I am not a creationist.

[Agonaces of Susa]

Do you have a source for this claim?

Of course.

Eratosthenes, Varro, Plutarch, Macrobius, and Shakespeare among others.

"Tertia est stella Martis quam alii Herculis dixerunt." -- Eratosthenes, librarian, 2nd century B.C.

i.e.

"Mars is the third star which others say is Hercules." -- Eratosthenes, librarian, 2nd century B.C.

Plutarch's On The Fortune of the Romans:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/plutarch/moralia/fortuna_romanorum*.html

For their [Romulus and Remus's] mother is said to have consorted with a god [Mars]; and even as they relate that Heracles was conceived during a long night (for the day was retarded in contrariety to nature, and the sun delayed), so regarding the generation and conception of Romulus they record that the sun was eclipsed and came into exact conjunction with the moon at the time when Mars, a god, consorted with the mortal Silvia.

Macrobius's Saturnalia III. 12. 5-6:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/3*.html

5 Salios autem Herculi ubertate doctrinae altioris adisgnat, quia is deus et apud pontifices idem qui et Mars habetur. 6 Et sane ita Menippea Varronis adfirmat quae inscribitur Ἄλλος οὗτος Ἡρακλῆς, in qua, cum de multo Hercule loqueretur, eundem esse ac Martem probavit. Chaldaei quoque stellam Herculis vocant quam reliqui omnes Martis appellant.

I've never once heard of Hercules being closely associated with Mars.

Now you have.

Ares is the usual analogue.

There is more than one name for Mars.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

<staff edit>
Ok well if it's not contained in the Darwinist Holy Scriptures of Wikipedia then it can't be true...LOL

Wikipedia is not a reliable, accurate, or scientific resource.

Their alleged NPOV policy is a fraud.

Just try writing something negative about Obama or positive about Bush on there.

Oh wait, nevermind, you can't because they are locked...pfff.

So much for their alleged NPOV policy.

Considering when you search "Mars Hercules" on Google, the first 5 pages are entirely about some old film, or Hercules arguing with Mars.

Considering neither of the links you gave us refer to Hercules as Mars.

I think it's safe to say, you're quote mining, again (Even though the quotes you quoted don't support your claim, anyway, making it a failed attempt at quote mining), and it's equally safe to say you're talking complete nonsense, again.

What a surprise.

I think it's safe to say you are in denial of history.

Mars - Ares, however, brings up lots of results on both Ancient Greek and Roman religion, linking the two to eachother. Mentioning that each are represented by the planet Mars.

Yes Ares is also Mars. And your point is?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

<staff edit>
Google harder.

I didn't have any trouble finding the historical passages I quoted.

I refer you to my customarily denied and ignored historical evidence posted above.

Hercules aka Mars is real.

Who do you suppose slew Neleus and all of Nestor's brothers and sisters?

I can guarantee you it was not the tooth fairy.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

<staff edit>
Your Darwinist methodology is abundantly clear.

I provide historical evidence, namely Eratosthenes, Varro, Plutarch, Macrobius, and Shakespeare among others, demonstrating that Hercules is Mars/Ares.

And you provide no historical evidence and no sources.

Clever but not persuasive.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You've provided absolutely no evidence, either. Stop saying you have, until you actually do.

LOL.

None of the links you sent refer to Hercules as Ares/Mars, or vice versa.

<staff edit>

Macrobius's Saturnalia III. 12. 5-6:

Macrobius â&#8364;¢ Saturnalia â&#8364;&#8221; Liber Tertius

5 Salios autem Herculi ubertate doctrinae altioris adisgnat, quia is deus et apud pontifices idem qui et Mars habetur. 6 Et sane ita Menippea Varronis adfirmat quae inscribitur &#7948;&#955;&#955;&#959;&#962; &#959;&#8023;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#7977;&#961;&#945;&#954;&#955;&#8134;&#962;, in qua, cum de multo Hercule loqueretur, eundem esse ac Martem probavit. Chaldaei quoque stellam Herculis vocant quam reliqui omnes Martis appellant.

"Mars is the third star which others say is Hercules." -- Eratosthenes, librarian, 2nd century B.C.

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on

​

This thread underwent major thread clean-up and many posts were deleted. If you have any questions about your post you can contact me through pm.​

If this thread generates any more reports it will be closed permanently!
Please deal with the issue and the posts not with the posters; treat each other in a civilized manner so we can maintain this discussion.
Thread re-opening now....​

Mod hat off​

 

[Gracchus]

Macrobius's Saturnalia III. 12. 5-6:

Macrobius • Saturnalia — Liber Tertius



"Mars is the third star which others say is Hercules." -- Eratosthenes, librarian, 2nd century B.C.

So the planet most call "Mars" was once called Hercules by some others. That does not mean that Mars, the deity, is the same as Hercules, the demi-god.

Now that is cleared up. Can we move on?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Hercules is Mars.

Who do you think slew Neleus and all of Nestor's brothers and sisters?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not a creationist. I believe in an old earth as well as a new one.

As do I, and I call myself an Embedded Age Creationist, for lack of a better term.

I believe God created the universe with age embedded in it, as evidenced by Adam being a mature adult.

What I do, is I take the best of both YEC and OEC paradigms and meld them into one eclectic cosmology.

I believe then, that the earth is 4.57 billion years physically, as well as 6013 years old existentially.

This cosmology then unites both science and Scripture together, so that there is no contradiction between the two.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Earth can't be two ages.

It's either or.

You can't have an object that's 5 years old, but is really 1 year old. It's impossible. All you've done is move the contradiction between science and YEC, and placed it into your own belief, that contradicts itself.

I disagree.

What's the age of this bicycle: 1 ?

 

[Doveaman]

As do I, and I call myself an Embedded Age Creationist, for lack of a better term.

I believe God created the universe with age embedded in it, as evidenced by Adam being a mature adult.

What I do, is I take the best of both YEC and OEC paradigms and meld them into one eclectic cosmology.

I believe then, that the earth is 4.57 billion years physically, as well as 6013 years old existentially.

This cosmology then unites both science and Scripture together, so that there is no contradiction between the two.

I like that.

 

[Doveaman]

I disagree.

What's the age of this bicycle: 1 ?

Does this mean the new earth is made of old parts? Was Adam made of old parts?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Does this mean the new earth is made of old parts? Was Adam made of old parts?

That's the logical conclusion that AV is desperately trying to avoid -- the only way his bicycle allegory is relevent is if both the Earth and Adam were recycled.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does this mean the new earth is made of old parts?

Yes, but not like the bicycle though.

At the time I made that thread, my intent was merely to show that the same object can have two different ages.

The bicycle itself is either Omphalos or Last Thursday (I get those two mixed up), but it has two different ages.

If the bicycle were to be embedded age, I would have said there was a parking lot, then all of a sudden there was this bicycle in it with 35 years of embedded age.

This earth is made up of old parts, but those parts didn't age [verb], they came into existence old.

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, but not like the bicycle though.

At the time I made that thread, my intent was merely to show that the same object can have two different ages.

The bicycle itself is either Omphalos or Last Thursday (I get those two mixed up), but it has two different ages.

If the bicycle were to be embedded age, I would have said there was a parking lot, then all of a sudden there was this bicycle in it with 35 years of embedded age.

This earth is made up of old parts, but those parts didn't age [verb], they came into existence old.

Well, since Adam and Eve were created "old", and Jesus created some "old" wine, and Moses' rod became an "old" snake, then there might be some validity to your theory.

But why would God put so much age into a young earth knowing that scientists would come exploring? Did He want to confuse them, or were they already confused before they began exploring?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, but not like the bicycle though.

At the time I made that thread, my intent was merely to show that the same object can have two different ages.

Now you have to show relevance.

The bicycle itself is either Omphalos or Last Thursday (I get those two mixed up), but it has two different ages.

No, it's a new machine made from old parts -- simple.

If the bicycle were to be embedded age, I would have said there was a parking lot, then all of a sudden there was this bicycle in it with 35 years of embedded age.

This earth is made up of old parts, but those parts didn't age [verb], they came into existence old.

Omphalos.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But why would God put so much age into a young earth knowing that scientists would come exploring? Did He want to confuse them, or were they already confused before they began exploring?

Either way, it would make God an author of confusion.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

MOD HAT ON

I shouldn't have to remind you guys of this, but this forum was not designed for you guys to personally insult anyone who doesn't agree with you. That goes for evolutionists, creationists, and any other -ists that decide to post here.

Argue the topic, not the person. Next post after this mod hat that personally attacks someone shuts the thread down permanently.

Capiche?

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[AV1611VET]

--- Capiche.

 

[Cabal]

--- Capiche.

I could swear that smiley is looking at me funny.....