There's no evidence that Jesus ever came back from the dead, and the only prophecy you told me about was written after it came true.
In other words you reject the evidence and wish to limit what evidence is acceptable to ridiculous after the fact vague standards that could never begin to apply. Just be honest you reject the evidence.
You have no knowledge, just assumptions based on nothing, and your explanations are bad jokes and it's impossible to predict anything with them or use them for any practical purpose.
Don't worry about name calling for folks that have what science admits being unable to have..knowledge. Do you claim to know what time is? Gravity? The laws in the past? etc etc..or do you claim like so many others that science isn't about knowing?
For you, destroying one of the deadliest diseases known to men is merely dust on a scale, yet you care about abortions? Sounds pretty strange.
That was my science not yours. Real science. The so called sciennce we are discussing here is the two bit fraudulent stuff that makes claims about the far past and future.
Oh, really? Then I suggest you provide me some quotes from the bible that show your definition of present is right. And some scientific data, too.
The future is well laid out in the bible. 'heaven and earth shall pass away..' 'new heavens and new earth' etc. This state and world and nature we know is temporal.
When we apply 'present' to the nature we live in, that involves more than a few moments. It has been around a long time. What we are discussing is how long present nature and laws are known to have existed and to continue existing.
So by defining the present as anything that happened 5000 years ago until I don't know how long, you show that you account for the limits of knowledge?
I ask you to show knowledge beyond that time for our nature. Got any?
There are reasons. The writing style, for example.
Nope.
III. DATE OF THE BOOK7
A. Late--Second Century (soon after 168 B.C.; usually 165 B.C.)8
1. Those who hold to a late date see this work as historical fiction designed to encourage the resistance movement against the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes9
2. Some argue that Daniel must have been late because it was placed among the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures, but many of the books in the writings are very old like Job, Davidic psalms, and Solomonic writings. Therefore, a placement in the writings does not determine a late date10
3. The date of 168 matches the evidence spoken of in Daniel 11:31-39; therefore, it is assumed that the book must have been written soon after that time
4. Most who hold to a late date for Daneil emphasize it as being apocalyptic literature:
a. While most all would agree that there are apocolyptic elementes to Daniel, this does not require that it also be modled after all aspects of apocalyptic literature
b. Some aspects of apocalyptic literature which Daniel is accused of are:
1) It is pseudepigraphic--a false author is attached to the book to give it credibility
2) The prophecies are vaticinia ex eventu or prophecies-after-the-event
5. The sensational events (3; 5; 6) are necessarily writing conventions like those which were employed by noncanonical literature of the intertestamental period
6. Often there is a hermeneutical presupposition against predictive writing11
7. Often there is a non-miraculous presupposition against narratives like in Daniel (3; 5; 6).
B. Early--Sixth Century:
12
1.
Manuscript Evidence: Manuscripts discovered at Qumran (e.g., a Florilegium found in cave 4Q), which date from the Maccabean period make it very unlikely that the book was written during the time of the Maccabees (e.g., 168 B.C.) since it would have taken some time for it to have been accepted and included in the canon
13
2. Linguistic Evidence:
a. Aramaic: Daniels Aramaic demonstrates
grammatical evidences for an early date more closely associated with the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. than with the second century B.C.
14
b. Persian:
1) Persian loan words in Daniel
do not necessarily argue against an early date for the book since Daniel, who lived under the Persians, could have placed the material in its final form at the latter part of his life
15
2) Four of the nineteen Persian words are not translated well by the Greek renderings of about 100 B.C. implying that their meaning was lost or drastically changed meaning that it is very unlikely that Daniel was written in 165 B.C.
16
3) The Persian words which are cited in Daniel are specifically
old Persian words dating from around 300 B.C. This argues against a 165 date
17
c. Greek: Three Greek loan words in Daniel need not argue for a late date since there may well have been Greek writing prior to Plato (370 B.C.) where these words could have been used, and since they are the names of musical instruments which often are circulated beyond national boundaries, and since Greek words are found in the Aramaic documents of Elephantine dated to the fifth-century B.C.
18
3. Apocalyptic Evidence: The themes of the prominance of angels, the last judgment, the resurrection of the dead, and the establishment of the final kingdom are not themes that are limited to later apocryphal literature, but have their roots in earlier biblical literature and even Zechariah
19
4. Literary Evidence: The reason the development of history seems to
stop with Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not necessarily because that was when the writer lived; it is probably for literary/theological reasons,
he best
foreshadows the Antichrist to come20
5. Predictive Evidence:
The fourth empire in Daniel 2 is not that of the Greeks as those who hold to a late date affirm; this is substantiated by the vision in chapter 7 were the second empire is not Media and the third empire is not Perisa, but is Greece which divides into four (the Persian empire never divided into four parts). This is also substantiated in Daniel 9 with the vision of the ram and the he-goat (with one horn and then four horns--divided Greece).
21"
An Introduction to the Book of Daniel | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
So it is a slam dunk. Not an issue at all. I only dealt with it at all because someone hit and ran with the idiot claim of a late date. I merely inform you that if anyone wants to embrace another date than the actual time Daniel lived in Babylon, that I think I can defeat it on sheer logic alone. But since no one has dared, I guess get back on topic. Daniel stands as proof of God's word.
You don't know where computers came from, but you're absolutely sure they weren't invented by scientists?
Childish nonsense. They were not invented because of any pre flood same state. (or pre split) Really.
