of course our ancestors at one time couldnāt talk they lived in the water.
You're the one claiming your people were cave people who came from bacteria. They could only grunt and stuff. That's some hilarious backwards rock people stuff
Not mine. We were human and close to perfect. We lived for a long time, some over 900 years. Yours were scum that lived in the water and muck. Even scum would wipe their feet of you.
I would agree. It sounds appropriate for someone like you.
Stop the madness.
You just do not understand longevity and that the past was different than the present. Yours is a belief in a race of half-apes and Neanderthals. When it comes to brass tacks, the Christians were more sophisticated and heathier than you.
Sorry. Humans have never lived for 900 years.Of course our ancestors at one time couldnāt talk they lived in the water.
You're the one claiming your people were cave people who came from bacteria. They could only grunt and stuff. That's some hilarious backwards rock people stuff
Not mine. We were human and close to perfect. We lived for a long time, some over 900 years. Yours were scum that lived in the water and muck. Even scum would wipe their feet of you.
I would agree. It sounds appropriate for someone like you.
Stop the madness.
You just do not understand longevity and that the past was different than the present. Yours is a belief in a race of half-apes and Neanderthals. When it comes to brass tacks, the Christians were more sophisticated and heathier than you.
I admit I don't understand supernatural longevity. Nobody does. Strange how there is no reliable record of any human living for 900 years. Strange, that outside of biblical tales and fables, there is no reliable record of any human living for 900 years.
I see. Brass tacks aside, were Christians a separate species of human? You know, sort of like a superior race or breed of humans?
LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 840
- 130
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"Jason Lisle
Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]rationalwiki.org
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?
I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.
And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.
By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.
1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that
2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line
3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.
Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.
I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.
Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.
Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.
There is solid evidence, evidence you can see and check with your own eyes, and there is weak evidence, evidence that is second or third hand, unverifiable, and contradictory such as Jesus Christ and his miracles.
You are wrong. The New Testament was written by individuals who either met Jesus personally or who personally knew one of Jesus' Apostles. The last book of the New Testament was written about 95 AD and not centuries later.
I'd love for you to try to support this.
When Was the Book of Revelation Written?
By Wayne Jackson
Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning āthat which is pastā) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).
A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.
In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.
External Evidence
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision āwas seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitianā (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitianās reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos āafter the tyrant was deadā (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the āFather of Church History,ā identifies the ātyrantā as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).
Even Moses Stuart, Americaās most prominent preterist, admitted that the ātyrant here meant is probably Domitian.ā Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an āold man.ā If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.
Victorinus
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:
Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,
To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitianās reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that āthere is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or placeā (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.
Internal Evidence
The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.
The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.
The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudiusās reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).
Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.
Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).
Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.
The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of Johnās writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.
Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Neroās persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).
Arguments for the Early Date Answered
In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view.
Writing Style Differences
It is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospelāwhen the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek.
In answer to this argument, we cite R. H. Gundry:
B. B. Warfield contends that:
R. H. Charles, author of the commentary on Revelation in the International Critical Commentary series, and perhaps the greatest expert on apocalyptic literature, regarded the so-called bad grammar as deliberate, for purposes of emphasis, and consistent with the citation of numerous Old Testament passages (Gundry, 365). It might be noted that in the 404 verses of Revelation, Westcott and Hortās Greek New Testament gives over five hundred references and allusions to the Old Testament.
Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out:
No Mention of Jerusalemās Destruction
It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.
In response we note the following points.
First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.
However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalemās destruction in 11:8, where āthe great city,ā in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodomānot merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).
Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:
Nero Associated with 666
Some argue for an early date of the Apocalypse by asserting that the enigmatic 666 (13:18) is a reference to Nero. This is possible only by pursuing the most irresponsible form of exegesis.
To come up with such an interpretation one must:
- add the title āCaesarā to Neroās name;
- compute the letter-number arrangement on the basis of Hebrew, whereas the book was written in Greek; and
- alter the spelling of āCaesarā by dropping the yodh in the Hebrew.
Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but he did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture (1980, 38). Noted critic Theodor Zahn observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831 (447).
In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,765
- 132,201
- 3,645
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"Jason Lisle
Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?
I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.
And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.
By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.
1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that
2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line
3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.
Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.
I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.
Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.
Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.
There is solid evidence, evidence you can see and check with your own eyes, and there is weak evidence, evidence that is second or third hand, unverifiable, and contradictory such as Jesus Christ and his miracles.
You are wrong. The New Testament was written by individuals who either met Jesus personally or who personally knew one of Jesus' Apostles. The last book of the New Testament was written about 95 AD and not centuries later.
I'd love for you to try to support this.
When Was the Book of Revelation Written?
By Wayne Jackson
Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning āthat which is pastā) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).
A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.
In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.
External Evidence
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision āwas seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitianā (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitianās reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos āafter the tyrant was deadā (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the āFather of Church History,ā identifies the ātyrantā as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).
Even Moses Stuart, Americaās most prominent preterist, admitted that the ātyrant here meant is probably Domitian.ā Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an āold man.ā If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.
Victorinus
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:
Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,
To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitianās reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that āthere is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or placeā (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.
Internal Evidence
The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.
The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.
The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudiusās reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).
Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.
Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).
Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.
The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of Johnās writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.
Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Neroās persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).
Arguments for the Early Date Answered
In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view.
Writing Style Differences
It is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospelāwhen the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek.
In answer to this argument, we cite R. H. Gundry:
B. B. Warfield contends that:
R. H. Charles, author of the commentary on Revelation in the International Critical Commentary series, and perhaps the greatest expert on apocalyptic literature, regarded the so-called bad grammar as deliberate, for purposes of emphasis, and consistent with the citation of numerous Old Testament passages (Gundry, 365). It might be noted that in the 404 verses of Revelation, Westcott and Hortās Greek New Testament gives over five hundred references and allusions to the Old Testament.
Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out:
No Mention of Jerusalemās Destruction
It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.
In response we note the following points.
First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.
However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalemās destruction in 11:8, where āthe great city,ā in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodomānot merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).
Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:
Nero Associated with 666
Some argue for an early date of the Apocalypse by asserting that the enigmatic 666 (13:18) is a reference to Nero. This is possible only by pursuing the most irresponsible form of exegesis.
To come up with such an interpretation one must:
All of this reveals a truly desperate attempt to find a reference to Nero in the text.
- add the title āCaesarā to Neroās name;
- compute the letter-number arrangement on the basis of Hebrew, whereas the book was written in Greek; and
- alter the spelling of āCaesarā by dropping the yodh in the Hebrew.
Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but he did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture (1980, 38). Noted critic Theodor Zahn observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831 (447).
In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it.
Ans as you say, the Bible is a science book. So clearly four horseman from the sky descended on Jerusalem.
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #773
Why would my feelings get hurt by somebody you failed to identify properly? Is he even still alive?
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #774
Can't fix stupid. How many posters are registered on this board?
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #775
I demand nothing; have lobbied on behalf of NOBODY OR ANY RELIGION. Fact is, I've left links to people that I don't agree with. Do all you non-believing types lack reading comprehension skills?
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #776
Dr. Phil I presume? Is that you?
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #777
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"Jason Lisle
Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?
I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.
And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.
By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.
1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that
2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line
3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.
Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.
I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.
Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.
Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.
If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.
You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.
There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.
Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.
Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.
As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?
I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):
Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist
Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the textwww.jewishpress.com
Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: āJosh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.ā
As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.
Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).
In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.
Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.
I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.
Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.
How can I be objective and open-minded when people make assertions that they don't support?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary. Look, all my critics here claim my sources have an agenda. They do... and you do. My agenda is to get to the bottom line. I don't need semantics, people hiding behind 50 dollar words to convey a ten cent idea, and psychobabble doesn't impress me. My agenda is understanding. Your agenda is so important that you cannot afford to have your views scrutinized by various others. You're really mad because you get challenged. Sorry, I don't get it. I don't live in an echo chamber nor do I need to talk down to anyone here.
Being wholly objective, I cannot defend what I believe in on this thread. It has flaws. And your argument does too. Debaters are kind of like litigators. But, I'd like to share something with you: if you were to argue evidence in a court of law, the best preparation is to know the other guy's argument better than he knows it. You also have to know the flaws in your own arguments. In the instant case, non-believers simply do not have the evidence to prove their case. At least one poster admitted not knowing the origin of all time, space, and matter. All sides ultimately are relying on faith.
Christians will never be accepted by non-believers. Challenging their intelligence, knowledge or integrity based upon what others with an agenda have to say isn't very objective. So, I cite people that I don't necessarily agree with on every point. If all nonbelievers have is worrying about whether or not organizations of non-believers give the creationist their seal of approval only says to me, nonbelievers realize they don't have factual points so they have to attack the other guy's sources. But, I'm trying to get to the bottom line so if you attack sources because they are not accepted by organizations that have their own agenda that contradicts you, it's not changing the balance of the facts.
When you say there's secular proof of the existence of Jesus that's an assertion, not an interpretation. When you say the writers personally knew Jesus that's an assertion. As for not needing semantics?
You could have fooled me.
And no. Admitting that you don't know the origins of time, matter, and space, although time and space we know originated from the Big Bang. Einstein e=mc2 shows that. And we know the Big Bang happened because of the lines of evidence. But let's give you the origin of matter. It is not a weakness in the argument. We can see, feel, touch, and even smell matter. So it's existence requires no faith at all. I don't know who your mother is but it requires no faith on my part to know you have one.
God, on the other hand, does require faith. You can not see him. The books written about him requires believing fantastical things and are often contradictory. No evidence of him is ever presented. At least not evidence that can withstand the process of the scientific method.
Your standard of proof for existence - what you refer to as science has no explanation other than you know some things exist that you sense. You have every right to think that constitutes evidence. That, however does not necessarily make you right.
The Bible gives a logical explanation for the creation of man and our world. But, my view of evidence is in the fact that the Bible has a God that foretold the future in great detail... something your science cannot do. Neither can your science stop what the Bible foretold for the future. We have different standards. What you need to be thinking about is why it is so imperative for you to force me to accept your proposition. Oddly, the Bible predicts that people like you would do that. A wise man once remarked:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.ā
There is a reason you're investing so much time trying to dodge, deflect and circumvent an uncomfortable truth while inferring something is wrong with those who see the same evidence you do and come to an opposite conclusion based on the facts. Matter exists. Of that there is no dispute. But, where did it come from? You don't know because you cannot imagine nothingness and neither can I.
can You tell us what these prophecies are that came true that convinced you god must be real? Iāve yet to see any such evidence.
and can you show us the Bibleās logical explanation for the creation of man?
why is is so important to stop your type of ignorance? Itās in your post. You said science canāt stop what the Bible says is coming. This is one reason idiot creationists deny global warming. Becaus3 the Bible didnāt foretell it, you donāt worry about it. Thatās crazy ignorant
You're going to have to rewrite that post before I can understand it. Do you want a book in one post? What is meant by the logical creation of man? What is "why is is so important to stop your type of ignorance?" You want to stop me because I don't buy your B.S.? Are you advocating killing me because I don't comply? Where did I deny global warming? When would I tell you not to worry about something? God gave us brains and reasoning skills. I'm a serious prepper. Are you?
Tell you what. If I get some podcasts going, I'll do sermons on the topics you want explained to you. But, you can lead a horse to water....
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,409
- 1,805
- 170
Sorry. Humans have never lived for 900 years.Of course our ancestors at one time couldnāt talk they lived in the water.
You're the one claiming your people were cave people who came from bacteria. They could only grunt and stuff. That's some hilarious backwards rock people stuff
Not mine. We were human and close to perfect. We lived for a long time, some over 900 years. Yours were scum that lived in the water and muck. Even scum would wipe their feet of you.
I would agree. It sounds appropriate for someone like you.
Stop the madness.
You just do not understand longevity and that the past was different than the present. Yours is a belief in a race of half-apes and Neanderthals. When it comes to brass tacks, the Christians were more sophisticated and heathier than you.
I admit I don't understand supernatural longevity. Nobody does. Strange how there is no reliable record of any human living for 900 years. Strange, that outside of biblical tales and fables, there is no reliable record of any human living for 900 years.
I see. Brass tacks aside, were Christians a separate species of human? You know, sort of like a superior race or breed of humans?
Stop. It's not supernatural, but natural. People lived a long time due to being close to the origin. We could have lived long like that, too, but for greater sin. All of Adam and Eve's descendants were killed. Thus, before the global flood, God shortened our lives to 120 years because of all became evil. The innocent could not be protected. Today, it is even shorter. It's more evidence for creationism as if evolution were true, then we would be living longer.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,765
- 132,201
- 3,645
Thatās strange. You still havenāt identified a single, verifiable case of a human living for 900 years. Iām really not sure why you expect others to accept your rather outlandish claims when none of these appeals to supernaturalism and, well, some disturbing rants are entirely unsupported.Sorry. Humans have never lived for 900 years.Of course our ancestors at one time couldnāt talk they lived in the water.
You're the one claiming your people were cave people who came from bacteria. They could only grunt and stuff. That's some hilarious backwards rock people stuff
Not mine. We were human and close to perfect. We lived for a long time, some over 900 years. Yours were scum that lived in the water and muck. Even scum would wipe their feet of you.
I would agree. It sounds appropriate for someone like you.
Stop the madness.
You just do not understand longevity and that the past was different than the present. Yours is a belief in a race of half-apes and Neanderthals. When it comes to brass tacks, the Christians were more sophisticated and heathier than you.
I admit I don't understand supernatural longevity. Nobody does. Strange how there is no reliable record of any human living for 900 years. Strange, that outside of biblical tales and fables, there is no reliable record of any human living for 900 years.
I see. Brass tacks aside, were Christians a separate species of human? You know, sort of like a superior race or breed of humans?
Stop. It's not supernatural, but natural. People lived a long time due to being close to the origin. We could have lived long like that, too, but for greater sin. All of Adam and Eve's descendants were killed. Thus, before the global flood, God shortened our lives to 120 years because of all became evil. The innocent could not be protected. Today, it is even shorter. It's more evidence for creationism as if evolution were true, then we would be living longer.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
A new law is cracking down on who can obtain a driverās license in Tennessee.- Started by Deplorable Yankee
- Replies: 0
-
Elon Musk Confirms He Will Soon Have Enough Money To Become Batman
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 1
-
Trump Sets New World Record By Winning War With Iran 27 Times In One Year
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 0
-
EMTs To Be Stationed Near Spurs Bench Next Game To Prevent Choking
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 0
