-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By sjastro
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 663 Replies
Since predynastic granite vases has raised its head again here the comparisons between what youtubers do and professional scientists on the subject.
Here is a picture of granite.
The light areas are mainly feldspars, the dark regions are biotite. Biotite is highly reflective even on grounded surfaces such as predynastic Egyptian vases.
Firstly the youtubers. What type of scanning did they employ, if under visible or structured light the highly reflected light from biotite is like noise and can introduce errors. CT scanning using X-rays which are not reflected eliminates this potential problem.
Next is the model they used.
Since the Egyptians left no engineering drawings and therefore no tolerances, their model was to produce an idealized or perfectly symmetrical granite vase from which the ‘accuracy’ of the scanned vase could be calculated by how much it deviated from the perfect model.
They used an open source CAD tool where they had to manually manipulate scanned primitive data from circle/cylinder cross sections, wall thicknesses, diameters etc onto the model to see how well it fitted.
Here is an immediate red flag, you can’t rely on sub millimetre accuracy when alignment can vary from person to person. Then there is the bias risk, humans have a tendency of unconsciously getting results they at looking for, in this case of fitting the primitive data to match.
By comparison what would have professionals scientists have done?
To deal with reflectivity issues they would scan the vase using;
(1) Optical/Photogrammetry
(2) Laser
(3) Structured light
(4) CT (X-ray)
If the results are constant reflectivity is not an issue.
Next is to use metrology software approved by professional labs.
There is no manual alignment instead they use statistical best fit algorithms, full error analysis, quantified tolerances and cross validation with actual physical measurements. Conclusions are based on numbers not because the visual fit looks good.
So what do the professional results state for predynastic and early dynastic vases.
Given the relative dearth of predynastic and early dynastic granite vases which are certified, the vast majority of vases were made of schist, alabaster, greywacke and breccia. Being softer however one would expect the figuring of these vases to have been much easier making 'more perfect' vases possible.
There is no confirmation of micron level results for symmetry, variable wall thickness, axial deviation etc, on any of the vases claimed by the youtubers, which is further complicated on doubt whether the vase(s) they tested were even predynastic in origin.
Here is a picture of granite.
The light areas are mainly feldspars, the dark regions are biotite. Biotite is highly reflective even on grounded surfaces such as predynastic Egyptian vases.
Firstly the youtubers. What type of scanning did they employ, if under visible or structured light the highly reflected light from biotite is like noise and can introduce errors. CT scanning using X-rays which are not reflected eliminates this potential problem.
Next is the model they used.
Since the Egyptians left no engineering drawings and therefore no tolerances, their model was to produce an idealized or perfectly symmetrical granite vase from which the ‘accuracy’ of the scanned vase could be calculated by how much it deviated from the perfect model.
They used an open source CAD tool where they had to manually manipulate scanned primitive data from circle/cylinder cross sections, wall thicknesses, diameters etc onto the model to see how well it fitted.
Here is an immediate red flag, you can’t rely on sub millimetre accuracy when alignment can vary from person to person. Then there is the bias risk, humans have a tendency of unconsciously getting results they at looking for, in this case of fitting the primitive data to match.
By comparison what would have professionals scientists have done?
To deal with reflectivity issues they would scan the vase using;
(1) Optical/Photogrammetry
(2) Laser
(3) Structured light
(4) CT (X-ray)
If the results are constant reflectivity is not an issue.
Next is to use metrology software approved by professional labs.
There is no manual alignment instead they use statistical best fit algorithms, full error analysis, quantified tolerances and cross validation with actual physical measurements. Conclusions are based on numbers not because the visual fit looks good.
So what do the professional results state for predynastic and early dynastic vases.
Given the relative dearth of predynastic and early dynastic granite vases which are certified, the vast majority of vases were made of schist, alabaster, greywacke and breccia. Being softer however one would expect the figuring of these vases to have been much easier making 'more perfect' vases possible.
There is no confirmation of micron level results for symmetry, variable wall thickness, axial deviation etc, on any of the vases claimed by the youtubers, which is further complicated on doubt whether the vase(s) they tested were even predynastic in origin.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
“You don’t arrest 58-year-old grandmothers,” her husband said. But she passed a bad $25 check ten years ago, so adios! er... Slán leat!
- By Hentenza
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 40 Replies
I don’t really take anything in this website that serious.
Upvote
0
Who is the Antichrist?
- By RandyPNW
- Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum
- 71 Replies
The one thing I'd like to point out is that John got his word "Antichrist" and Paul got his word "Man of Sin" from his description in Dan 7. There, the Little Horn appears as head of a 10 nation confederation to oppose the coming of the Kingdom of Christ, the "Son of Man."The word “Antichrist” gets thrown around often. Politicians are called it, dictators accused of it, and movies dramatize it. For some, it’s nothing more than a myth. Atheist writer Christopher Hitchens dismissed the Antichrist as “apocalyptic fantasy,” while Hollywood portrays him as a shadowy villain plotting world domination. But what does the Bible actually teach about the Antichrist, and how should Christians understand him today?
What the Bible says about the Antichrist
The New Testament letters of John first used the word. John warns that “you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come” (1 John 2:18). Right away, the Bible shows two realities: there is a final Antichrist still to appear, but there are also many “antichrists” already active in the world.
The word itself means both “against Christ” and “in place of Christ.” The Antichrist does not only oppose Jesus but also seeks to replace Him with a counterfeit version of truth. John explains that “every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God,” calling this “the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:3).
Paul adds more detail in 2 Thessalonians, describing “the man of lawlessness” who will exalt himself and even sit “in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess. 2:3–4). Revelation 13paints an even starker picture of a beast rising from the sea, wielding global power, performing miraculous signs, and demanding worship. Together, these passages describe the Antichrist as deceptive, arrogant, and dangerous—a figure who leads people into false worship and rebellion against God.
Different Christian views
Continued below.
Who is the Antichrist?
The word Antichrist gets thrown around often Politicians are called it, dictators accused of it, and movies dramatize itwww.christianpost.com
And so, this "Little Horn" is Anti Christ, and a Man of Sin. He subverts what God intends to make into Christ's Kingdom, and persecutes the saints.
Personally, with hindsight I can see that just as God created Israel in the Middle East to carry the torch for Faith and for Covenant Living, so God added European Civilization as a Covenant People with Faith. Both entities, we are warned, have either turned to apostasy or will turn to apostasy, due to the wayward influence of Sin within.
We know that Israel fell away, if only temporarily. And we are seeing Christian Civilizatioin falling away as well, in Europe and elsewhere--wherever Christianity has spread. We are warned that before the Kingdom of God comes, there will be testing.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
significant events and soon to happen events
- By RandyPNW
- Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum
- 7 Replies
Oh yea, I think it's fine and perhaps responsible to look at the possibilities, even if God isn't delivering it to us in a neat concise package yet. We're probably given as much as we need for the time. But we are getting close.
I went through a study a long time ago, researching how the Roman Empire, the "4th Kingdom," has evolved in history, in hopes of understanding what European states have been carrying the torch for Roman Imperialism. In this way I thought I might perhaps understand what states are going to turn to Antichrist?
I got some of my inspiration from little pamphlets by Gordon Lindsay, who pointed out that as the Roman Empire had two parts, so in history Europe has been divided into Western and Eastern Europe. I theorized that if these are the "two legs" of the "4th Kingdom" (Dan 2), then perhaps 5 states in Antichrist's Kingdom will come from the West and 5 from the East?
A number of European states have actually claimed to be "empires," carrying the Roman Imperial Tradition. We know Italy did, as the original Roman state. But so did France and Germany, Austria, Spain, and some in the East, as well, including Russia.
But European Civilization has expanded into two major states that extend beyond Europe, including the US and Russia (Europe and Asia). So I just wondered?
Also, I think like you do that Russia may be "Gog." And when we read about Gog in Eze 38-39, it reads like the last battle Israel must face. So I wondered if he may be part of Armageddon?
I really don't wish to think the US will join the Antichristian coalition. But the way things have been going I wouldn't be overly surprised. European Civilization is turning to apostasy from its Christian roots, including the US. I just keep praying that God saves and secures His Church in the US and elsewhere.
Anyway, I'm always interested in your thoughts, even if they fall well outside of my own thoughts. I don't claim to be right on any of it because it is so unclear at this point. But we will press ahead!
Take care...
Upvote
0
Israel-Hamas Thread II
- By Benaiah468
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 4899 Replies
In an Instagram post, Hollywood star Angelina Jolie accuses millions of followers of one-sided accusations about the war in Gaza. Her words do not come across as neutral humanity, but as political accusations and they ignore crucial facts.
Angelina Jolie has caused a stir with a new statement on the war in the Middle East. In front of over 16 million followers, the actress and former UN ambassador declared that Gaza is experiencing a
In her post, she cited figures and warnings from international organisations, spoke of 132,000 children in acute danger and painted a picture that attributes blame and responsibility exclusively to one side.
The choice of words is drastic, but it remains one-sided. Jolie presents the situation not as a complex humanitarian tragedy, but as deliberate policy. She claims that hunger is
and accuses governments of deliberately looking the other way. On this basis, she makes a moral accusation that is presented to her millions of followers on social media without any differentiation.
x.com
In doing so, Jolie completely fails to mention key aspects. She does not say a word about the fact that large quantities of aid supplies are reaching the region but are not getting to those most in need because armed groups are confiscating them and selling them on the black market. Her post makes no mention of the fact that millions of tonnes of food, water and medicine have been brought into the region despite the war situation. Instead, she paints a picture that gives the impression of deliberate destruction and obscures any other reality.
Back in April, Jolie spoke of Gaza becoming a
Then, as now, she chose images that stir up emotions but do not allow for sober analysis. This is not the first time that celebrities have contributed more to polarisation than to a nuanced understanding of the situation with their simplistic messages.
Jolie's reference to decades of double standards in the protection of human rights follows this pattern. She points to Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan and Ukraine, all countries experiencing enormous suffering. But the connection she constructs suggests a global conspiracy against certain peoples. Such simplification fuels mistrust rather than promoting solutions.
Precisely because millions of people read her words, Jolie bears responsibility. Anyone who speaks publicly with this kind of reach must not disguise one-sided accusations as humanitarian analysis. Otherwise, compassion becomes a weapon in the war of opinions – and the truth falls by the wayside.
Angelina Jolie has caused a stir with a new statement on the war in the Middle East. In front of over 16 million followers, the actress and former UN ambassador declared that Gaza is experiencing a
In her post, she cited figures and warnings from international organisations, spoke of 132,000 children in acute danger and painted a picture that attributes blame and responsibility exclusively to one side.
The choice of words is drastic, but it remains one-sided. Jolie presents the situation not as a complex humanitarian tragedy, but as deliberate policy. She claims that hunger is
and accuses governments of deliberately looking the other way. On this basis, she makes a moral accusation that is presented to her millions of followers on social media without any differentiation.
x.com
In doing so, Jolie completely fails to mention key aspects. She does not say a word about the fact that large quantities of aid supplies are reaching the region but are not getting to those most in need because armed groups are confiscating them and selling them on the black market. Her post makes no mention of the fact that millions of tonnes of food, water and medicine have been brought into the region despite the war situation. Instead, she paints a picture that gives the impression of deliberate destruction and obscures any other reality.
Back in April, Jolie spoke of Gaza becoming a
Then, as now, she chose images that stir up emotions but do not allow for sober analysis. This is not the first time that celebrities have contributed more to polarisation than to a nuanced understanding of the situation with their simplistic messages.
Jolie's reference to decades of double standards in the protection of human rights follows this pattern. She points to Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan and Ukraine, all countries experiencing enormous suffering. But the connection she constructs suggests a global conspiracy against certain peoples. Such simplification fuels mistrust rather than promoting solutions.
Precisely because millions of people read her words, Jolie bears responsibility. Anyone who speaks publicly with this kind of reach must not disguise one-sided accusations as humanitarian analysis. Otherwise, compassion becomes a weapon in the war of opinions – and the truth falls by the wayside.
Upvote
0
