[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

The only problem wit this is that Quirinius was governor starting in 6 CE, and that's when the census mentioned in connection with him was done. Are you saying Jesus was born after 6 CE?
Then why does Luke 2:2 read "And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." (I'm assuming here that you meant to write "Luke does not make the assertion... which I realize is always a dangerous thing with you)

Is that about right?
Evidence that two different censuses were done would be an excellent first step. Evidence for an earlier period of Quirinius being governor of Syria would also be good, especially since we know the governors from the time Augustus began his reign until 4BCE. Do you happen to have any?

Read my edited post # 97. This supposed contradiction is overwith.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Either your ignorance of Ramsay, or your purposed omission of the facts concerning Ramsay's life, and or maybe some of both cause you to post such rubbish.

I do admit to not knowing a lot about Ramsay specifically, but you've yet again attempted to substitute insult for evidence. Ramsay was wrong about Quirinius and he was wrong about his conclusions regarding the NT letters. I welcome any evidence to the contrary, but to be honest I rather expect more attempts at insult as a substitute.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

... Do I need to post more pictures of it actually happening? ...

I remember that one! Hilarious!

Use science to prove stars are being formed today: Look, here's a photo!

Absolutely hilarious!

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Read my edited post # 97. This supposed contradiction is overwith.

No, it really isn't. Though it is oddly comforting to find that your tactics haven't changed.

Let's run the timeline one more time:

4BCE - Herod the Great's reign ends
6CE - Quirinius becomes governor of Syria and is commanded to perform a census including Judea for the purpose of taxation.

Please reconcile how the birth of Jesus could take place contemporary to both of those events.

If you're arguing for an earlier census under a different governor, could you explain why the census under Quirinius is mentioned and why it's called the first census?

If you're arguing for two governorships for Quirinius, could you provide evidence for the earlier one?

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

I do admit to not knowing a lot about Ramsay specifically, but you've yet again attempted to substitute insult for evidence. Ramsay was wrong about Quirinius and he was wrong about his conclusions regarding the NT letters. I welcome any evidence to the contrary, but to be honest I rather expect more attempts at insult as a substitute.

My position is not whether Ramsay was right or wrong, my position is that Luke was right and did not contradict himself in his writings, which are now part of the Holy Bible.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

...Such as the value of pi being 3? That the Earth is fixed and immobile? The ability of Koalas to spread like seed and stow away on ships?

You're more than welcome to be specific as to what the Holy Bible actually details.

Everyone knows that pi is not three, but before you go there, what if the container (i.e., essentially a swimming pool made out of metal) had thickened sides so as to be able to withstand the pressure of the water?

IIRC, my personal cubit is 20 inches. If the sides of the "bowl" were merely as think as my personal hand width, and the measurement mentioned in the Holy Bible was taken from the insides of the bowl (i.e. metal pool), I come up with 3.1416 value for pi, which is not enough to be a problem for my faith.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

I remember that one! Hilarious!

Use science to prove stars are being formed today: Look, here's a photo!

Absolutely hilarious!

Pictures, from across the electromagnetic spectrum, aren't evidence. Got it. What exactly does constitute acceptable evidence for you? You certainly haven't seen fit to present any of your own and have explicitly rejected science, so you can see why the question would arise.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

My position is not whether Ramsay was right or wrong, my position is that Luke was right and did not contradict himself in his writings, which are now part of the Holy Bible.

I get that. Unfortunately for you, the available evidence doesn't support your position and you have yet to produce any which might.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

You're more than welcome to be specific as to what the Holy Bible actually details.

Everyone knows that pi is not three, but before you go there, what if the container (i.e., essentially a swimming pool made out of metal) had thickened sides so as to be able to withstand the pressure of the water?

What if it did? That doesn't change how the circumference of a circle is calculated.

IIRC, my personal cubit is 20 inches. If the sides of the "bowl" were merely as think as my personal hand width, and the measurement mentioned in the Holy Bible was taken from the insides of the bowl (i.e. metal pool), I come up with 3.1416 value for pi, which is not enough to be a problem for my faith.

Please, do share your math.

[Ummagumma]

He knows that he's right because the Bible can't be wrong, therefore his task is not to provide any facts baking up his story but to find the error in your arguments.

Been there seen that.

[ArtificialGrape]

You have made the following claims in regard to star formation...

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway.

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves.

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Stars do not form from the "dust" or gases of nebulea as they are scientifically shown to be expanding at phenomenal rates. They are NOT contracting ( or their word: condensing) in on themselves and producing new stars.

This "a star is being born," or "star nursery" myths are made up by the evos in order to account for newer (last half of 1900's) scientific discoveries that blow star evolution out of the water.

However when you have been asked to produce this scientific evidence refuting star formation, none has been forthcoming. So, if "all available research [you] could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves", could you kindly share some of this scientific, falsifiable, peer reviewed... evidence?

Cornell University Library's arXiv.org archive contains a pretty good archive of physics papers. Perhaps some of this "all available research" is archived there. You might even try the keyword proplyd, but given that you've done this research before, I suspect that you don't need my help, and you have citations readily available.

thanks,
-ArtificialGrape

[Saber99]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Still playing up to and following others. You do it on the internet, I bet you do it in life as well. Must suck to be you. I mean, you're such a lemming...

I'm sorry what do you mean by "still" i have less than 200 post and have never conversed with you before. How in the hell do you even have a previous opinion of me or my character.

Unlike you, I have the ability to recognize that others may be in position where their knowledge of a particular topic may surpass my own. And allowing them to debate said topic would be far more fruitful. you call it being a lemming I call it humility. Your self assurance on the other hand is so overly inflated that I really do believe you suffer from a mental disorder( That's not a joke or an insult,given the way you act I have serious concerns for you mental health).... but yes in real life as well I am capable of recognizing when others may be deserving of my respect, and believe that their opinions carry a high degree of creditability( again i must be such a lemming ). I do not walk around this earth believing that I am the undisputed expert on every topic or that my intelligence is somehow vastly superior to everyone else.You know for a christian, you have absolutely no concept of how to be humble.

My post did not address the bible but instead your arrogance and inability to participate in a rational discussion in which you may actually have to admit that your unqualified opinions are not indisputable. Or did that online school of yours make you an expert in physics to the point where you can totally dismiss the theories of PhD physicist on the formation of stars. Clearly you are just so much smarter than the rest of us .

When provided evidence you dismiss it out of hand. while casting baseless insults at just about everyone in a attempt to distract from the point that you haven't actually provided any actual evidence yourself. your explanations sound like something that could be found on the show "ancient aliens". Proof doesn't constitute statements like "may" or "isn't it possible". you're simply creating highly unlikely yet marginally possible scenarios out of thin air without actual proof that's what happened. yet you assume that that it is EXACTLY what happened, and that your theory is unquestionable. Allowing you to hold onto your preconceived idea of the truth. That's not proof, its a wild ass guess as to what may have happened completely lacking in evidence to support it...

Btw Claiming God made a donkey talk IS NOT ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that any donkey ever talked.

"must suck to be you"- No I'm fairly awesome and rather content with my life.

[Lone Wolf8634]

It is at this point in this "conversation" that I would like to point out that you gentlemen are arguing with a person who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, possibly carried out by our very own government. As you may have noticed he tends to be..... well.... not entirely rational, as if perhaps his meds need to be adjusted.

I believe the correct medical term is "Wackaloon".

[High-Gear]

Peace Warrior's ring tone:

Tim Minchin - The Good Book (Live) - YouTube

Tim Minchin - The Good Book (Live) - YouTube

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

It did NOT say Cyrenius was governor of Syria at the time that Jesus was born.

Your ignorance of the bible is impressive. Joseph and Mary were traveling to Josephs home town to comply with the census. This is when mary was great with child, or in other words right before Christ was born. This puts the birth of Christ after Quirinius was governor so 6BCE or after. This means that the fleeing from Herod to Egypt NEVER happened as he was long dead. Or... Luke is wrong. One or the other.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Nether my faith in creation, nor your faith in creation, can be tested empirically utilizing either the historical sciences or clinical sciences, which is why it is called faith.

You are 100% wrong. We have stone tools that have been found with animal bone remains with stone tool markings on them that correspond to the tool itself(early man was using these stone hand axes to crack open bones to get at the nutritious marrow) that date back 2.5 million years. This is the age of the remains... not the tool mind you. And not just a rock... a hand axe. A stone that had been shaped and altered to be used as a tool. This is a level of intelligence not possessed by animals that have been observed using rocks and sticks to smash open fruits, shells, and bones. This is just some of our earliest findings mind you. There are far more findings of man's use of tools that go FAR beyong 20K years. That go FAR beyond 500K years. That go FAR beyond 1 Million years. This Earth is not young.

Now you can question carbon dating all you want. It only provides further evidence that you are an ignoramus and highly uneducated. This is simply a fact and cannot be escaped.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

(Me paraphrase in red)

Just exactly which/what "fossil records" scientifically prove the Earth to be billions and billions of years old?

I'm sure someone else has already gotten to this, but we don't need to prove that the Earth is billions of years old to disprove the Bible. We only need prove it is older than 20K years. And it absolutely is. We have human remains that are older than this. We have evidence of man's existence going back 2.5 million years.

This does not refute the fact that there is no evidence of a global flood. It only makes you look stupid.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

So far both of your supposed contradictions are wrong.

No... they aren't. You've done nothing but quote a fraction of Luke 2 out of context to illustrate your incorrect view. If you would only read just a little further down in Luke you'd see Mary was great with child during the governorship of quirinius. It isn't so much that YOU are wrong as it is that Luke is. You just believe in his misinformation.

So far you've refuted NOTHING.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf8634

It is at this point in this "conversation" that I would like to point out that you gentlemen are arguing with a person who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, possibly carried out by our very own government. As you may have noticed he tends to be..... well.... not entirely rational, as if perhaps his meds need to be adjusted.

I believe the correct medical term is "Wackaloon".

Yeah, I am all by myself in this regard.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Last but not least, "The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, previously stated that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and thata high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

“In the final report of the congressional inquiry, there was a chapter related primarily to the Saudi role in 9/11 that was totally censored, every word of the chapter has been withheld from the public,” Graham said on MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Yeah, I am all by myself in this regard.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Last but not least, "The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, previously stated that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and thata high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

“In the final report of the congressional inquiry, there was a chapter related primarily to the Saudi role in 9/11 that was totally censored, every word of the chapter has been withheld from the public,” Graham said on MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show.

Now, now PW,

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

THE RULE: Only ONE item, topic, subject and or theme at a time please.

Don't go breaking your own rule. Let's focus on the contradictions of Luke until we exhaust the topic.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Now, now PW,

Don't go breaking your own rule. Let's focus on the contradictions of Luke until we exhaust the topic.

With you I will, but yet excuse me, but your moniker on GT is Animal Mother, namely, your moniker is not "Lone Wolf8634," so understanding, I was addressing Lone Wolf8634 on THE RULE: Only ONE item, topic, subject and or theme at a time please.

You see -am-, in my estimation, you're an internet thread dilbert that wants to dominate and control every facet of the threads you decide to participate in. Sorry charlie, not gonna happen here. Just look at how you have responded in the single thread. I have addressed others and you have consistently "grabbed our interactions" as if they were yours. I'll get to you, I promise, as my usual practice is to get to every authentic response, but your an idiot if you think I am going let you control the direction or theme of this thread. Back up, wait your turn, and deal with it. Capisce?!?

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

You have made the following claims in regard to star formation...






However when you have been asked to produce this scientific evidence refuting star formation, none has been forthcoming. So, if "all available research [you] could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves", could you kindly share some of this scientific, falsifiable, peer reviewed... evidence?

Cornell University Library's arXiv.org archive contains a pretty good archive of physics papers. Perhaps some of this "all available research" is archived there. You might even try the keyword proplyd, but given that you've done this research before, I suspect that you don't need my help, and you have citations readily available.

thanks,
-ArtificialGrape

You've never heard of Boyle's Law? Here ya go:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/boyles-law-info.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/gasl...eslawcalc.html

http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webno...boyleslaw.html

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

You've never heard of Boyle's Law? Here ya go:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/boyles-law-info.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/gasl...eslawcalc.html

http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webno...boyleslaw.html

So much fail in this one. 100 Interwebs to the person that can explain why Boyle's Law is not applicable in this scenario.

[Lone Wolf8634]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

With you I will, but yet excuse me, but your moniker on GT is Animal Mother, namely, your moniker is not "Lone Wolf8634," so understanding, I was addressing Lone Wolf8634 on THE RULE: Only ONE item, topic, subject and or theme at a time please.

You see -am-, in my estimation, you're an internet thread dilbert that wants to dominate and control every facet of the threads you decide to participate in. Sorry charlie, not gonna happen here. Just look at how you have responded in the single thread. I have addressed others and you have consistently "grabbed our interactions" as if they were yours. I'll get to you, I promise, as my usual practice is to get to every authentic response, but your an idiot if you think I am going let you control the direction or theme of this thread. Back up, wait your turn, and deal with it. Capisce?!?

Well, that was easy.

I rest my case.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Geko45

So much fail in this one. 100 Interwebs to the person that can explain why Boyle's Law is not applicable in this scenario.

Wow, just wow.... so gas laws and or gas properties are not applicable to star formation. Wow, just wow....

Okay, if you know how stars form or formed without gasses coalescing, please do tell, but note one thing, make sure your explanation(s) will hold up to scientific scrutiny.