Missing link was a lie

[Nostromo]

OK. So, bottom line, the pagans fell apart, and the Christians, at least nominally, rose to ascendancy. The power of the gospel facts of the life of Jesus is a real and powerful force.

In the same sense that Muhammad, Kami and Zeus are real and powerful. That is to say, people are willing to act based on their belief in them.

Ah, but is it really!?? How would we know? That is just the surface reasons that we can see.

What I'm saying is that all your reasons appear to reduce to the same thing, that all those other Christians must have been onto something. If that's true, why isn't it valid for all the Muslims, Buddhists or Pagans?

There could be more to it. That is the problem with carnal thinking, it only scratches the surface. I don't mind that so much, what is pathetic, is that they presume to know almost all things by this little superficial smattering of facts they manage to glean. Like so called science! They look at the present, and presume to divine the future and past from it!

The funny thing about this is that you are the one who is presuming to know. You're telling us all that these things in the Bible are facts, and that science is wrong. How can you be any more certain than anyone else?

 

[driewerf]

I believe that God the Creator, created heaven and earth. I believe that He is infinite.

Very fine of you to believe that. But what you believe or don't has nothin,h to do with how the outside world works.

I am not.

Obviously.

Science is stumbling along, attempting to understand His creation...

Understanding the world.

and has an "Oops!" factor that is quite amusing. Always has and still is.

Science is cool, indeed.

Science epitomizes how flawed man is, even as he thinks he "knows sumthin' fer sher" but then the error of that assumption flies in his face later.

Not really. But the scientific community takes the fallability of humans into account. That's why scientits have build in so much control mechanisms, like peer review publishing, testing hypotheses etc.

 

[driewerf]

Calm down. My normal life happens to be in the here and now. Right in this present state. As long as science sticks here, to what it KNOWS, it is real science. (even though much of that is evil, like womd)

Emphasising the fact that YOU capitalised the word "knows", you want the end of every scientific resaerch. For research is just that: explore what we don't know yet. Interesting view you have on science.

 

[driewerf]

Well this is exactly what I'm asking you. If there's no reason to think the past might have been the same, and no evidence that can support it, why hold that opinion or even put it forward as an idea?

We don't have to prove the Laws of nature were the same as now. You claim they were, well prove it. Tell us how they changed, and how we can see this in de remais of the past (fossils, archeological evidence, geological starta, astronomical data, anything).

 

[driewerf]

I wonder...

Maybe that would depend on how far we look? If we just look locally, like to the sun, tes, we have a little delay in the present state light getting here. However, for the same to be true far far away, you would need to prove that the far away universe is all in the same state. The more I look at the failure of you guys to do that simple little thing (at least so far) the more I doubt your whole trip.

O, but that is easy enough. The fact that stars, and a specially distant supernovas in distant galaxies behave in exact the same way as those near by is prove enough. Even the simple fact that stars are visible in far distant galaxies proves this. The slightest imballance between the gravitational constant, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force and the elektromagnetic force, would invalidate the existence or visibility of distant stars.

 

[driewerf]

Perhaps you can help explain the reasoning then, as dad has been unable to.

1.Why does a disagreement mean that everyone is wrong?
2.Scientists in all fields disagree all the time. Does that mean all of science is wrong?
3.Does being wrong mean one is lying?

Peter

I think there is an explanation for the abundant use of the words liar, lie, lying etc. I can't post links here yet, but check some video's by Kent Hovind. He uses these words even more often.

I think that creationists are so distorted in their worldview that they even can't do otherwise. They have an agenda: they want to use science (rather, their masquarade of it) to evangelise. For them, everything is good, as long as it wins people to their flock. They can't grasp that science hasn't such an agenda. Science is an attempt of discribing the physical world, not about winning people to this or that world view. But that creationists can' grasp. So they think that everything that contradicts the most litteral reading of the Bible is a direct attack on them and on their religion. They're to much bonded o the view that scietist have a hidden agenda- like creationists have.

There is a second reason. Someone who commits an error and admits it, you give him a second chance. A liar you don't. By constantly labeling scienists as liars, Kent Hovind and the like assure a constant distrust.

 

[driewerf]

They require no creator, and a same state, neither of which can be proven. Neither of which are true. They did the claim crime, and they must do the claim time.

And you claim changing conditions, for which there is no reason to believe in (except to fit your bias), for which there is no evidence, not even the slightest hint. On the contrary, phsycical evidence points toward constancy in all the fundamental laws of nature.
The burden of prove lies on you.
So start to tell us what conditions were different.
How we could see this in the remains of the past?
How did these laws of nature change?

As long as you don't do anything of these, you are only producing hot air.

 

[dad]

We don't have to prove the Laws of nature were the same as now.

Let me get this straight, you claim that you do not need any evidence whatsoever for the premise you use to formulate scientific claims about the creation era. OK. So, let me ask you, why would anyone else need to, according to your standards? You will need to learn the difference between knowing, and making up any ungodly little fable you wish, and calling it science.

You claim they were, well prove it. Tell us how they changed, and how we can see this in de remais of the past (fossils, archeological evidence, geological starta, astronomical data, anything).

Well, I claim that you have no scientific evidence for your assumption that the earth was in a certain state. And you don't. Anyone will see that you have failed, and will fail to provide any. Instead, you appeal to ignorance, in that you seem to think we somehow just need to take your word for it, for no reason whatsoever. Can you see the chink in your armor here?

It is not I that claim it was different, so much as God. He point blank tells us that the future will be as different as different can be. In fact this universe we know will pass away, as is. Yet, so called science prophesies doom and death and gloom for this present state universe, trillions of years in an imaginary future! 'Oh, a big black hole will gobble it all up, kids'

Fossils? We have a record of all sorts of hyper evolved from the kinds creatures. Archeological evidence, geological strata, astronomical data? It all supports a different state past! Don't throw out such vague quasi claims.

 

[dad]

O, but that is easy enough. The fact that stars, and a specially distant supernovas in distant galaxies behave in exact the same way as those near by is prove enough.

If the universe changed, I might ask you, how is it they would behave as if they were not in this universe??? But, since you brought it up, ..prove it!!! I am interested to find out if the whole universe was changed, or just a more localized area near earth.

Even the simple fact that stars are visible in far distant galaxies proves this.

Not at all. It proves that starlight coming in, is in the present state light. How long that was so is the issue. Try to get you head round that one.

The slightest imballance between the gravitational constant, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force and the elektromagnetic force, would invalidate the existence or visibility of distant stars.

You are talking about a change IN this state and fabric of the universe and laws. That is not an issue. It was NOT a change IN OUR laws. That moots your point, somethin fierce.

 

[dad]

Emphasising the fact that YOU capitalised the word "knows", you want the end of every scientific resaerch. For research is just that: explore what we don't know yet. Interesting view you have on science.

It is precisely what you do NOT know, that I am exploring! Work on that.

 

[dad]

In the same sense that Muhammad, Kami and Zeus are real and powerful. That is to say, people are willing to act based on their belief in them.

Spirits are real, good and bad. My Spirit is the Great Spirit, the One true God, the creator of heaven and earth. He can stand the competition.

What I'm saying is that all your reasons appear to reduce to the same thing, that all those other Christians must have been onto something. If that's true, why isn't it valid for all the Muslims, Buddhists or Pagans?

If you are referring to the calendar issue, no. I was suggesting that if God operated behind the scenes, then the real reason the calendar points to Jesus every direction, is more than the decisions and acts of men.

The funny thing about this is that you are the one who is presuming to know. You're telling us all that these things in the Bible are facts, and that science is wrong. How can you be any more certain than anyone else?

Well, that should be easy as far as science goes. They cannot prove a same state universe existed. Nor can they prove it will exist in the future. They are obviously not qualified, therefore to comment on them. As for believers being certain of God and His word, we have many reasons. We saw our Friend rise from the dead. We saw His new body. We saw the prophesies fulfilled. We ate with Him, touched Him, handled Him, saw Him. We feel the spiritual gifts and presence of Him today. He does stuff for us. Stuff that a physical only minded outside observer is not privy to.

 

[Tomatoman]

dad:

Stuff that a physical only minded outside observer is not privy to.

Like what?

I see your God complex isn't getting any better. You are still using 'they' about human thinking (carnal isn't quite the right word, you know, not in the context you were using it.). You must try and remember that you are human too, dad.

That is the problem with carnal thinking, it only scratches the surface. I don't mind that so much, what is pathetic, is that they presume to know almost all things by this little superficial smattering of facts they manage to glean. Like so called science! They look at the present, and presume to divine the future and past from it

So here we have dad once again demonstrating his problems with reality.

1. dad is privy to spiritual gifts that are unavailable to the rest of us.

2. dad describes humans as 'they' and distances himself from them by pouring derision on 'their...pathetic...science'. Notice 'their' again. And finally, 'they presume to divine'. (It's a wonder God bothered to create us in the first place, really, given how utterly hopeless and stupid we are. Wouldn't you have expected God to have done better? Anyway.) The irony is stunning. dad presumes nothing of the sort himself, of course. He just knows. dad is clearly not one of us. dad is special. It is this specialness that is at the root of his problems. Until dad recognises that his own thinking is far more seriously flawed than that he criticises, in fact so seriously flawed as to be medically diagnosable as delusional, he cannot be talked to. dad can't be talked to because he's not living in the same world as the rest of us. In short, he's gone a bit loopy.

 

[BananaSlug]

About what? The future? No. All Christians believe in a new heavens. About Adam? No, he really lived...

I meant wrong about the "different state past".

Your site gave dates " 2400--2390 BCE " but no basis for them, it is a useless site. I automatically assume that any person or site, or anything at all that uses "BCE" is out to lunch. It is a virtual certainty. Really. Let's face it, unless you want to resort to the king lists, and I doubt that, the so called dates are present state decay based. Worthless.

Then let's go through the list!

EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD
1st Dynasty
(3050 - 2890)
Little actual history is known of the pharaohs of the early dynasties. Their monuments, however, are some of the most studied artifacts in the world.
Horus Aha
Djer (Itit)
Djet (Wadj)
Den (Udimu)
Anendjib
Semerkhet
Qa'a

2nd Dynasty
(3890-2686)

Hetepsekhemwy (Hotepsekhemwy)
Reneb (Nebra)
Ninetjer (Nynetjer)
Peribsen (Seth-Peribsen)
Khasekhemwy

OLD KINGDOM
The age of the Pyramid. The pyramids of Giza and Dahshur are built during this period.

3rd Dynasty
Sanakhte (Nebka) 2650 - 2630
Netjerykhet (Djoser) 2630 - 2611
Sekhemkhet (Djoser Teti) 2611 - 2603
Khaba 2603 - 2599
Huni 2599 - 2575

4th Dynasty
Snefru 2575 - 2551
Khufu (Cheops) 2551 - 2528
Djedefre 2528 - 2520
Khafre (Chephren) 2520 - 2494
Menkaure (Mycerinus) 2490 - 2472
Shepseskaf 2472 - 2467

5th Dynasty
Userkaf 2465 - 2458
Sahure 2458 - 2446
Neferirkare Kakai 2477-2467
Shepseskare Ini 2426 - 2419
Neferefre 2419 - 2416
Niuserre Izi 2453 - 2422
Menkauhor 2422 - 2414
Djedkare Izezi 2388 - 2356
Unas 2375-2345

6th Dynasty
Teti 2345 - 2333
Pepy I (Meryre) 2332 - 2283
Merenre Nemtyemzaf 2283 2278
Pepy II (Neferkare) 2278 - 2184

FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD
This was a very troubled time. There was a breakdown of centralized government, with many kings having overlapping reigns. Montuhotep established order from his capital at Thebes.

7th and 8th Dynasties
2150 - 2135
Netrikare
Menkare
Neferkare II
Neferkare III
Djedkare II
Neferkare IV
Merenhor
Menkamin I
Nikare
Neferkare V
Neferkahor
Neferkare VI
Neferkamin II
Ibi I
Neferkaure
Neferkauhor
Neferirkare II

Attested Kings about whom nothing more is known
Wadjkare
Sekhemkare
Iti
Imhotep
Isu
Iytenu

9th and 10th Dynasties
2135 - 1986
Neferkare
several kings named Kheti
Meri-Hathor (?)
Merikare

11th Dynasty
Inyotef I (Sehertawy) 2134 - 2117
Inyotef II (Wahankh) 2117-2069
Inyotef III (Nakhtnebtepnefer) 2069 - 2060

MIDDLE KINGDOM
This period is marked with foreign trade and enormous building projects. There is a refinement in the making of jewelry. Prosperity and renaissance existed for a long period of time, but eventually, internal problems become apparent.

11th Dynasty
Mentuhotep II 2055 -2004
Mentuhotep III (Sankhkare) 2004 - 1992
Mentuhotep IV (Nebtawyre) 1992 - 1987

12th Dynasty
Amenemhet I (Sehetepibre) 1991 - 1962
Senusret I (Kheperkare) 1956 - 1911
Amenemhet II (Nubkaure) 1911 - 1877
Senusret II (Khakheperre) 1877 - 1870
Senusret III (Khakaure) 1836 - 1817
Amenemhet III (Nimaatre) 1817 - 1772
Amenemhet IV (Maakherure) 1772 - 1763
Neferusobek (Sobekkare) 1763 - 1759

SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD
The Hyksos invade and conquer. Eventually the Theban princes regain power. Kamose defeats the Hyksos.

13th Dynasty
Wegaf 1783-1779
Amenemhat-senebef
Sekhemre-khutawi
Amenemhat V
Sehetepibre I
Iufni
Amenemhat VI
Semenkare
Sehetepibre II
Sewadjkare
Nedjemibre
Sobekhotep I
Reniseneb
Hor I
Amenemhat VII
Sobekhotep II
Khendjer
Imira-mesha
Antef IV
Seth
Sobekhotep III
Neferhotep I 1696 - 1686
Sihathor 1685 - 1685
Sobekhotep IV 1685 - 1678
Sobekhotep V 1678 - 1674
Iaib 1674 - 1664
Ay 1664 - 1641
Ini I
Sewadjtu
Ined
Hori
Sobekhotep VI
Dedumes I
Ibi II
Hor II
Senebmiu
Sekhanre I
Merkheperre
Merikare

14th Dynasty
Nehesi
Khatire
Nebfaure
Sehabre
Meridjefare
Sewadjkare
Heribre
Sankhibre
Kanefertemre
Neferibre
Ankhkare, ...

15th Dynasty
Salitis
Bnon
Apachnan (Khian)
Apophis (Auserre Apepi)
Khamudi

16th Dynasty
Anat-Her
User-anat
Semqen
Zaket
Wasa
Qar
Pepi III
Bebankh
Nebmaatre
Nikare II
Aahotepre
Aaneterire
Nubankhre
Nubuserre
Khauserre
Khamure
Jacob-Baal
Yakbam
Yoam
Amu, ...

17th Dynasty
Antef V
Rahotep
Sobekemzaf I
Djehuti
Mentuhotep VII
Nebirau I
Nebirau II
Semenenre
Suserenre
Sobekemzaf II
Antef VI
Antef VIITao I (Senakhtenre)
Tao II (Sekenenre)
Kamose (Wadjkheperre)

NEW KINGDOM
Extreme prosperity and renaissance in art and building projects mark the beginning of this period. Towards the end of the 19th Dynasty the increasing power of the priesthood corrupts the central government. During the 20th Dynasty tomb robbing is done by officials. The priesthood becomes hereditary and begins to assume secular power. The government breaks down.

18th Dynasty
Ahmose (Nebpehtyre) 1539 - 1514
Amenhotep I (Djeserkare) 1514 - 1493
Thutmose I (Akheperkare) 1493 - 1481
Thutmose II (Akheperenre) 1491 - 1479
Hatshepsut (Maatkare) 1473 - 1458
Thutmose III (Menkheperre) 1504 - 1450
Amenhotep II (Akheperure) 1427 - 1392
Thutmose IV (Menkheperure) 1419 - 1386
Amenhotep III (Nebmaatre) 1382 - 1344
Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten 1350 - 1334
Smenkhkare (Ankhkheperure) 1336-1334
Tutankhamun (Nebkheperure) 1334 - 1325
Ay (Kheperkheperure) 1325 - 1321
Horemheb (Djeserkheperure) 1323 - 1295

19th Dynasty
Ramesses I (Menpehtyre) 1295 - 1294
Seti I (Menmaatre) 1394 - 1279
Ramesses II (Usermaatresetepenre) 1279 - 1213
Merenptah (Baenrehotephirmaat) 1213 - 1203
Amenmesse (Menmire) 1203 - 1200
Seti II (Userkheperuresetepenre) 1200 - 1194
Siptah (Akhenresetepenre) 1194 - 1188
Tausert (Sitremeritamun) 1185-1187

20th Dynasty
Setakht (Userkhauremeryamun) 1186 - 1184
Ramesses III (Usermaatremeryamun) 1184 - 1153
Ramesses IV (Hekamaatresetepenamun) 1153 - 1147
Ramesses V (Usermaatresekheperenre) 1147 - 1143
Ramesses VI (Nebmaatremeryamun) 1143 - 1136
Ramesses VII (Usermaatresetepenre) 1136 - 1129
Ramesses VIII (Usermaatreakhenamun) 1129 - 1126
Ramesses IX (Neferkaresetepenre) 1126 - 1108
Ramesses X (Khepermaatresetepenre) 1108 - 1099
Ramesses XI (Menmaatresetepenptah) 1099 - 1069


THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD
The capital moves from Tanis to Libyan, to Nubia, to Thebes, to SAIS, and then back to Nubia and Thebes.

21st Dynasty
Northern KingsSouthern Rulers at Thebes
Smedes 1070-1044
Herihor 1080-1074
Amenemnisu 1040
Piankh 1074-1070
Psusennes I 1040-992
Pinedjem I 1070-1032
Amenope 993-984
Masaherta 1054-1046
Osochor 984-978
Menkheperre 1045-992
Siamun 978-959
Smendes II 992-990
Psusennes II 959-945
Pinedjem II 990-969
Psusennes III 969-945

22nd Dynasty
Shoshenq I 945-924
Osorkon I 924-909
Takelot 909--?
Shoshenq II ?--883
Osorkon II 883-855
Takelot II 860-835
Shoshenq III 835-783
Pami 783-773
Shoshenq IV 773-735
Osorkon IV 735-712


23rd Dynasty
Pedubaste I 828-803
Osorkon IV 777-749
Peftjauwybast 740-725

24th Dynasty
Shepsesre Tefnakht I 725-720
Wahkare Bakenranef 720-715


LATE KINGDOM
The Nubians fall under the Assyrians invasion. The Greeks help re-establish order. A renaissance in the arts of the 25th Dynasty shows a return to the Old Kingdom style.

25th Dynasty
Piye 747-716 BC
Shebaka 712-698
Shebitku 698-690
Taharqa 690-664
Tantamani 664-657

26th Dynasty
Psammetichus I (Psam-tik) 664-610
Nekau (Necho) II 610-595
Psammetichus II 595-589
Apries 589-570
Amasis 570-526
Psammetichus III 526-525

27th Dynasty
Cambyses 525-522
Darius I 521-486
Xerxes I 486-466
Artaxerxes I 465-424
Darius II 424-404


28th Dynasty
Amyrtaios 404-399

29th Dynasty
Nepherites I 399-393
Psammuthis 393
Hakoris 393-380
Nepherites II 380


30th Dynasty
The 30th Dynasty contains the last of the Egyptian-born Pharaohs.
Nectanebo I 380-362
Teos 365-360
Nectanebo II 360-343


SECOND PERSIAN PERIOD (343-332 B.C.)

31st Dynasty
The 31st Dynasty in also known as the Second Persian Period and was added after Manetho created his list of kings..
Ochus (Artaxerxes III) 343-338
Arses 338-336
Darius III Codomannus 335-332

GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD (332 B.C. - 395 A.D.)
Macedonian Kings - Alexandria
Alexander the Great 332-323
Philip Arrhidaeus 323-316
Alexander IV 316-304

Ptolemaic Dynasty
This period is confusing due to all of the co-regencies. Scholars are not always in agreement on the order of reigns and, in some case, the reigns themselves, from Ptolemy VI through Ptolemy XI. In any event, Egypt's authority and wealth was intact until the death of Cleopatra, at which time, Egypt was overpowered by Rome.
Ptolemy I Soter I 323-285
Ptolemy II Philadelphus 282-246
Ptolemy III Euergeter I 246-222
Ptolemy IV Philopator 222-205
Ptolemy V Epiphanes 205-180
Ptolemy VI Philometor 180-164 163-145
Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator 145
Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II 170-163 &
145-116
Cleopatra III & Ptolemy IX Soter II 116-107 &
88-80
Cleopatra III & Ptolemy X Alexander I 107-88
Cleopatra Berenice 81-80
Ptolemy XI Alexander II 80
Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos 80-58 &
55-51
Berenice IV 58-55
Cleopatra VII & Ptolemy XIII 51-47
Cleopatra & Ptolemy XIV 47-44
Cleopatra VII & Ptolemy XV Cesarion 44-30 BC

Egyptian Kings (Pharaohs)

I'll continue the rest of the reply in another post. What do you say to the above? It is the King's list you so often talk about.

 

[BananaSlug]

Earth calling Bslug...the dates are wrong wrong wrong. Try to support them and watch them crumble.

I provided the King's list you hold so dear. Are you going to say it is wrong now as well?

At last, a glimmer of hope. You are starting to catch on...the dates are wrong wrong wrong.

Why? Because you don't agree with them?

Easy, same way a pink unicorn can fit. Your dates are wrong. Nothing needs to fit a dream date.

So how can 3,000 years worth of Egyptian rulers fit into a period of less than 2,000 years?

Nope. I suspect that sin will no longer be one of the things around to chose from.

Then why didn't God just do that from the beginning? Isn't that the basis of the argument for him giving us the choice in the first place?

Nonsense. Nothing could be awe inspiring about a god that lies, and makes up stories about Adam, and etc, if they never existed.

So you think the historical truth is more important than the spiritual truth? Does that make Jesus a liar if his parables never literally happened?

I might ask the education systems of the world the same thing. Why make stuff up to replace God?

We are not replacing God. We are merely attempting to describe the events of the natural world in natural, testable means.

Maybe they are tight? See, the separatiion of continents happened at the same time as the split, basically, best I can tell so far. So, why not?

What do you mean? We know in this "present" state that geologic folding is caused due to to plates slowing being pushed together. The heat generated from the intense pressure causes the rock to bend and fold. That is the explanation we use. What would your explanation be?

Will the river of life in New Jerusalem be present state water? Who can know that?

Apparently you do. Do you not claim to be "God's little echo"?

Well, if matter is spiritual and physical, gravity could not affect us in the way it does. Gravity is apparently a force that works on physical objects! Jesus rose up to heaven in His spiritual and physical body. The New Jerusalem is 1500 miles high, doesn't sound like gravity will limit the home owners!

Yes, and planes fly because? What exactly is "spiritual matter"?

Nope. How would I know whether water used to cover some of Autralia after the flood for a bit? If so, could the area have been uplifted, or pushed around, so that molten rock formed? If so maybe it could have been in the changeover time? Or, if it was formed on dry land pre split, then we would be looking at pillow lava forming differently! You haven't given details enough to reach sweeping conclusions.

It is pillow lava. You have already state you did not have a problem with pillow lava forming underwater. Now you are trying to backtrack because I got you.
Pillow lava - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dad]

dad:
Like what?

Like inspiration, salvation, spiritual gifts, and etc...

I see your God complex isn't getting any better. You are still using 'they' about human thinking (carnal isn't quite the right word, you know, not in the context you were using it.). You must try and remember that you are human too, dad.

Blather. I think we all know that we are human. Focus.

So here we have dad once again demonstrating his problems with reality.

1. dad is privy to spiritual gifts that are unavailable to the rest of us.

Ever heard of Paul? He wrote stuff. Ask someone that read it. Pretty basic stuff, I might add. This is news??

2. dad describes humans as 'they' and distances himself from them by pouring derision on 'their...pathetic...science'. Notice 'their' again. And finally, 'they presume to divine'.

The bible refers to man's wisdom. I like to try to make it clear I am not a fan of it, generally speaking, especially as it goes to infinity and beyond.

(It's a wonder God bothered to create us in the first place, really, given how utterly hopeless and stupid we are.

Well, I sometimes wonder why He died for us. Would you? Guess He is higher than we are.

The irony is stunning. dad presumes nothing of the sort himself, of course. He just knows.

I came.
I saw.
I read the bible
I conquered.

dad is clearly not one of us. dad is special. It is this specialness that is at the root of his problems. Until dad recognises that his own thinking is far more seriously flawed than that he criticises, in fact so seriously flawed as to be medically diagnosable as delusional, he cannot be talked to. dad can't be talked to because he's not living in the same world as the rest of us. In short, he's gone a bit loopy.

There are sore losers, and then there are sore losers. This has got to be a classic...

Suggestion: In a debate, discuss the issues. Offer evidence. Be civil.

 

[Tomatoman]

Like inspiration, salvation, spiritual gifts, and etc...

Inspiration is very human. Darwin experienced it when he arrived at the theory of evolution. Einstein experienced it when he formulated the special theory of relativity. Don't think God had much to do with either of those. Salvation is a very human concept too, but it's always fun to hear your idea of salvation, dad, and especially what you think happens to those who aren't saved. Spiritual gifts....you tell me. That seems to be more your domain. What can you mean?

Blather. I think we all know that we are human. Focus.

I'd be more convinced that you did if you'd specifically said, "I know that I'm human". I notice that you dislike being called on this point. Interesting.

Ever heard of Paul? He wrote stuff. Ask someone that read it. Pretty basic stuff, I might add. This is news??

I see. That's the extent of it is it? What Paul said didn't mean much to me, perhaps it does to you. Perhaps you'd tell me what it means to you, particularly pointing out the differences between a spiritual gift and a natural human ability.

The bible refers to man's wisdom. I like to try to make it clear I am not a fan of it, generally speaking, especially as it goes to infinity and beyond

.

Groan, here we go again. You are "not a fan of man's wisdom". It might be worth reminding you again that you are a man too. You're wisdom is subject to the same criteria as everyone else's, although this seems to elude you. The fact that you are not troubled by this double standard and see no internal conflict in your logic is what leads me to the conclusions you don't like.

Well, I sometimes wonder why He died for us. Would you? Guess He is higher than we are.

In other words you don't know, but admit the story seems odd given your opinion of humans.

I came.
I saw.
I read the bible
I conquered.

No, you read the bible and then started making up rubbish to make the real world fit the bible. In other words, you stopped thinking. Probably didn't bother to read much of anything else either. You certainly haven't conquered, In fact, how many people have you persuaded of your ideas again? (If you've forgotten, that was one of the questions you've avoided answering in this thread. One of many.)

There are sore losers, and then there are sore losers. This has got to be a classic...

A curious interpretation of basic criticism of your thinking skills, and concern as to your mental health. Still most things seem to go over your head or be interpreted incorrectly, so I'm not surprised.

Suggestion: In a debate, discuss the issues. Offer evidence.

The irony. THE IRONY. (You're missing the irony aren't you, dad...)

Be civil.

Believe me, I'm trying.

 

[Nostromo]

Perhaps dad measures success by the number of people who think he's mentally ill.

 

[Split Rock]

Perhaps dad measures success by the number of people who think he's mentally ill.

Arguing with dad is like talking to a brick. Not a brick wall... just a brick.

 

[BananaSlug]

I'm surprised dad has not replied to my posts yet... Maybe he is doing some research.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm surprised dad has not replied to my posts yet... Maybe he is doing some research.

I can answer for him:

"The dates are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,wrong.

Why? because I don't like them, and God told me so. "