Silent Hunter, there is twofold reason why this is of concern. Granted when you call anyone you disagree with stupid, yes, you may be judged by that same measure. But that's not the reason we are still here. Now that you at least recognize that we aren't talking about 400 years maybe you'll understand this next part.
Stupid? When did I call you stupid? That you cannot keep up with the conversation by constant sniveling, whining, moaning, and crying speak volumes.
First, as I said no Legitimate Biblical Creationist needs to show today's world population starting from 4800 BC. The Bible record records a mass disaster that reset population at Noah's flood. By the way, those arguments that "creationists don't account for plagues etc to population growth?" You can't have it both ways. That flood reduced the population back to ground level and it is acknowledged.
Ok, so the population starts out at 8 (reasonably, only six of whom actually do any initial repopulating) leaves the creationists in a deeper hole. Try plugging those factors into the "Morris equation". What are you results?
That your article seemed oblivious to this and was attacking the wrong question indicates that it had no idea what it was talking about. That he claimed his opponent was calculating from 4800 BC shows that he picked a faulty opponent or was so dumb that he never read his opponent properly. I asked you which it was, apparently you don't know and replied with an insult. Hey, you're the one that presented this guy. If you don't know what he based it in that reflects on you, not me.
Supra.
Second, since you don't understand why this matters I will explain. Earth conditions were different in a way that would assist population growth. The Bible record alludes to it and there is non Bible evidence as well that is usually ignored, such as animal remains of huge size, higher more optimal levels of atmospheric oxygen trapped in amber, and so forth. The Bible Genealogies show that men used to live close to 1000 years... But after the flood when the lifespans started to drop, it still took a while before age started taking its modern day toll.
That's a nice story. Do you have any evidence other than AIG or the DI to support it.
Contrary to your accusation, I had gone back later when I found time to read (or at least skim) that article you had posted. Honestly it lacked substance and didn't have anything more than biased assumptions. It never accounted for lifespan differences, for example. I predicted as much from his failure to identify his correct target problem at the beginning.
Skim? You concluded, "it lacked substance and didn't have anything more than biased assumptions", from a cursory reading? You give yourself way too much credit. When do you think you will get around to discussing the article? Will that be as soon as you finish bad mouthing the author?
If you want to attack a theory, you need to evaluate it in the light of its given assumptions. For example, earth population would be evaluated from 4400 years ago starting with 8 people with the conditions it described.
You don't seem to understand that the point of the article is that starting with the conclusion then inserting numbers into the equation to satisfy that conclusion is circular. That you disagree with the starting date evades what Milne is trying to illustrate with the rabbit analogy.
If you cannot handle those assumptions then target the assumption instead. For example, if you can't handle this:
Genesis 9:28 KJV
And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.
Then state such. But you can't honestly attack rapid population growth while insisting that it is judged on a substituted set of assumptions.
Why not?
When I attack evolution arguments, I allow its assumptions for the sake of argument. It does not mean I agree with the assumptions, that's just how it's done.
:chuckle: Help me out here, how does this not contradict your previous statement?
It is possible that there may be a question somewhere buried back, but it was probably buried in your additional spam and personal attacks. Point still stands, answering a question for someone else and then attacking them for that answer (or non answer) you picked is dishonest.
I asked repeatedly for you to answer the questions in each of my replies. Instead, all you did complain. Dishonest? I don't think you know the meaning of the word.
That you don't understand that indicates that your core methodology is dishonest. Which renders most of your arguments unpersuasive at best. You obviously don't understand your opponent's argument and you don't care.
When have you presented a valid argument? Perhaps you should review past post for how much time you spent whining instead.
When I ask questions and they aren't answered I repeat (or redefine) the question or I set it aside. I might even repeat it with a multiple choice answer to help it stand out.
Yeah, so? Ignoring your own behavior isn't much of an excuse.
Now, if I were to guess you are bewildered as to why we don't live on planet Bobcat. Last I responded I said that the question itself seemed pretty stupid. I haven't heard you redefine it or state what assumptions you are making that makes the question sensible. Ball was left in your court. If you had any other question I missed it completely.
No, you said that predation was the reason Earth isn't overrun by rabbits. If predation is the reason animal populations don't run amok, why isn't the Earth overrun by bobcats who aren't prey?
Maybe you could get your wife to help you redefine the question dilemmas you meant to ask. I hear she's a genius... Or at least smarter than my unborn child.
She's pretty smart, PhD in human biology. Perhaps you could get your wife to explain to you why the Earth isn't overrun by bobcats but if she's a creationists she probably can't.
1. Book chapter and verse for what exactly? Will gladly cooperate if I can.
Well, you made an assertion about the Roman guards, I was just wondering where in the bible I might find it.
2. There were soldiers posted, a massive stone in the way, soldiers that fall asleep on watch get executed, if such happened a door to door search would have been done. The risen Christ was seen of many witnesses and if this were false it would have been challenged THEN while the claim was new. When Paul speaks to the governor who said that he was "almost persuaded" don't you think that a known body theft would have come up? When Justin spoke to Tyrpho then Jew the resurrection and even ascension was not what came into dispute (not a Bible source by the way, just a record of a conversation.)
So many assumptions, so little time.
Yes, the burden of proof was on the Romans. Jesus was supposedly a rebel leader who had promised that if, no, WHEN they killed him he would come back from the dead. The Romans did not tolerate rebellions.
The Romans were responsible for keeping track of Jesus' body? Why?
Last I checked, bodily resurrection does qualify as a miracle.
Sure it would. The sooner you get around to providing more evidence than, "the bible says so", the sooner it will be when I start taking you seriously.
The "official story" of body theft is mentioned in the Gospels as being the Roman cover story. The witness accounts and the absurdity of previously cowardly disciples stealing it from an armed guard shows that story false.
This account occurs in ONE gospel, Matthew. All the others are eerily silent.
There are always corroborating evidences like Christ's prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple which were carried out to the last detail that could weigh in...
Matthew 24:1-2 KJV
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. [2] And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Recorded in four Gospels. Literally one stone not left upon another. Does fulfilled prophecy count as a miracle?
This story is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, maybe you could point me to the reference in John. The writing of Mark, probably the first gospel, is dated by most scholars at around 70. Coincidentally, this occurs with the destruction of the temple. Jesus' prophecy is notoriously vague, as are all bible prophecies. Without a time frame to judge when, "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down", is to occur, he might as well been talking about the pyramids because, eventually, that is going to happen too.
3. Not all people who call themselves Christian believe the Bible is true. Regardless, haven't heard you ever ask anyone that you Assumed to be Bible believing Why they believed that Bible.
No true christian (Scotsman)? People believe crazy stuff all of the time. Christians are no different.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
