Missing link was a lie

[Spacewyrm]

2Ti 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Inspiration is not the same as God coming in and possessing them.

2Pe 1:21 -For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That means that the holy ghost was right in there moving them.

That doesn't refer to the Bible, it refers to prophecy. And God was moving men to speak in "old time", not when this part of the Bible was written, obviously. Focus, dad! we're talking about God posessing those who wrote the Bible and controlling what they put down.

That depends. real science doesn't deal outside the box of the present. If any Christians are messing in dark dreams, falsely called science, why, tough tippy for them.

Heh. Those so-called "dark dreams" are real science. Nobody does the kind of science you approve of ('cause it's not science).

 

[dad]

Inspiration is not the same as God coming in and possessing them.

Well, if God speaks through them, it seems somewhat similar.

That doesn't refer to the Bible, it refers to prophecy. And God was moving men to speak in "old time", not when this part of the Bible was written, obviously. Focus, dad! we're talking about God posessing those who wrote the Bible and controlling what they put down.

New or old, it is all inspired. Prophesy is a big part of the bible.

Heh. Those so-called "dark dreams" are real science. Nobody does the kind of science you approve of ('cause it's not science).

Interesting. You clain science actually is dark dreams. Wow.

 

[Nostromo]

That depends, what they were talking about when...

I've already told you what they were talking about.
Joseph Smith claims an angel brought him the Book of Mormon (supposedly the closest thing to an early bible).
Villas Boas claims to have been abducted by aliens.

they sure don't set my caledar, or make nations rise and fall!

Then how about Prophet Muhammad who claims to have seen Gabriel, who told him he was the final prophet of god. 2 billion people live by that calendar, and nations have risen and fallen at the hands of the muslim army.

Is their written testimony that they were an eyewitness to such events reliable?

 

[dad]

I've already told you what they were talking about.
Joseph Smith claims an angel brought him the Book of Mormon (supposedly the closest thing to an early bible).
Villas Boas claims to have been abducted by aliens.
Then how about Prophet Muhammad who claims to have seen Gabriel, who told him he was the final prophet of god. 2 billion people live by that calendar, and nations have risen and fallen at the hands of the muslim army.

Ok, so they may as well been talking about a same state future! They have about as much credibility as a so called science believer.


Not exactly something to set the calendar with.

 

[Nostromo]

Is that no credibility? Why don't you trust their written record of history?

 

[dad]

Is that no credibility? Why don't you trust their written record of history?

because millions of witnesses never died to substansiate the fairy tales. because no one rose from the dead, and was observed. Because Rome never fell, and became the abducted by aliens new Roman empire!

 

[Tomatoman]

I've got a question:

What is the point of dad?

 

[Nostromo]

because millions of witnesses never died to substansiate the fairy tales. because no one rose from the dead, and was observed. Because Rome never fell, and became the abducted by aliens new Roman empire!

The moon was split in two for Prophet Muhammad with witnesses present.

Are you telling me that an account needs independent corroborating evidence?

 

[dad]

The moon was split in two for Prophet Muhammad with witnesses present.

Are you telling me that an account needs independent corroborating evidence?

Muhammad lived in the recent past, long long after we knew about the moon. As for how it was formed, no one in history has a more ridiculous idea of that, then modern science. It has invented some lying tale, where a mysterious planet X smashes into earth, and produces enough pixie dust to magically crazy glue itself together somehow, and presto...the moon. (or some such similar fable)

In closing, no one has made any case for the present state being required in early evolvion of man or creatures. What this means, is that a different state in the past seems likely. It also appears from the evidence that we have, in correlation with the bible, that the life processes of the day allowed long life spans, and rapid adaptation.

Unless someone has something intelligent, and relevant to say, I think many of us have had enough of the childish empty posts.

 

[Nostromo]

Muhammad lived in the blah blah blather blather...

You're ignoring the words that I actually wrote. There is a written record that states Muhammad split the moon in two, in the sky, right in front of witnesses. Is this testimony reliable? Why or why not? What does that mean for the reliability of the Bible?

You know what I'm getting at but you don't want to talk about it. You don't like to think there isn't a legitimate reason for believing one over the other, and you'd rather throw out all human knowledge than admit it's possible you picked the wrong horse.

What this means, is that a different state in the past seems likely.

It actually doesn't. If you maintain that we can't determine the state of the past, we can't say that it's more likely that it was different or the same. Fact of it is, you have to assume a different past for your idea to work. Some kind of past that can squeeze over 4 billion years of Earth's apparent history into about 6000.

On the one hand you want to show us evidence that the past was different (Dodwell and such), while on the other hand you want to maintain that science can't reliably tell us anything about the past to disprove your idea. How can you have it both ways?

 

[Tomatoman]

You can say what you like, dad, you haven't supported any of your insane ideas with evidence, thus your ideas remain just that: insane.

This is why I'm puzzled. Presumably you are considered sane by those people you live and work with each day. I'm assuming you're not in an asylum or under psychiatric observation. I'm also assuming that you can follow a simple argument, although the evidence might be going against me on that one.
Well, here's the puzzle. You've been told repeatedly that you are making stuff up, without any proof whatsoever, in order to pretend Old Testament stories are factual, even though normal Christians, (i.e. 99% of Christians) interpret those same stories metaphorically, and are quite happy to do so.

Then, to cap it all, you ask us to prove that your made up past isn't true, but refuse to accept logical refutations of your drivelling nonsense because you assert that you are right anyway and can't be wrong, so that's that. It's exactly what a child does when they've lost an argument but won't admit it.

Then you act peeved because we get bored with you and either ignore you, treat you dismissively, tell you off or give you short shrift. Precisely the way one treats a boring, annoying child, in fact.

We just want you to acknowledge that you can see the idiocy in your argument. That you won't do so is depressing because it leads to only two conclusions:

1. You're a troll, doing it on purpose to annoy.

2. You're genuinely nuts.

It's coming to something when I'm actually hoping that somebody is a troll.

 

[Meshach]

You can say what you like, dad, you haven't supported any of your insane ideas with evidence, thus your ideas remain just that: insane.

This is why I'm puzzled. Presumably you are considered sane by those people you live and work with each day. I'm assuming you're not in an asylum or under psychiatric observation. I'm also assuming that you can follow a simple argument, although the evidence might be going against me on that one.
Well, here's the puzzle. You've been told repeatedly that you are making stuff up, without any proof whatsoever, in order to pretend Old Testament stories are factual, even though normal Christians, (i.e. 99% of Christians) interpret those same stories metaphorically, and are quite happy to do so.

Then, to cap it all, you ask us to prove that your made up past isn't true, but refuse to accept logical refutations of your drivelling nonsense because you assert that you are right anyway and can't be wrong, so that's that. It's exactly what a child does when they've lost an argument but won't admit it.

Then you act peeved because we get bored with you and either ignore you, treat you dismissively, tell you off or give you short shrift. Precisely the way one treats a boring, annoying child, in fact.

We just want you to acknowledge that you can see the idiocy in your argument. That you won't do so is depressing because it leads to only two conclusions:

1. You're a troll, doing it on purpose to annoy.

2. You're genuinely nuts.

It's coming to something when I'm actually hoping that somebody is a troll.

Why do you think it is Consol that you mock, belittle, insult and are out right rude to everyone you respond too who doesn't hold your beliefs? Why do you desire to smudge the Anglicans?

 

[Tomatoman]

Why do you think it is Consol that you mock, belittle, insult and are out right rude to everyone you respond too who doesn't hold your beliefs? Why do you desire to smudge the Anglicans?

I'm trying to work out why dad is deliberately posting total rubbish, it's as simple as that. Unfortunately I've come to rather depressing conclusions.

 

[dad]

You can say what you like, dad, you haven't supported any of your insane ideas with evidence, thus your ideas remain just that: insane.

This is why I'm puzzled. Presumably you are considered sane by those people you live and work with each day. I'm assuming you're not in an asylum or under psychiatric observation. I'm also assuming that you can follow a simple argument, although the evidence might be going against me on that one.
Well, here's the puzzle. You've been told repeatedly that you are making stuff up, without any proof whatsoever, in order to pretend Old Testament stories are factual, even though normal Christians, (i.e. 99% of Christians) interpret those same stories metaphorically, and are quite happy to do so.

Then, to cap it all, you ask us to prove that your made up past isn't true,

Nope. I ask you to prove the past you claim is true! The bible past and future is fine, thank you very much, and I am not sure why you think anyone cares what you think about it, or whether it is 'insane' or not Nothing is more sane. And nothing is sillier than science resting on a premise that is not actually known at all.

but refuse to accept logical refutations of your drivelling nonsense because you assert that you are right anyway and can't be wrong, so that's that. It's exactly what a child does when they've lost an argument but won't admit it.

There are no logical refutations that were shown here yet. That is why you only refer to them, but never produce any.

Then you act peeved because we get bored with you and either ignore you, treat you dismissively, tell you off or give you short shrift. Precisely the way one treats a boring, annoying child, in fact.

Not at all, don't flatter yourself. I have a limit of patience, and when it is obvious that your claimed state of the future and past cannot be supported, and some posters resort to time wasting blather, I know there is no wind in their sails any more.

Like the missing link, that they admitted was false, and not any link at all to man. All a so called science devotee can do is make excuses for them. When the topic of how thing used to evolve, and how we know if it had to happen in this state or not comes up, no one can produce a thing here!! Funny that. So, either get up, or stay down for the count! Whether you admit losing or nnot doesn't matter. Either you have the foods or not, and we all can read here, and see that the answer is "NOT" !!!

That is why posters resort to trying to call names, and pretend they are the epitome of sanity, and yada yada blah blah.

We just want you to acknowledge that you can see the idiocy in your argument. That you won't do so is depressing because it leads to only two conclusions:

I see the supremacy of the historical and biblical positions. I see the absolute exposed and disgraceful falseness of the same state past crowd. You really can't prove that the present state extends to the time beyond obdervation and knowledge, period.

1. You're a troll, doing it on purpose to annoy.

2. You're genuinely nuts.

It's coming to something when I'm actually hoping that somebody is a troll.

The challenge to those that have assumed something that is the very heart and foundation of science, but that obviously can't be evidenced, questions their very grip on sanity. The choices are to be honest, and take another look at what science bases claims that oppose the bible on. Or to cling to nothing, in a sinking ship, and also be found to be in denial of the records and bible, and spiritual..for no reason at all! That can actually lead to insanity, by the way. The real deal.,,

 

[dad]

You're ignoring the words that I actually wrote. There is a written record that states Muhammad split the moon in two, in the sky, right in front of witnesses. Is this testimony reliable? Why or why not? What does that mean for the reliability of the Bible?

You know what I'm getting at but you don't want to talk about it. You don't like to think there isn't a legitimate reason for believing one over the other, and you'd rather throw out all human knowledge than admit it's possible you picked the wrong horse.

The so called science horse doesn't run backwards very well. Ridiculous to behold, really.

It actually doesn't. If you maintain that we can't determine the state of the past, we can't say that it's more likely that it was different or the same.

Close. See, the thing is YOU cannot determine, science cannot determine the state of anything out of this present state! I don't need to. God told us. It is determined already. The problem for the so called science crowd, is that they are not the ones to determine it after all.

Fact of it is, you have to assume a different past for your idea to work. Some kind of past that can squeeze over 4 billion years of Earth's apparent history into about 6000.

You have to assume a same state, you mean, to stretch the actual time since creation, to arrive at the imaginary billions of years dream. Simple. And it is a dream, until you prove the state you claim!

On the one hand you want to show us evidence that the past was different (Dodwell and such), while on the other hand you want to maintain that science can't reliably tell us anything about the past to disprove your idea. How can you have it both ways?

Knowing the axis of the earth tilted, and that 'something' caused it, does not tell us the state of the past either.

 

[Split Rock]

You can say what you like, dad, you haven't supported any of your insane ideas with evidence, thus your ideas remain just that: insane.

This is why I'm puzzled. Presumably you are considered sane by those people you live and work with each day. I'm assuming you're not in an asylum or under psychiatric observation. I'm also assuming that you can follow a simple argument, although the evidence might be going against me on that one.
Well, here's the puzzle. You've been told repeatedly that you are making stuff up, without any proof whatsoever, in order to pretend Old Testament stories are factual, even though normal Christians, (i.e. 99% of Christians) interpret those same stories metaphorically, and are quite happy to do so.

Then, to cap it all, you ask us to prove that your made up past isn't true, but refuse to accept logical refutations of your drivelling nonsense because you assert that you are right anyway and can't be wrong, so that's that. It's exactly what a child does when they've lost an argument but won't admit it.

Then you act peeved because we get bored with you and either ignore you, treat you dismissively, tell you off or give you short shrift. Precisely the way one treats a boring, annoying child, in fact.

We just want you to acknowledge that you can see the idiocy in your argument. That you won't do so is depressing because it leads to only two conclusions:

1. You're a troll, doing it on purpose to annoy.

2. You're genuinely nuts.

It's coming to something when I'm actually hoping that somebody is a troll.

Actually, dad represents The Ulimate Evolution of The Creationist. All creationists resort to ad hockery to support their fallible interpretation of scripture. This is becasue they cannot accept that their interpretation of scipture may be wrong (they have no mechanism for determining if they are wrong anyway). Dad takes this path to its logical conclusion: Complete and Total Ad Hoc Rationalization of his personal interpretation of scripture.

 

[Nostromo]

You have to assume a same state, you mean, to stretch the actual time since creation, to arrive at the imaginary billions of years dream. Simple. And it is a dream, until you prove the state you claim!

The difference being that thousands of years of experience provide us with a reason to believe in a 'same state' universe.

 

[BananaSlug]

So wasn't Charles Manson also called to the stand?

The point is that eyewitnesses can lie or be mistaken.

Though one rise from the dead, yet will they not believe. He did, and they still did not believe. Miracles probably do not make us believe. An inward change I think does that, after we ask Him in.

Do you believe in Islam? The Koran mentions many miracles that you have not witnessed. Why do you not believe in it?

I didn't see the Manhatten project, yet I believe they made a bomb.

Duh, because we can see the effects of the bomb today. We can watch nuclear weapon testing videos. We can see it with our own eyes. That was a poor comparison.

No. I agree it may have, dates aside. That depends on the universe state when it formed! You need to know that. Otherwise you look only at how it is now formed, and assume stuff.

We know that pillow lava forms underwater. What reason do we have to assume that it formed differently in the past?

So you can accept a different state Eden, and new heavens and earth coming? You are 85% there, if you do!

I don't even believe in a "same state" Eden. I don't believe Eden ever existed.

The penalty of sin is death.

Why? Why does the penalty of sin have to be death?

That means separation from God, basically. That means forever. The price had to be paid. Maybe some other Christian has some answers here..?

Let me ask you this. Would you send a human being to Hell for not loving you?

I doubt there will be sin. There will be no more death... So maybe it will be a thing of the past for us..?

Then what about free will? Will we not have free will in the New Earth?

I wonder if that is referring to the city after a nuclear explosion or something? It is in a war zone. Point is, that most of the bible is already fulfilled. There are degrees of fulfillment, and there is ultimate fulfillment. Israel will be gather by God to that land also, but just because some jumped the gun, does not mean that prophesy is fulfilled either. Yet.

And what if it is never fullfilled? What about the other verses I gave?

No, it means that the generation that starts to see the stuff really happening will see the end of things.

He specifically said "this generation" when speaking to the disciples.

Matthew 24:32-34 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

You can't. They exist only in your head. All you do is demonstrate a lack of depth, and grasp.

Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.

If they believe that Jesus will save them, of course. God is not partial. Whosoever will, let him come...

I think you misunderstood me. I meant if a follower of Islam felt the same way about their religion, does that mean their religion is true?

I don't see why not, apparently that is known...no? I agree with what is known. Really.

So you agree that it was formed underwater in the past as well. If not, why should we assume the formation of pillow lava was different in the past?

Is there a specific verse that said that Jesus would first come as a man and a child, and then later return to earth as a ruler of all and king? Sort of.

So you are admitting that the prophecies in the Bible are vague? Do you find it interesting that all religious prophecies are so vague? Where the prophets not good enough to be specific?

But remember, the bible is a living book, and some mysteries are revealed in God's good time. Once we have the key, we can look back, and it all starts to make sense, things, that formerly were a mystery.

So why did God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden in the first place? Why did God create Satan?

Kid's blocks in comparison to His stuff.

Then why was he so scared of a few people with mud bricks?

Look into it. The process of photosynthesis and drawing water and nutrients from the ground, etc seems to take time. I haven't seen then grow an orange tree grove in a week, that produces fruit, have you??

So are you admitting God is so weak he cannot supercede the natural laws he put into place?

Right, In other words, advanced sin. Extreme sin. Wickedness.

Well then let's look at the next verse.

38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Matthew 24:38-39

It seems to me that Christ said they were living their normal lives. There is no mention of a different state past.

I am not aware that this refers to laws of physics? But, you could have something there Why?

I was not aware the "split" mentioned in Genesis refered to the laws of physics either. That is what's best about the Bible, anyone can interpret any vague verse in any way they like. Most likely the split is just the people separating out into the world after Babel. You interpret as some great change in the laws of physics.

Because those days are a certain time, also known as the great tribulation. I notice many things in that period that suggest, indeed that this state may no longer be in place!?

Do you have a guestimate as to when the tribulation will happen?

Such as men seeking death, but not being able to find it, such as stars falling from the heaven, and spirits among men again, angels, etc etc. So we can certainly look at that.

I'll be keeping an eye out for it.

This stuff is so easy.

You keep telling yourself that.

 

[mpok1519]

-grabs popcorn- who needs tv when there's such great entertainment in REAL life with real(but unrealistic) people!

 

[Spacewyrm]

Well, if God speaks through them, it seems somewhat similar.

Inspiration isn't the same as God speaking directly through people. Not even close. Really.

New or old, it is all inspired. Prophesy is a big part of the bible.

Prophesy's a big part of the Bible, sure. But not most of the Bible. The Bible's a whole lot more than prophesy. And inspiration isn't the same as being controlled by God.

Interesting. You clain science actually is dark dreams. Wow.

I clain nothing of the sort. Though now I understand why your Biblical interpretations are so off-the-wall. Focus, dad, and try to understand what I'm saying. You are the one who says science is actually dark dreams.