Re: No way the strata represent great eras of time
But lets get at the exact year of the Flood and the numerous and multiple ways a true scientist and researcher can find out when it happened. No billions or trillions of years, and new estimates and new projections and guesses like with your folks, just simple math, simple measurements, obvious connections with historical landmarks etc etc.
Excellent! I've been looking forward to discovering what your 'exact maths' involved ever since you started blethering about it.
But first HERE are the basic articles from my research
...and then you don't show us any maths. You just tell us to look at your website.
Worse, you don't even link to a page with maths on it. The only number on that page is a Bible chapter reference.
I clicked on a couple of links but the closest I found to maths was arithmetic - the adding of generation lengths in Genesis. I was hoping for something more interesting but don't intend to click on every article to find where this maths is hiding. Let's see where you direct us.
There's an obscure (unconscious) reference to medieval Islamic myths about the Great Pyramid; then the (probably false) claim that the pasageway to the King's Chamber is 6007 inches long. Therefore, the length of the passageway is equal to the length of history!... if you use a unit defined in 1930.... and if it's 2004.
Again confirming the Biblical exact year of 2348 BC
Neither that year nor the flood are mentioned in the page linked to. I can only handle so much disappointment in one evening, so I'm not clicking aimlessly through the linked articles to find where this is supposed to be demonstrated.
If this is the 'exact maths' you prefer to statistics, then I am distinctly unimpressed.
I figure there is 52 weeks in a year times 1656 years equals 1656 x 52 = 86,112 not 86,400.
Also elsewhere you claim the correct number of years from creation to the flood is 1646 years, so this would be 85,592 weeks, not 86,400.
There aren't exactly 52 weeks in a year, though, as 365 is not a multiple of 7. Counting the number of days in 1,656 years (taking into account leap years) gives you 86,407 weeks plus a few extra days.
We see here how the errors introduced by rounding add up, which is the problem with trying to obtain an exact date by adding generations in the Bible. When we say that something lasted 130 years we don't mean that to be true to the second; this is rounded to a whole year. Adding up dozens of generations can compound these rounded errors - hence the seven year range pointed out by PaulK.
All in all this is big disappointment though. I wasn't expecting a good argument; but I wasn't expecting the requirement that we accept the literal truth of Genesis to be step one.
Oh darn, I am suppose to give the evolutionists their chance to counter with their mathematical proofs that nothing ever happened, and all things continue from the beginning or first mutation or first explosion.
But mental atrophy and lack of courage and their absense of any math is evident again. As you can see they have nothing.
NO MATH, no exactness....
Lots of criticism of the absence of response, but I can't see where you've responded to all those who pointed out why you're wrong.
You have given us no exact numbers. 'Calculation' 1 is based on adding generation lengths. A woman was born in 1950. She had a son at the age of 27. That son died at the age of 30. When did he die? Well, we don't know, because there are no exact numbers.
It could be anywhere between 1st January 2007 and 29th December 2009. This is the uncertainty you're dealing with by trying to count years from generations in the Bible.
Now, I calculated 1,656 years to be 86,407 weeks (with some remainder). This was based around using the normal convention of the year being 365.25 days long. You retorted that the year is actually 365.24 days long.
With a year length of 365.24 days we have 86,405 weeks with some remainder. Still not the exact 86,400 you were looking for. And the year isn't precisely 365.24 days long. 365.2422 is closer to the actual number. This number gives us closer to 86,406 weeks.
Lots of talk of precision, but I don't see any. Only this.
And we have confirmation, when considering Joshuas stopping the rotation for one day and other slight variables, such as the 370 days Noah was in the Ark before recreation started anew.
'It's close to the number I've arbitrarily decided is significant, so all the arithmetic I am not doing probably would work out exactly if I did it'. Disappointing.
Its not a conspiracy against you, they didn't fudge their numbers and work together with Moses, and translaters to try to get you out of your randomness stuppor. The figures match, so do the math, read about Enoch, and study the Great PYRAMID at Giza, designed by the Lord via Enoch.
Funnily enough, I have recently been reading about how Enoch got mixed up with myths about the Pyramids, but that's not the topic. Please show us your 'maths' about the pyramid so we can see why it's wrong.
Re: Two Evidences For the Flood and Against the OE/ToE
That led me to coelacanths which also show up in fossil form over quite a long period in the Geo Time Scale, from Devonian through Tertiary, and then surprised everybody by also turning up living in this world, all of them varying only very slightly from one to another, the same kind of situation as the trilobites. There are probably other similar examples, of fossils that appear in a large range of "time periods" showing hardly any morphological/genetic changes. Those called "living fossils" seem to follow the same pattern.
This SHOULD raise the question why it is assumed that of two entirely different creatures appearing in the Geo Column one on top of the other that the upper evolved from the lower, no matter how much morphological difference would have to evolve for that to be true, such as mammals from reptiles, of course with nary a transitional to further the case (of course you'd need dozens of transitionals but I digress). And yet there go the trilobites and the coelacanths up the column from time period to time period remaining recognizably themselves without a hint of becoming anything other than a trilobite or a coelacanth.
Yes I know this is rationalized, it's just a "slow evolving" animal. Sure, with the ToE you can just define away any obvious problems. The fact that some creatures are thought to have made gigantic evolutionary jumps based only on their brief appearance in the geologic record should reasonably raise the question why others stay the same through time period after time period for hundreds of millions of years, with only the minor changes we see all the time in nature, otherwise known as microevolution.
One of the problems with this line of thinking is that trilobites are remarkably diverse. They most emphatically did not stay the same during their evolution. They remained trilobites, yes, but they also remained animals. The only reason why the first statement seems significant to you but the second does not, is that you're familiar with the diversity of animals in general, but not with that of trilobites.
The smallest known trilobite is a fraction of a centimetre long; the largest a metre. The majority look like bottom dwellers, but some have the stream-lined bodies of long-range swimmers. They have different types of eyes - some have none at all. Of those that have them, some have them on stalks, some close to the skull, some in weird cylindrical forms that appear to offer stereoscopic division. Some have 1 lens, some have tens of thousands. In some, the lenses are all covered by one big cornea; in others there is a seperate cornea for each eye. The difference between some trilobite eyes is much greater than the difference between yours and that of a salmon.
It's also important to bear in mind that the known diversity of trilobites, large as it is, is not the whole story. And I say this not only because of all the types we have presumably not discovered, but because our image of a trilobite is really the image of its hard shell - not the whole animal - since this is what fossilises. The below is a trilobite from the Burgess Shale - the very famous Cambrian fossil bed which preserves a lot of soft parts.
The most remarkable thing about this fossil is that it clearly has legs. Most reconstructions of trilobites you see do not ave visible legs. This might partly be due to the fairly sensible idea that if legs weren't armoured they would be small and hidden beneath the shell - for reasons of defence - but the main reason is simply because they're usually not noticeable in fossils.
Incidentally, the same website where I found the above picture has a nice image of hypostome variation in trilobites. The hypostome is the sheild by (presumably) the mouth on the underside of trilobites, so is not something you normally see depicted. Note that they are rather different from one another.
It was the Reformers reviewing that history of the papacy who came to the conclusion that he (each Pope who accepts that title from then on) is the Antichrist, through evidence gathered down the centuries of his antichristian edicts among other things.
I believe it was actually Gregory the Great (a pope) who is first known to have equated the claim to be universal bishop with the antichrist. Which is ironic, given that he is known for doing more than anyone else to lay the ground for the Bishop of Rome to assume that title.
Either way, I am sympathetic to your claim that it's silly to describe Christians who lived centuries before the Reformation as Catholic or Protestant in the modern sense. But the version of history you present, which seems to be popular on the internet, is equally silly. Phocas' recognition of the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church should be understood in terms of the struggle for dominance between the Roman Bishop and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The establishment of a formal church hierarchy was already long complete by this point - now they were just fighting over who was in charge.
So once again you admit you are simply lying. There was no declaration of the Pope as Antichrist in 606AD and in fact it is only some modern Christian Cults that make such silly claims.
quote:Whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, is the forerunner of the Antichrist
That was a Pope. A few decades later, another Pope got the Byzantine Emperor to agree he was a universal priest. This is not a modern idea.
And you also again show your ignorance claiming Christianity itself is not and has not always been autocratic. You can't get more autocratic than claiming authority from God. Kinda the same thing King James tried to market as the Divine Right of Kings. You know, the guy that authorized the King James Version of the Bible.
Nonsense. Find yourself a book on the history of communism, and I can guarantee the opening chapters will be full of fundamentalist Christians arguing that we are all equal before God. Christianity has been used to support James' autocratic ideas of a Divine Chain of Being; but it has also been used over and over and over and over and over again to support the idea of universal equality.
Re: Two Evidences For the Flood and Against the OE/ToE
The main point I'm trying to make is that they span hundreds of millions of years with a normal degree of microevolution or variation and show NO signs of evolving beyond their Kind. NONE. Whereas reptiles show up in the geologic record for a lot less time and although they are far more complex creatures than a trilobite they are assumed to have evolved in gigantic leaps utterly transforming all their organs and their basic structure into those of mammals. WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE of such a transformation, nothing to prove that a reptile is anything but a reptile and a mammal a mammal without any genetic relation between them. Just an assumption.
The point I was trying to make (apparently badly) is that the trilobite 'kind' ismore like the tetrapod 'kind'; than it is the mammal 'kind'.
Eh? Huh? Wot? I made my point above. They are SHOWN in a whole series of time periods with changes consistent with ordinary variation through all that time, and those that do NOT persist through any great length of time, that also have no evidence whatever for any transformation at all, are assumed to be the ancestors of an antirely different kind of animal. COME ON!
I am unclear on your point here. That isn't meant as a dig - I just don't understand.
I grant that is a lot of variation, but I would put all of it into the built-in trilobite genome assuming the much greater genetic diversity in ancient creatures that has been severely decreased since the Flood. All those variations do not appear to be gradations over generations, but complete systems in themselves. I would also point out that the BASIC STRUCTURE of the trilobite remains unchanged and that is what defines the Kind, not its various faculties and organs. [/qs]
But the 'basic structure' remains the same across animals that you flatly refuse to accpt are related. This was recognised long before Darwin - its the basics of Linnaeus' classification. Without any evolutionary ideas he recognised that the basic structure of a mouse is the same as that of a horse.
It's nice to find out you know so much about trilobites.
Everyone should know more about trilobties. Trilobites are amazing.
I grant the enormous variation, but it doesn't change my point. None of that variation even given ten times the time to evolve that the reptile supposedly had (I'm guessing because I don't want to go look it up right now) REMAINED CLEARLY A TRILOBITE, all of them, all those great variations are still trilobites.
And when mammals evolved, THEY REMAINED CLEARLY AMNIOTES. Again, you're only seeing trilobites as all the same despite some variation because you don't have the same visceral understanding of how they differ from one another that you do for, for example, a crocodile and a horse. I will try to expand on this point either tomorrow or at the weekend, since now I need to stop this for one evening. Bear with me.