Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[Paul Bethke]

Well then, I am glad to be of service.

And as for you saying that I am wrong, then you are quite at liberty to say so. As for me, I will stick to the facts.

In any case, your many postings and failures over the years have done an excellent job of showing that a god concept is a completely subjective in practice and therefore a god concept is something that has no basis in reality.

Therefore, you will never be able to show that god does exist to anyone but yourself.

It is still a good day.

 

[Crossbow]

It is still a good day.

Great!

And since it is such a great day, then provide that proof of God that you mentioned earlier.

I (and many, many others) expect that your proof will be just another of your failures.

 

[Craig B]

Keep in mind how many concubines and wives Solomon had. His harem dwarfed even his father's! I suspect, through Solomon, David's genetic legacy was rather impressive in the region. You probably couldn't swing a dead lamb in first century Palestine without hitting a descendant of David.

Neither of the genealogies suggests such a line of descent in Jesus' case.

We are given the names of important Biblical figures, and imaginary names to fill in the gaps when scriptural data run out.

 

[Border Reiver]

Well God would have shown Noah how to construct a vessel that would accommodate the amount of creatures that would enter the ark---besides not all dogs were there, the species did change as with horses.

You mean, species (looks around furtively), evolved?

As with Moses, Yahweh could have shown Noah ---Exodus_25:9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.

Not sure if you appreciate this, but the stresses on a wooden boat dealing with a flood are a little bit different than those that affect a box and it's surrounding tent.

When it is revealed that in the beginning--Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So now there would be no problem in rearranging things a little to facilitate. Jesus made this statement--Mar_12:24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?

Essentially, your response to the very points that I have raised against the flood story is "magic".

There's no worldwide layer of sediment because, magic.
An ancient family with no access to modern materials or engineering techniques could build a wooden ship more than twice as big as the largest wooden ship built for which we have records with, magic.
There's no genetic evidence suggesting a bottleneck for all living things like we would have if the flood story was true because, magic.
The waters appeared and disappeared by, say it with me folks, magic.

Now evolution is the most ridiculous theory that man has conjured up---how can any sane person believe that out of a single something—everything could become just as we have it today.

<snip>
No evolution is so ridiculous that it cannot be explained—just a lot of theory, based on theory, where so many people contradict each other and things just become guessing.

I'm sure you can explain then how a deity waving his hand above the waters willing it all out of nothing is more rational? Or provide actual evidence showing where evolutionary theory contradicts itself.

Here is one good example—I used to keep horses, and the books I have read states that the horse evolved 25 million years ago—then I read another book and there the author categorically states that the horse evolved some 75 million years ago—so me being a good fella thinks—well what is 50 million years difference between friends.

Modern horses did develop about 25 million years ago. Earlier forms developed oddly enough, earlier than that - it all depends on where we decide to break the horses off from the other odd toed ungulates. The other bit to ponder is that, as new information is gathered, earlier positions are revised.

 

[Peregrinus]

Now evolution is the most ridiculous theory that man has conjured up---how can any sane person believe that out of a single something—everything could become just as we have it today.

You are conflating evolution and abiogenesis, a logical fallacy. And you have tossed three totally unsupported assumptions into the bargain. Quite an accomplishment in a sentence of only a couple dozen words.

 

[Crossbow]

It is still a good day.

Come on Paul!

Where is this stuff about how you are going to show proof for the existence of god?

Sorry if I sound pushy about the subject, but us mere humans that live in the real world would really, really, really, really like to know how something that is so completely beyond all of our science could possibly exist.

 

[Craig B]

Come on Paul!

Where is this stuff about how you are going to show proof for the existence of god?

I wonder if PB's proof is different from the many "proofs", alas not convincing, that have been offered already. If it is really a fresh one, I will be fascinated to see it.

 

[Craig4]

Now how am I to know what date the flood took place—so I have included a calendar to show what other scholars have researched—that does not mean that the flood did not occur?

It would be pretty easy to date. All you have to do is dig a test pit until you find the flood layer in the stratigraphy. Those are the layers in the soil. Then, you date the artifacts or ecofacts in the flood layer. All you need is a shovel, some land and some time. If the Earth is the age you say it shouldn't be too deep of a pit.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well God would have shown Noah how to construct a vessel that would accommodate the amount of creatures that would enter the ark---besides not all dogs were there, the species did change as with horses.

First, it is physically impossible to contruct an all-wood vessel the size the "ark" is said to be said to have been, with the integrity to withstand the least of ripples (to say nothing of the kind of waves that would have resulted from as much water as would have had to have fallen in the amount of time allowed in the Noachian account). See, for example, Ken Ham's "replica", that had to be built with steel and concrete, using construction cranes, just to hold up its own weight on dry land--to say nothing of riding out a deluge-driven storm.

Second, it is ridiculous to think that Noah could have collected two of each kind of animal (even if one tells oneself the "baramin" lie), and seven of each "clean" kind of animal, from all over the earth--how did the penguins get to the middle east from Antarctica (or even the west coast of South America); how did the Three-toed Sloths get to the middle east from the Amazon; how did Koalas and wallabees get there from Australia--much less have preserved them in their unique, vital, and non-overlapping biomes.

Third, evidence of the collection and diaspora would have been left behind; yet there is no evidence, non, that there were ever new world cameloids, or ursines, or the aforementioned marsupials, or any of myriad other kinds of animals ever even existing in the middle east; much less migrating from there to their current ranges, crossing multiple oceans and hostile biomes in the meantime.

Your "fludde" story (borrowed, as it is, from multiple other cultures) does not hold water.

As with Moses, Yahweh could have shown Noah ---Exodus_25:9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.

"Could have" husbands no stock. How would the animals have been collected, provided for, protected from each other, and cleaned up after? It does not do to say your makey-uppy 'god' "told Moses how".

Not to mention, where is the geological and hydrodynamic evidence?

Where is the evidence that Egyptian civilization was disrupted by ƴ ͤ fludde?

Where is the evidence that the civilizations in China and India were disrupted by ƴ ͤ fludde?

Where is the evidence that multiple mesoamerican civilizations were disrupted by ƴ ͤ fludde?

Is it your contention that these civilizations were destroyed, and just did not notice?

Where is the vast layer of sediment that would have been laid down by ƴ ͤ fludde in the geological record?

Where is the evidence that ƴ ͤ fludde floated the ice caps, and destroyed the thousands upon thousands of years of ice layers?

(I can take you to a column of sediments and charcoals that show more than 10,000 years of continuous habitation, in Lubbock, Texas--with no sign of any fludde.)

I realize that these, and questions like them, are part of the reason you are loath to voice an opinion about the date of ƴ ͤ fludde; because the evidence that would have been left simply is not there. All you have to which to resort are assertions that your 'god' "could have done it"; "might have shown Noah how"; and yet somehow brought it about without leaving the slightest bit of evidence or indicia.

When do you, personally, think all this happened?

When it is revealed that in the beginning--Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

AN evidence-free assertion, especially given that two accounts that follow contradict each other, to say nothing of contradicting all of the evidence we can see about how this planet came to be.

No sign of your 'god' anywhere.

So now there would be no problem in rearranging things a little to facilitate. Jesus made this statement--Mar_12:24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?'

Why is it, do you suppose, that your 'god' would need to tell lies, covering up the evidence of its handiwork?

Now evolution is the most ridiculous theory that man has conjured up---how can any sane person believe that out of a single something—everything could become just as we have it today.

I see. You understand the TOE no better than you understand Hebrew.

This is more properly the topic of another thread, but evolution by natural selection can be, and has been, and is being, observed to happen in the lab and in the wild--to say nothing of the evidence in the fossil record. I do not "believe" in evolution--I can demonstrate its working and effects; I can see how no single fact of modern biology is not explained by the TOE. Unlike creationism, the TOE makes testable, fruitful predictions.

Why, for instance do people get repeated colds, even though they have immune systems?

If you wish to pursue this, and actually learn, I can offer you much reading.

Say but the word.

Everything around us speaks so clearly of a Designer, a Creator, a person with such great wisdom and power—as it is stated:- Rom 1:20-22 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

I encourage you to offer actual evidence for the existence of, and the work of, a "creator"--not just platitudes cribbed from you "scriptures", but actual, physical, objective, testable, empirical, non-anecdotal evidence--as can be offered to support every step of the process of evolution by natural selection. I, for one, would be very interested in see such evidence offered and defended.

No evolution is so ridiculous that it cannot be explained—just a lot of theory, based on theory, where so many people contradict each other and things just become guessing.

Your lack of understanding does not constitute refutation. I anticipate your actual evidence. Truly I do.

Here is one good example—I used to keep horses, and the books I have read states that the horse evolved 25 million years ago—then I read another book and there the author categorically states that the horse evolved some 75 million years ago—so me being a good fella thinks—well what is 50 million years difference between friends.

Be so kind as to provide references for both of these statements. Point to the actual books in which they appear, or admit they are, in fact, your own inventions.

Not only that, if you are claiming that disagreement among those who study something is proof that the "something" is "ridiculous", you have, in one stroke, invalidated everything you have ever said about the message of your "scriptures" (to say nothing of all of "theology"), as people who have studied more deeply, and know more than you, disagree with your assertions.

Good job!

 

[Craig B]

It would be pretty easy to date. All you have to do is dig a test pit until you find the flood layer in the stratigraphy. Those are the layers in the soil. Then, you date the artifacts or ecofacts in the flood layer. All you need is a shovel, some land and some time. If the Earth is the age you say it shouldn't be too deep of a pit.

It should be evident in the Greenland Ice Sheet but we don't find it. We find more than a hundred thousand years of seasonal snow, never all washed away by a flood.

 

[Craig4]

It should be evident in the Greenland Ice Sheet but we don't find it. We find more than a hundred thousand years of seasonal snow, never all washed away by a flood.

True, there are many ways to skin this cat.

That's just an expression. I'm very found of my cat and would not skin him.

 

[Rincewind]

Jesus referred to God as his Father and that they were together in the beginning—so in coming down to earth as a human required some a miracle of intervention. Now as a human Jesus was in the womb of Mary in the period that Mary was engaged to Joseph to be married.

So it was assumed by all that Mary was with child and the father was Joseph, so Jesus was the adopted child of Joseph.
Luke_3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

So - you show us proof that Jesus' supposed father was in fact cuckolded!

His true father was the holy spirit - who was not married to Mary.

Therefore, you have indubitably proved that JC was illegitimate!

Not that it bothers me - I'm just pointing out that for him to prattle on about the sanctity of marriage is a tad hypocritical...

 

[Paul Bethke]

So - you show us proof that Jesus' supposed father was in fact cuckolded!

His true father was the holy spirit - who was not married to Mary.

Therefore, you have indubitably proved that JC was illegitimate!

Not that it bothers me - I'm just pointing out that for him to prattle on about the sanctity of marriage is a tad hypocritical...

But there is no act of adultery--one may consider it as a miracle in that it was unusual.
Joseph did marry Marry, and Mary had no prior sexual relations with any other man.
Joseph only consummated the marriage after Jesus was born.

 

[Craig B]

Jesus referred to God as his Father and that they were together in the beginning—so in coming down to earth as a human required some a miracle of intervention. Now as a human Jesus was in the womb of Mary in the period that Mary was engaged to Joseph to be married.

So it was assumed by all that Mary was with child and the father was Joseph, so Jesus was the adopted child of Joseph.
Luke_3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli

Matthew 1:1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham ... Most ancestors omitted ... 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.​

So if Jesus was the Messiah son of David by virtue of Joseph son of Jacob, why does it suddenly switch to Mary? If Joseph was not Jesus' father, why is he in a genealogy showing Jesus to be a Messiah descended from David?

Interpolation accounts for "it was thought" here.

Now compare that with

Luke 3:23 ... He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,the son of Heli​

Who cares what was "thought"? If it was thought wrongly then Jesus was not the son of Joseph and therefore not a descendant of David, as stated in Matthew. And why does Joseph have a different father in Luke and in Matthew?

By picking only one of these passages to suit your purpose, you are misrepresenting the account given in the gospels of the ancestry of Jesus. As I say, you use the scriptures like a book of magic spells. You can chant any one you like, ignoring the others; and thereby perform whatever tricks you wish from one moment to the next.

 

[Paul Bethke]

First, it is physically impossible to contruct an all-wood vessel the size the "ark" is said to be said to have been, with the integrity to withstand the least of ripples (to say nothing of the kind of waves that would have resulted from as much water as would have had to have fallen in the amount of time allowed in the Noachian account). See, for example, Ken Ham's "replica", that had to be built with steel and concrete, using construction cranes, just to hold up its own weight on dry land--to say nothing of riding out a deluge-driven storm.
Second, it is ridiculous to think that Noah could have collected two of each kind of animal (even if one tells oneself the "baramin" lie), and seven of each "clean" kind of animal, from all over the earth--how did the penguins get to the middle east from Antarctica (or even the west coast of South America); how did the Three-toed Sloths get to the middle east from the Amazon; how did Koalas and wallabees get there from Australia--much less have preserved them in their unique, vital, and non-overlapping biomes.
Third, evidence of the collection and diaspora would have been left behind; yet there is no evidence, non, that there were ever new world cameloids, or ursines, or the aforementioned marsupials, or any of myriad other kinds of animals ever even existing in the middle east; much less migrating from there to their current ranges, crossing multiple oceans and hostile biomes in the meantime.
Your "fludde" story (borrowed, as it is, from multiple other cultures) does not hold water.
"Could have" husbands no stock. How would the animals have been collected, provided for, protected from each other, and cleaned up after? It does not do to say your makey-uppy 'god' "told Moses how".
Not to mention, where is the geological and hydrodynamic evidence?
Where is the evidence that Egyptian civilization was disrupted by ƴ ͤ fludde?
Where is the evidence that the civilizations in China and India were disrupted by ƴ ͤ fludde?
Where is the evidence that multiple mesoamerican civilizations were disrupted by ƴ ͤ fludde?
Is it your contention that these civilizations were destroyed, and just did not notice?
Where is the vast layer of sediment that would have been laid down by ƴ ͤ fludde in the geological record?
Where is the evidence that ƴ ͤ fludde floated the ice caps, and destroyed the thousands upon thousands of years of ice layers?
(I can take you to a column of sediments and charcoals that show more than 10,000 years of continuous habitation, in Lubbock, Texas--with no sign of any fludde.)
I realize that these, and questions like them, are part of the reason you are loath to voice an opinion about the date of ƴ ͤ fludde; because the evidence that would have been left simply is not there. All you have to which to resort are assertions that your 'god' "could have done it"; "might have shown Noah how"; and yet somehow brought it about without leaving the slightest bit of evidence or indicia.
When do you, personally, think all this happened?
AN evidence-free assertion, especially given that two accounts that follow contradict each other, to say nothing of contradicting all of the evidence we can see about how this planet came to be.
No sign of your 'god' anywhere.
Why is it, do you suppose, that your 'god' would need to tell lies, covering up the evidence of its handiwork?
I see. You understand the TOE no better than you understand Hebrew.
This is more properly the topic of another thread, but evolution by natural selection can be, and has been, and is being, observed to happen in the lab and in the wild--to say nothing of the evidence in the fossil record. I do not "believe" in evolution--I can demonstrate its working and effects; I can see how no single fact of modern biology is not explained by the TOE. Unlike creationism, the TOE makes testable, fruitful predictions.
Why, for instance do people get repeated colds, even though they have immune systems?
If you wish to pursue this, and actually learn, I can offer you much reading.
Say but the word.
I encourage you to offer actual evidence for the existence of, and the work of, a "creator"--not just platitudes cribbed from you "scriptures", but actual, physical, objective, testable, empirical, non-anecdotal evidence--as can be offered to support every step of the process of evolution by natural selection. I, for one, would be very interested in see such evidence offered and defended.Your lack of understanding does not constitute refutation. I anticipate your actual evidence. Truly I do.
Be so kind as to provide references for both of these statements. Point to the actual books in which they appear, or admit they are, in fact, your own inventions.
Not only that, if you are claiming that disagreement among those who study something is proof that the "something" is "ridiculous", you have, in one stroke, invalidated everything you have ever said about the message of your "scriptures" (to say nothing of all of "theology"), as people who have studied more deeply, and know more than you, disagree with your assertions.
Good job!

Look it is a long post to respond to in all that you have written—this I take is to show how much you know----As I have said evolution is ridiculous as there can be no explanation of how things began, it is just a ridiculous collection of theory.

No one, absolutely no one can be certain how this magnificent universe came about without a Designer.

A vehicle must be designed it cannot just evolve out of nothing, the same with everything about us, all speaks of a designer.

The human body with its many functions had to be designed, fingerprints, DNA as we know it today is unique.

I am an electrical technician and am amazed how intricate the generation of power is---but it has to be designed, and maintained to function perfectly.

I do marvel at what man has achieved, but that is progress, all the elements were there for him to correlate into his designs.

So what you infer is that if I plant a piece of gold a watch will eventually emerge.
It was like Aaron who explained to Moses---( Exo 32:24 So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewellery, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!" Now that is certainly a ridiculous excuse to make—but that is what evolution sounds like.

 

[Craig B]

As I have said evolution is ridiculous as there can be no explanation of how things began.

Evikution isn't about how life began. That is abiogenesis, and we now know quite a bit about that, as it happens.

If we need to know how things began, tell me: how did God begin? Ah, he was always there. How did he create the universe? Because he can do anything he wants, presumably. In fact, scholars are finding out information about how the universe and life began, while your beliefs are mere words which explain nothing. To you, the origin of things is like a conjuror pulling a rabbit out of a hat. And you're quite happy with this explanation: the conjuror's wand has magic powers, To you that is as good as an explanation, but you have in fact no explanation.

 

[abaddon]

Look it is a long post to respond to in all that you have written—this I take is to show how much you know----As I have said evolution is ridiculous as there can be no explanation of how things began, it is just a ridiculous collection of theory.

No one, absolutely no one can be certain how this magnificent universe came about without a Designer.

A vehicle must be designed it cannot just evolve out of nothing, the same with everything about us, all speaks of a designer.

The human body with its many functions had to be designed, fingerprints, DNA as we know it today is unique.

I am an electrical technician and am amazed how intricate the generation of power is---but it has to be designed, and maintained to function perfectly.

I do marvel at what man has achieved, but that is progress, all the elements were there for him to correlate into his designs.

So what you infer is that if I plant a piece of gold a watch will eventually emerge.
It was like Aaron who explained to Moses---( Exo 32:24 So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewellery, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!" Now that is certainly a ridiculous excuse to make—but that is what evolution sounds like.

How many times have you been told that evolution has nothing at all to say about abiogenesis?

Why do you persist in conflating the two separate things.

Get it through your head. Evolution does NOT address abiogenesis AT ALL.

 

[Pixel42]

A vehicle must be designed it cannot just evolve out of nothing, the same with everything about us, all speaks of a designer.

The difference between vehicles and living things is that living things can reproduce. Living things produce offspring, which are similar but not identical. The offspring whose differences are advantageous are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce themselves, passing those advantageous differences on. Vehicles do not reproduce, and hence cannot evolve by natural selection.

You seem to be one of those creationists who thinks the theory of evolution by natural selection is basically saying that the complexity of the living things around us was produced by pure chance. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only part chance plays in evolution is in the provision of variety: the raw material upon which natural selection acts. Natural selection is a far more powerful force than chance - powerful enough to turn billion to one chances into stone cold certainties, given enough time. But it is not a conscious force.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Evikution isn't about how life began. That is abiogenesis, and we now know quite a bit about that, as it happens.

If we need to know how things began, tell me: how did God begin? Ah, he was always there. How did he create the universe? Because he can do anything he wants, presumably. In fact, scholars are finding out information about how the universe and life began, while your beliefs are mere words which explain nothing. To you, the origin of things is like a conjuror pulling a rabbit out of a hat. And you're quite happy with this explanation: the conjuror's wand has magic powers, To you that is as good as an explanation, but you have in fact no explanation.

It is far more reasonable to believe in a Creator who has the ability to create such vast worlds than to try and believe that things just happened out of some small little thing, that people are not sure what it was.
What was it??
Even if you took a piece of clay and left it on the table it would not change into anything.

Abiogenesis the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

 

[Rincewind]

But there is no act of adultery--one may consider it as a miracle in that it was unusual.
Joseph did marry Marry, and Mary had no prior sexual relations with any other man.
Joseph only consummated the marriage after Jesus was born.

Fine - thank you for confirming that Jesus was born out of wedlock.