Science Disproves Evolution

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:17 pm

Pahu;1474303 wrote: What delusion?
THAT delusion. The delusion that you think you are not delusional.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:22 pm

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. • Mark Twain

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Originally Posted by Pahu:

That is the only explanation that makes any logical sense.

Ahso!;1474169 wrote: Logic? Really? Explain the logic of an entity that has no beginning and no end, and that poofs things into existence...

There are some things we cannot explain such as how God can exist without a beginning and end. Another is the infinity of the universe:

Join me on an imaginary trip into the past—way back into the past. Let’s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars burning with what scientists call thermonuclear fusion, including our sun. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning. So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now let’s take another step into the past. Let’s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well we should expect to find nothing shouldn’t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing there is nothing but totally empty space.

But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It cannot end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.

As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us something cannot come from nothing by any natural source. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.

Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experimentation, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I’ve never heard one that is based on observation, experience, experimentation, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.

[From Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton ]Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

...creates life only to torture and destroy it because the life it created doesn't obey it even though it was made in its image; that created a ridiculous explanation for everything and what doesn't make sense gets an "god works in mysterious ways" explanation.

Your understanding of God is erroneous. The Bible presents the His true nature.

Okay, that explains your lack of rationality - you're angry at those evil evolutionists and atheists and you're scared that they might be right.

Since I have proved they are wrong, there is no reason to be scared.

There's nothing to be angry or scared at, Pahu; there's no god that's going to hit you with a lightening bolt (present company acknowledged) or disease that first time you verbally admit that there is no god. I know, I've been there - and I'm still here.

The only reason you are still here is because of a loving, patient God. What evidence do you have that He does not exist?

We do what mature people do; we admit we don't know everything and we continue to have open eyes and an open mind as to what might be revealed.

Is your mind open to the possibility that God exists?

Here is a major flaw in your argument. We don't test the hypothesis of Evolution, we allow it to either prove itself by what we observe or die. We investigate what we uncover and we OBSERVE whether or not it fits the theory; if it does we're confidant to move forward and if the findings don't fit the theory, we scrap the theory.

Unless you are stuck with preconceptions that evolution is true regardless of the evidence refuting it.

To date nothing has been uncovered that refutes the theory of Evolution

For several years I have presented proof that evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. What evidence do you have supporting it?

Again, a mature person understands that they may not be privy to all knowledge and all the answers NOW. We accept what we can know.

Only if it fits your erroneous preconceptions.

Your problem is that you need all the answers NOW and so you turn to a source (the bible) that offers that, regardless of how absurd it is.

The Bible is accurate:

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecies

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

If Evolution is inaccurate it will fall apart on it's own, just like the existence of god has.

Evolution is inaccurate and has fallen apart unlike God who exists forever.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:39 pm

You haven't proved anything. You've just continued to quote your erroneous crap. Once again you quote that energy would be lost (when last time you quoted that you denied having said it, even when your own quote was quoted against you). However, there is a minor touch of progress here. It has been admitted that it is an IMAGINARY journey.

It was once thought that the fact a bird could fly could not be explained naturally, therefore it had to be supernatural. All hail an imaginary God. Then the science of aerodynamics was discovered.

It was once thought that it could not be explained naturally how fish could breathe underwater without drowning, therefore it had to be supernatural. All hail an imaginary God. Then the function of gills was discovered.

It was once thought that going by the laws of aerodynamics of body weight to wing area that the bumble bee could not possibly fly, therefore if it could not be explained naturally, then it had to be supernatural. All hail an imaginary God. Then it was discovered that bumble bees fly using the aerodynamics of a helicopter.

Natives of the worlds conquered by Western Empires thought that the 'firesticks' these invaders could point at them & make them drop dead from a distance could not be explained naturally, so they had to be supernatural. All hail the new Great White God. Then they learned how guns worked & started to turn them onto their conquerors.

The common thread here is that with science it is not presumed that anything not YET explained is supernatural. Just because we haven't YET found the natural reason for something doesn't mean that it is supernatural. If science were to presume it knew all the answers that would be plain arrogant, and the would be no further need for science, as there wouldn't be anything left to learn.

Science has proven by obsservation that the Universe is expanding. Even you have admitted that much. When an object expands it expands from a central point, pretty much fairly evenly. That central point is, therefore the logical point of origin of where the Universe started, is it not.

If you have a broken ruler, with 1" & 2" missing, you don't deny the existence of 2 additional points missing from that ruler & where they are going to be, do you? Yet, according to your logic, there is no evidence to believe that they were ever there, therefore all measurements HAD to have started at 3".

You keep setting an argument against science of nothing comes from nothing, which sort of makes sense, meaning that it always had to have been there, be it in the form of matter or energy. In it's own way, that is correct, but in its own paradoxical way, it is also false, but that's just semantics. Then, you make claim that this 'God' thing brought itself into existence from nothing, which you have already stated is impossible, but your argument is that he was always there, even though you argue that nothing comes of nothing, and that nothing could have always been there, so in your attempts to prove the existence of a God, all you do is present arguments to deny it with the same old argument in a desperate attempt to quantify it by saying it has to be 'supernatural'. Put quite simply, there is no such thing as 'supernatural'. Just because we haven't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You don't have any arguments of your own. You have to rely on your feeble pastings. You have never been able to cite any REAL scientific evidence to back up your fantasies. Why? Put quite simply, because there IS none. You can't prove something that doesn't exist.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:56 pm

Now were playing I'm Rubber And You're Glue.

Fuzzy · Post by **Fuzzy** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 2:04 am

Well, personally I haven't got a glue about all this. Isn't it time that someone who actually knows, to come out and tell us what's what? Is there a god or is it just bullshit?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:37 am

Fuzzy;1474346 wrote: Well, personally I haven't got a glue about all this. Isn't it time that someone who actually knows, to come out and tell us what's what? Is there a god or is it just bullshit?It's bullshit. Clever post though.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:09 am

FourPart;1474325 wrote:

It was once thought that the fact a bird could fly could not be explained naturally, therefore it had to be supernatural. All hail an imaginary God. Then the science of aerodynamics was discovered.

It was once thought that it could not be explained naturally how fish could breathe underwater without drowning, therefore it had to be supernatural. All hail an imaginary God. Then the function of gills was discovered.

It was once thought that going by the laws of aerodynamics of body weight to wing area that the bumble bee could not possibly fly, therefore if it could not be explained naturally, then it had to be supernatural. All hail an imaginary God. Then it was discovered that bumble bees fly using the aerodynamics of a helicopter.

All that you have listed does not deny the existence of God. He created all those life forms and gave them their abilities.

Science has proven by obsservation that the Universe is expanding. Even you have admitted that much. When an object expands it expands from a central point, pretty much fairly evenly. That central point is, therefore the logical point of origin of where the Universe started, is it not.

Possibly. God could be the central point, couldn't He?

You keep setting an argument against science of nothing comes from nothing, which sort of makes sense, meaning that it always had to have been there, be it in the form of matter or energy. In it's own way, that is correct, but in its own paradoxical way, it is also false, but that's just semantics.

The fact that nothing comes from nothing is confirmed by scientific observation. It does't follow that it has always been there. As I have said before, the universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Then, you make claim that this 'God' thing brought itself into existence from nothing, which you have already stated is impossible, but your argument is that he was always there, even though you argue that nothing comes of nothing, and that nothing could have always been there, so in your attempts to prove the existence of a God, all you do is present arguments to deny it with the same old argument in a desperate attempt to quantify it by saying it has to be 'supernatural'. Put quite simply, there is no such thing as 'supernatural'. Just because we haven't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I admire your faith. When did I say God brought Himself into existence from nothing? I said God has always existed. That does't conflict with the impossibility of something coming from nothing by a natural cause. The universe is material. God is spiritual.

You don't have any arguments of your own. You have to rely on your feeble pastings. You have never been able to cite any REAL scientific evidence to back up your fantasies. Why? Put quite simply, because there IS none. You can't prove something that doesn't exist.

Real scientific evidence tells us that before the universe existed there was nothing from which the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural. That is not fantasy. That is logic based on fact. That is one of the best proofs for the existence of God. If you have a better scientific explanation for the natural appearance of the universe from nothing, let's hear it.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:14 am

Fuzzy;1474346 wrote: Well, personally I haven't got a glue about all this. Isn't it time that someone who actually knows, to come out and tell us what's what? Is there a god or is it just bullshit?

God exists, as I have proved. Can you prove He doesn't?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:34 am

Pahu, god need not be disproved because your god's existence has never been established to begin with. Anyway, according to your bible, evidence is not present and you live by faith, right? The bible character Jesus even said as much when he said no proof will be given to this generation (or something like that); and the example of Doubting Thomas. Remember?

So, bring me your god and I'll be more than thrilled to prove it a fraud. Deal? No words as substitute, the actual entity.

We all know you won't do this though because you can't and that's because your god is not there in any sense other than your delusional state. Right from the get-go your thread was known as a lie because the author is a person who claims to know someone (god) who doesn't exist, and that makes the author of this thread a liar. You've proven that you lie by your sophistry, your deceptive and manipulative use of language and meaning. Anything to try and establish your delusion as a legitimately logical thought process.

You just don't understand that your preaching falls on dead ears to anyone who reads it and isn't already drinking your brand of cool-aid. I must admit though that it's fun watching you masturbate. Not that there's anything wrong with masturbating. What are your thoughts on your masturbation habit, btw? It's obvious you enjoy masturbating because you just can't stop doing it. Again, not that there's anything wrong with masturbation, mind you.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:32 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:37 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:38 am

Attached files

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:45 am

Ahso!;1474369 wrote: Pahu, god need not be disproved because your god's existence has never been established to begin with. So, bring me your god and I'll be more than thrilled to prove it a fraud. Deal? No words as substitute, the actual entity.

You are in denial. I have proved the existence of God numerous times. Your unwillingness to accept that truth is not the fault of the transmission but the reception. Here is more proof:

The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here? Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.

Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.

Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.

Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from? His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.

One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.

FROM NOTHING COMES NOTHING

I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.

THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT THE CAUSE

The Bible certainly is not silent about what caused the Universe. In the very first verse of the first chapter of the first book it says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Acts 17:24 records: “God, who made the world and everything in it¦He is Lord of heaven and earth. Exodus 20:11 notes: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.

God is undoubtedly an adequate cause, since He is all-powerful. In Genesis 17:1, God told Abraham “I am Almighty God.

He came before this material world, fulfilling the criteria that the cause must come before the effect. The psalmist wrote: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God (Psalm 90:2).

And He definitely would instill within mankind the concept of morality, since He is a God of morals. Titus 1:2 says that He cannot lie.

Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.

WHY DOES GOD NOT HAVE A CAUSE?

Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God? Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?

There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.

CONCLUSION

The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God¦.

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect Scientific Proof that God Exists

You just don't understand that your preaching falls on dead ears to anyone who reads it and isn't already drinking your brand of cool-aid.

Perhaps that is because what is between those ears is dead.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:47 am

Pahu;1474362 wrote: God exists, as I have proved. Can you prove He doesn't?Yes

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:01 am

Ahso!;1474377 wrote:

Christ is probably the most proven character in ancient history:

The first century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200).

¨Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century A.D., wrote: "Christus [Latin for Christ], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals," Book15, par.44.

¨With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145. ¨¨There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.

If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.

Also consider the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:05 am

Originally Posted by Pahu:

God exists, as I have proved. Can you prove He doesn't?

Ahso!;1474382 wrote: Yes

Let's see that proof.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:30 am

Pahu;1474383 wrote: Christ is probably the most proven character in ancient history:]

Really ? Isnt there a small matter of about 18 years of his life missing from the New Testament ?

Turin Shroud ?? For real ? Clutching at some very brittle straws there !

You're as gullible as anyone I've met on the net Pahu. It's quite embarrassing

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:53 am

"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn't understand and now we do understand. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on."

Neil Degrasse Tyson

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:49 pm

Pahu;1474385 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

God exists, as I have proved. Can you prove He doesn't?

Let's see that proof.Okay. Fetch him and I'll show it to you. I'll wait here for the two of you.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:08 pm

Pahu;1474383 wrote: Christ is probably the most proven character in ancient history:

The first century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200).

¨Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century A.D., wrote: "Christus [Latin for Christ], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals," Book15, par.44.Josephus and Tacitus were both born well after the death of your supposed saviour. Both are hearsay. Also, there is no official Roman record of any such crucifixion by PP.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:44 pm

Snowfire;1474387 wrote:

Turin Shroud ?? For real ? Clutching at some very brittle straws there !

You're as gullible as anyone I've met on the net Pahu. It's quite embarrassing

The Shroud of Turin

Genuine artifact or manufactured relic?

Jack Kilmon

No single artifact of the past has so exemplified the interface between science and religion as the Shroud of Turin. What are the facts and how do we separate the facts from both religious and scientific bias and agenda-based conclusions? First, we must separate the shroud from that which is responsible for bias, namely that it is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth and investigate it instead as a putative artifact of a first century crucifixion and burial. The shroud has been subjected to numerous scientific tests over the years culminating in 1988 with a radiocarbon measurement and dating procedure. The testing of the shroud and the conclusions reached lie basically in two areas, the physical shroud itself and the very unique image on the shroud.

Physical Examination of the Shroud

FACT: The shroud is a linen cloth measuring 4.6 x 1.1 meters corresponding to a standard measurement of 8 x 2 Philetaric cubits in use in Palestine during the first century. (see Whiston, W., Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, Winston. Chicago, p. 1008-1009)

FACT: The shroud is a herringbone twill with a 3:1 weave, of probably 1st century Syrian design. The flax fibrils contain entwisted cotton fibrils from a previous work of the loom. The cotton is Gossypium herbaceum, a Middle Eastern species not found in Europe. (Raes, G.: La Sindone, 1976; Tyrer, J. Textile Horizons, Dec, 1981)

FACT: The shroud contains pollen grains from 58 species of plants, 17 indigenous to Europe where the artifact has been for 7 centuries and the majority being plants indigenous, some exclusively, to the area of the Dead Sea and Turkey. These include Nyoscyamus aureus, Artemisia herba-alba and Onosma syriacum. (Frei, M., La Sindone, Scienza e Fide, Bologna, 1983; Frei, M., Shroud Spectrum International 3, 1982)

Conclusion: The linen of the shroud was manufactured and woven in the Middle East, most probably Syria, and is a design used in the 1st century, albeit uncommon and expensive.

Image on the Shroud

The shadowy image on the shroud is, of course, its most unique and enigmatic feature. It displays the complete dorsal and frontal image of a severely abused and crucified individual of Semitic characteristics who was laid on the proximal portion of the cloth with the distal portion folded over the head and extended over the body thus creating, through some as yet unexplained chemical or physical process, two "head to head" images of the back and front. The ghostly, sepia colored image is nearly imperceptable close-up but discernable at a distance. It was not until the first photographs were taken of the shroud in 1898 by Turin Councillor Secondo Pia that the negative plates revealed the startling "positive" of the clear picture of the "man in the shroud." The image is of a male, almost 6’ tall, bearded, severely abused and scourged with the distinctive "dumbell" markings of a Roman flagrum. Bloodstains are evident from wounds in the wrists, feet, about the head and brow, and the left thoracic area with pooling under the small of the back and under the feet. The image of the "man in the shroud" also displays signs of beating about the face, swelling under the eye and shocks of his beard having been ripped from his face (a common form of abuse to Jews by Romans). The debate on the authenticity of the shroud focuses on whether this image was transferred to the linen by some means from a real corpse or whether it was artificed by a clever forger.

Chief among the proponents of the image as a "painting" was W. C. McCrone, one of the most respected names in particle analysis. McCrone reliably detected iron-oxide particles throughout the shroud using only optical technique and attributed it to the base of artist’s paint. (McCrone, W. C., The Microscope, 29, 1981, p. 19-38; McCrone, W. C., Skirius, C., The Microscope, 28, 1980, pp 1-13.) Particular attention in this regard was given to the purported "bloodstains" of the image.

FACT: The shroud linen contains particles of iron-oxide.

The debate on the authenticity of the shroud became centered on whether the reliable presence of iron oxide was relevent to the shroud image and the "bloodstains" on the cloth and the precise nature and origin of the iron oxide. A part of the answer to this was provided by x-ray fluorescent analysis performed by STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) scientists R. A Morris, L. A. Schwalbe and J. R. London which determined there was no relevence between concentrations of iron oxide particles and the varying densities of the image. (Morris, R. A., Schwalbe, L. A., London, R. J., X-Ray Spectrometry, Vol 9, no. 2, 1980, pp 40-47; Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 1982, pp 3-19)

FACT: Iron Oxide is not responsible for the image on the cloth.

These findings stimulated additional attention to the bloodstains on the cloth. Were these genuine bloodstains or were they "painted" with some form of iron-oxide containing red pigment? This issue was addressed by experts in blood analysis, Dr. John Heller of the New England Institute and Dr. Alam Adler of Western Connecticut State University. Drs. Heller and Adler went far beyond the mere optical examination of McCrone. Applying pleochroism, birefringence and chemical analysis, they determined that, unlike artist’s pigment which contains iron oxide contaminated with manganese, nickel and cobalt, the iron oxide on the shroud was relatively pure. They discovered, through research into the procedures of flax preparation and linen manufacture, that pure iron oxide is normal to the process of fermenting (retting) the flax in large outdoor vats of water.

FACT: The iron oxide, abundant on the linen of the shroud is not the remnant of artist’s pigment.

Dr. Adler then proceeded to apply microspectrophotometric analysis of a "blood particle" from one of the fibrils of the shroud and unmistakeably identified hemoglobin in the acid methemoglobin form due to great age and denaturation. Further tests by Heller and Adler established, within scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin and protein. In fact, when proteases were applied to the fibril containing the "blood," the blood dissolved from the fibril leaving an imageless fibril. (Heller, J. H., Adler, A. D., Applied Optics, 19, 1980, pp 2742-4; Heller, J. H., and Adler, A. D., Canadian Forensic Society Sci, Journal 14, 1981, pp 81-103)

FACT: The bloodstains on the cloth are not artist’s pigment but are real blood.

FACT: The bloodstains were applied to the cloth prior to the formation of the image.

Working independantly with a larger sample of blood containing fibrils, pathologist Pier Baima Bollone, using immunochemistry, confirms Heller and Adler’s findings and identifies the blood of the AB blood group.

It is significant that analysis of the blood of the cloth demonstrated high levels of bilirubin consistent with the severe concussive beating suggested by the image of the "man of the shroud."

[continue]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:44 pm

The Shroud of Turin
[continued]

All of what I have explained above can be found in the voluminous scientific and popular literature on the shroud of Turin. At this point, I would like to offer a different paradigm for assessing the accuracy of the 14th century date and the resulting claim that the shroud is the work of a 14th century forger. Again, this article is not addressing the issue of whether or not the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth and its value as a "relic" of Christianity. It addresses only whether the shroud is a genuine archaeological artifact of a 1st century crucifixion. This paradigm assumes that the radiocarbonists’ claim that the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery is correct. It is based on what that conclusion tells us about the forger. It tells us that:

1. The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.

2. The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known 20th century science.

3. The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65° from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.

4. The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had "spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.

5. The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.

6. The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the "man in the shroud" had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.

7. The forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body he was "hoaxing" as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.

8. The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.

9. The forger was clever enough to "salt" the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.

10. The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to "paint" an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed.

11. The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued.

12. The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.

13. The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the "man in the shroud" consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.

14. This forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that he has foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings.

If the Shroud of Turin is a forgery of the 14th century, as the radiocarbonists claim, and not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval "forger" must be accepted. If the Shroud was "forged" it would have to have been painted.

It is an irrefutable fact that there is NO paint or pigment on the Shroud of Turin leaving the only explanation of the technique of the forger to have used "photography" to manufacture the relic in the THIRTEENTH CENTURY!! Some authors have gone so far as to suggest exactly that. This is patently absurd!

CONCLUSION

The Shroud of Turin is a genuine artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion of an adult Jewish male. The radiocarbon dating placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th century was flawed by extrinsic C14 accumulated over centuries of fungal growth, candle smoke and the intense heat of the fire of 1532. There is NO paint on the linen of the shroud and is not the artifice of a forger.

The Shroud of Turin

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:48 pm

Ahso!;1474393 wrote: Okay. Fetch him and I'll show it to you. I'll wait here for the two of you.

Transition: "I have no proof God doesn't exist."

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:53 pm

Pahu;1474399 wrote: Transition: "I have no proof God doesn't exist."Is he here yet? What's his username?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:08 pm

Let me clarify, Pahu; My hobby is proving personal gods are shams. Since you've informed us that you have a god of your own, I'm willing to show you that your god is as much of a sham as the others I've done so with in the past. So have him with you so that I can show you what a fraud he is. Now if he refuses to come here with you then all I can say is he's not much of a friend, no less a faithful god. I will prove what I say I can prove, just do your part.

As I do what I do I am eliminating the gods one at a time. In the end there will be no gods standing. I promise.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:28 pm

It's obvious that God has a name, and that is Walt Brown.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:07 pm

Pahu;1474385 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

God exists, as I have proved. Can you prove He doesn't?

Let's see that proof.
You have proved nothing of the sort. All you have done is repeated & repeated & repeated the same of quotes & flawed suppositions. You constantly claim that something 'must' be supernatural, and base your evidence on this being so. The point is that you have not even proved that there is any such thing as the 'supernatural'. Just because you can't explain something doesn't make it supernatural.

You have also been combining Evolution with Cosmology as being the same thing. Apart from having the original source of the Big Bang, they have nothing in common whatsoever. Evolution refers solely to reproductive life. Stars & Planets do not fall under this definition.

You seem to be claiming the existence of Jesus as being proof of a God. It is nothing of the sort. He was a MAN who had a radical view of political thinking. He raised a lot of support, and was exalted to the status of a God by his followers, in the same way as you are doing with Dolt Brown. Bear in mind that he DENIED being THE Son of God. It was his disciples that made that claim - not him. Furthermore, although there are records of his crucifiction, there are none of his birth. There is no evidence to support the story of the Census. We still take regular Censuses, and having people go to the place of their birth to be registered serves no purpose whatsoever. The information required would be to know where everyone was to be found in order to be taxed. Knowing where they were born would have no value whatsoever. Then why would he be called Jesus of Nazareth & not Jesus of Bethlehem? The 'Supernatural' star is generally believed to have been Halley's Comet - a physical, now known natural phenomenon - once thought to be Supernatural, and therefore caused by a God.

So where is this proof that you insist you have provided, bearing in mind that things "Must be supernatural" do not class as 'proof', as that is unfounded supposition.

Your constant claims that energy is diminishing is total bollocks, whether or not you try to disguise it by saying "(entropy)" every time. Entropy, as far as Cosmology is concerned is based on the hypothetical condition (note "Hypothetical" - not "Actual") situation of every portion of matter equally sharing the same amount of energy, therefore, with an expanding Universe, then the share of that Energy / Matter diminishes accordingly. Of course it does. However, the amount of Matter / Energy doesn't change. If you put an uninflated balloon into a bell jar & gradually remove the air from the jar, the balloon will inflate. The cubic capacity of that balloon (the Universe) is increased, but the Matter / Energy (atoms / molecules of air within the balloon) doesn't change. THAT is Entropy, and not only does it not support your argument, it supports the argument against it.

Again - the Unexplained is merely that - Unexplained. It does NOT make it supernatural. Many people go mad for Soap Operas. I can't stand them. It's a matter of taste. Can you explain taste, or the reason for it? Does that make it Supernatural? It has no Natural explanation, therefore, by your logic, it must be.

You claim that nothing can always existed, yet you claim that God has always existed. Your proof of this - that it must be supernatural. That is your only explanation / 'proof' for anything. Fantasy? Yes. Proof? Nothing of the kind. Not even close. Proof on your mental instability? Pretty damn close.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:37 am

Origin of the Moon

Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate (a). The Moon could not have spun off from Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined. Nor could it have formed from the same material as Earth, because the relative abundances of its elements are too dissimilar from those of Earth. The Moon’s nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor captured by Earth (b). If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon’s orbit; none are (c).

The once popular theory that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor is now largely rejected, because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth. The impactor’s material should have been quite different. (In Part II of this book, you will see why the loose rocks the astronauts brought back from the moon are so similar to Earth’s rocks. Those rocks came from Earth.) Had a Mars-size impact occurred, many small moons should have formed. (d). Also the impactor’s glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast (e). Besides, part of Earth’s surface and mantle would have melted, but none of the indicators of that melting have been found (f). Small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside! The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea (g). Finally, a Mars-size impactor would heat up and evaporate much, if not all, of Earth’s surface water. Earth would likely have experienced a runaway greenhouse effect, making earth permanently uninhabitable. [Page 576 explains aspects of this problem.]

These explanations have many other problems. Understanding them caused one expert to joke, “The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational error—the Moon does not exist (h). Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other (almost 200) known moons in the solar system.

But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit. [See “Evolving Planets? on page 31, and “Moon Recession, “Moon Dust and Debris, and “Hot Moon on page 41.]

a. “The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative. Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p. 209.

On 10 November 1971, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and lunar scientist, stated “I do not know the origin of the moon, I’m not sure of my own or any other’s models, I’d lay odds against any of the models proposed being correct. Robert Treash, “Magnetic Remanence in Lunar Rocks, Pensee, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1972, p. 22.

“In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme. David W. Hughes, “The Open Question in Selenology, Nature, Vol. 327, 28 May 1987, p.b 291.

b. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 77–79.

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Origin of the Moon, Science, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606–607.

“If the Moon had separated from the Earth, it would either have broken away completely or returned, but it could not have gone into orbit. Stacey, p. 38.

c.“The giant impact has major problems. It doesn’t produce the moon as seen. Stevenson, as quoted by Daniel Clery, “Impact Theory Gets Whacked, Science, Vol. 342, 11 October 2013, p. 184.

“The moon rocks, however, showed [oxygen isotope] ratios markedly similar to those of rocks from Earth. ‘The moon and Earth are indistinguishable on the oxygen isotope plot,’ Melosh said. The isotopes of other elements told the same story. Jay Melosh, as quoted by Daniel Clery, Ibid.

d. “We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met. Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk, Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.

e. “...no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed. Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk, Nature, No. 2, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.

f. “A collision big and hot enough to yield the moon’s magma ocean would have melted at least part of Earth’s surface as well. But geologists could not find any evidence that the mantle had ever melted. If it had, they expected to find that iron-loving elements such as nickel, tungsten, and cobalt had been drawn from Earth’s upper layers into its iron core. Instead, the concentration of iron-loving elements, called siderophiles, remains relatively high in Earth’s mantle. And other elements that should have segregated in a liquid mantle were instead commingled. Karen Wright, “Where Did the Moon Come From? Discover, Vol. 24, February 2003, pp. 65–66.

g. “This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says [Erik] Hauri. ‘It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,’ he says. ‘That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.’ Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, “Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past, Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past : NPR, 12 July 2008. [See Endnote 65 on page 317.]

h. Jack J. Lissauer, “It’s Not Easy to Make the Moon, Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327–328.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:24 pm

As per usual a load of erroneous statements & contradictions. Just one paragraph demonstrates this.

The once popular theory that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor is now largely rejected, because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth.

The theory is NOT largely rejected. It is generally accepted.

The impactor’s material should have been quite different. (In Part II of this book, you will see why the loose rocks the astronauts brought back from the moon are so similar to Earth’s rocks. Those rocks came from Earth.)

Which supports the impactor theory. It would be puzzling if they weren't similar.

Had a Mars-size impact occurred, many small moons should have formed.

There ARE many other 'moons'. Technically a moon is just an object that is in orbit around another. What we consider to be 'The Moon' is just the biggest of these. It is also theorised that the earth also had others that have either broken free of their orbits & drifted into space or, as with some of the moons currently in orbit around Mars, steadily spiralled downward into the planet's gravity to burn up or crash back into the planet from where it originated.

(d). Also the impactor’s glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast

Just what do you consider to be 'too' fast? It's spinning pretty damned fast as it is, and has been doing so for millions of years, steadily slowing down.

e). Besides, part of Earth’s surface and mantle would have melted, but none of the indicators of that melting have been found

Of course they have. You never heard of volcanoes? Lava?

(f). Small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space.

Perhaps you weren't aware there's no water on the moon?

However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside!

What water? Glass has nothing to do with water. Glass is made of molten sand, which also supports the previous point about small particles of the earth having melted, which your hero claims never happened.

The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea

There has never been any evidence to claim that there was ever any water inside the moon. This is another totally unfounded claim of Brown's

(g). Finally, a Mars-size impactor would heat up and evaporate much, if not all, of Earth’s surface water.
Which might even explain a great flood once it came to condense into rain.

Earth would likely have experienced a runaway greenhouse effect, making earth permanently uninhabitable.

It DID. It caused the Ice Age & the extinction of the Dinosaurs. However, once again Brown has clearly proved himself wrong inasmuch as it wasn't permanent.

Every single word of that one paragraph has proven to be flawed. Just ONE PARAGRAPH in an entire book, which is, at least consistent in being total garbage.

I reckon you should stick to Dr Seuss - it's got more facts in it.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:29 pm

FourPart;1474420 wrote: You have proved nothing of the sort. All you have done is repeated & repeated & repeated the same of quotes & flawed suppositions. You constantly claim that something 'must' be supernatural, and base your evidence on this being so. The point is that you have not even proved that there is any such thing as the 'supernatural'. Just because you can't explain something doesn't make it supernatural.

I have proved God exists using the facts of science and logic based on those facts. You have a problem accepting those facts because of your erroneous anti-God preconceptions. Are you able to prove He doesn't exist? I didn't think so.

You have also been combining Evolution with Cosmology as being the same thing. Apart from having the original source of the Big Bang, they have nothing in common whatsoever. Evolution refers solely to reproductive life. Stars & Planets do not fall under this definition.

You are referring to one definition of evolution: organic evolution. Another definition, which evolution scientists use, is the evolution of the the universe starting with the Big Bang.

You seem to be claiming the existence of Jesus as being proof of a God. It is nothing of the sort. He was a MAN who had a radical view of political thinking. He raised a lot of support, and was exalted to the status of a God by his followers

You need to study the eye witness evidence instead of repeating what other ignorant people have told you. It is true Jesus was a man. He was also God. His followers recognized that fact. They did not exalt Him to the status of God.

Bear in mind that he DENIED being THE Son of God. It was his disciples that made that claim - not him.

According to the Biblical record, given by eye witnesses, He referred to Himself several times as the son of God. Here are some examples:

The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied (Mt. 26:63,64).

"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God" (Luke 12.8).

"But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God" They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am" (Luke 22:69,70).

"I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man" (John 1:51).

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (John 3:18).

"For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:25).

"Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you" (John 6:27).

"Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" (10:36).

Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him" (John 13:31).

The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God" (John 19:17).

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:45 pm

FourPart;1474420 wrote: Furthermore, although there are records of his crucifiction, there are none of his birth.

The record is in the Bible which came from eyewitnesses. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was an eyewitness who was interviewed by Luke.

There is no evidence to support the story of the Census. We still take regular Censuses, and having people go to the place of their birth to be registered serves no purpose whatsoever. The information required would be to know where everyone was to be found in order to be taxed. Knowing where they were born would have no value whatsoever.

You a judging the Census by what you want to believe. The issue of the Luke 2 census has been debated for decades, but there are solutions to the apparent Bible problem.

First, we suggest picking up a copy of the NIV Archaeological Study Bible. This is a great resource for the church laymen, loaded with accurate and helpful archaeological data that enhances our understanding of the Scriptures. A quick perusal indicates that both of these issues are dealt with in the inserts. But that should just be a start.

Steve Caesar adds these brief quotations from scholars who have researched this important subject:

Luke 2:1 “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Dr. John Elder notes that:

...archeological discoveries prove beyond doubt that regular enrollment of taxpayers was a feature of Roman rule and have shown that a census was taken every fourteen years. A large Egyptian papyrus, telling of an enrollment AD 174-175, refers to two previous enrollments, one in 160-161 and another in 146-147, at intervals of fourteen years. A much earlier papyrus, dated in the reign of Tiberius [14-37 AD] reports a man’s wife and dependents for enrollment and apparently has a reference to a tax roll compiled AD 20-21. Another shows an enrollment under Nero AD 62-63; another lists those exempt from the poll tax in the forty-first year of Augustus, who began his reign in 27 BC. Since Augustus records that he set about early in his reign to organize the empire, the first census may have been either 23-22 BC or in 9-8 BC; the latter would be the census to which the Gospel of Luke refers. (Elder, J. 1960. Prophets, Idols, and Diggers. Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., pp. 159-60).

Dr. Jack Finegan, professor of New Testament history and archaeology and director of the Palestine Institute of Archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA, writes:

The question has been raised whether the Romans would have instituted census and taxation procedures in Palestine while Herod the Great was ruling as king of the Jews. That they would not have hesitated to do so is suggested by comparison with Apamea on the Orontes in Syria. The autonomy of this city-state is shown by the fact that it minted its own coins, yet Quirinius himself had a census taken there. A gravestone found in Venice carries the inscription of a Roman officer named Q. Aemilius Secundus. He states that by order of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, whom he calls legatus Caesaris Syriae, he himself conducted a census of Apamea, a city-state of 117,000 citizens. As for Herod, Josephus reports that in the time when Saturninus and Volumnius were the presidents of Syria, Caesar Augustus demoted him from ‘friend’ (Ï†Î¯Î»Î¿Ï‚= amicus) to ‘subject.’ Saturninus was listed above as governor of Syria in 9-6 BC, and Volumnius was evidently associated with him. By comparison with Apamea and specially from the time of Herod’s demotion by Augustus, Palestine would scarcely be exempt from any census and taxation procedures the Romans wished to institute. (Finegan, J. 1964. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 237).

Luke 2:2 “(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson writes:

[Critics] challenged the Bible’s claim that Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time. He was governor at the time of the census fourteen years later, in AD 6, but, it turns out that he was also a high official in central Asia Minor in 8 BC, actually being in charge of the Army in Syria. It appears that he was able to repulse a local uprising that probably delayed the implementation of the poll tax in Syria for some time (Wilson, C. 1980. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 116).

Luke 2:3-5 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:

Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation¦ (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).

The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads:

I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taasies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).

This sheds light on why Joseph had to bring his highly pregnant wife along with him when he went to Bethlehem. Such discoveries caused the late George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages at Bryn Mawr and former Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, to comment:

Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).

An additional point is the fact that the word “enrollment in the edict of G. Vibius Maximus is apographe in Greek (the universal language of the eastern half of the Roman Empire). This is exactly the word used in Lk. 2:2, translated “taxing, not in the sense of taxation but in the sense of enrolling or registering for taxation (Unger 1962: 64, n. 17).

A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:55 pm

FourPart;1474420 wrote:

Then why would he be called Jesus of Nazareth & not Jesus of Bethlehem?

Probably because that is where He was raised and spent 30 years of His life.

The 'Supernatural' star is generally believed to have been Halley's Comet - a physical, now known natural phenomenon - once thought to be Supernatural, and therefore caused by a God.

There have been many attempts to explain the Christmas Star scientifically, and three ideas will be mentioned here.

Some scholars think this “star was a comet, an object traditionally connected with important events in history, such as the birth of kings. However, records of comet sightings do not match up with the Lord's birth. For example, Halley's Comet was present in 11 B.C., but the first Christmas took place around 5 to 7 B.C.

Others believe that the Star of Bethlehem was a conjunction, or gathering of planets in the night sky. Since planets orbit the sun at different speeds and distances, they occasionally seem to approach each other closely. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) preferred this view. However, multiple planets do not look like a single light source, as described in Scripture. Also, planet alignments are rather frequent and therefore not that unusual. There was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 6 B.C., but an even closer gathering in 66 B.C., much too early!

Finally, an exploding star, or supernova, has been proposed to explain the Christmas Star. Some stars are unstable and explode in this way with a bright blaze. However, historical records do not indicate a supernova at the time of the Lord's birth.

All three explanations for the Star of Bethlehem fall short of the nativity story as predicted in Numbers 24:17 and recorded in Matthew 2:1-12.

Two details in Matthew are of special interest:

First, the text implies that only the Magi saw the star. However comets, conjunctions, and exploding stars would be visible to everyone on earth.

Second, the star went before the Magi and led them directly from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. This is a distance of about six miles, in a direction from north to south. However, every natural object in the sky moves from east to west due to the earth's rotation. It also is difficult to imagine how a natural light could lead the way to a particular house.

The conclusion is that the Star of Bethlehem cannot be naturally explained by science! It was a temporary and supernatural light. After all, the first Christmas was a time of miracles.

God has often used special, heavenly lights to guide his people, such as the glory that filled the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34-38) and the temple (1 Kings 8:10) and that shone upon the apostle Paul (Acts 9:3). Such visible signs of God's presence are known as the Shekinah Glory, or dwelling place of God. This special light is a visible manifestation of divine majesty.

The great mystery of the first Christmas is not the origin of its special star. It is the question of why the Magi were chosen to follow the light to the Messiah and why we are given the same invitation today.

What was the Star of Bethlehem? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:07 pm

FourPart;1474420 wrote:

So where is this proof that you insist you have provided, bearing in mind that things "Must be supernatural" do not class as 'proof', as that is unfounded supposition.

It is well founded on logic based on the facts of science. Scientists agree that nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause. The universe came from nothing. Therefor the cause must be supernatural. Can you think of anything that comes from nothing naturally?

Your constant claims that energy is diminishing is total bollocks, whether or not you try to disguise it by saying "(entropy)" every time. Entropy, as far as Cosmology is concerned is based on the hypothetical condition (note "Hypothetical" - not "Actual") situation of every portion of matter equally sharing the same amount of energy, therefore, with an expanding Universe, then the share of that Energy / Matter diminishes accordingly. Of course it does. However, the amount of Matter / Energy doesn't change.

Entropy is:

1 Physics: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

It may be true that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Before the universe existed with its matter and energy, it did not exist.

Again - the Unexplained is merely that - Unexplained. It does NOT make it supernatural.

What other explanation can you offer for the universe coming from nothing?

You claim that nothing can always existed, yet you claim that God has always existed. Your proof of this - that it must be supernatural. That is your only explanation / 'proof' for anything. Fantasy? Yes. Proof? Nothing of the kind. Not even close. Proof on your mental instability? Pretty damn close.

Nothing cannot always exist in the physical universe. God is spiritual and has revealed He has always existed.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:45 pm

I have never needed to explain how the Universe came from nothing because it didn't. It was always there, even if a microscopically, infinitely small something. Just because the Universe is expanding doesn't mean that it started from nothing. That is just your preassumption.

Once again you claim to have 'proved' the existence of God with logic & science. Once again I say that you have done nothing of the sort. Your only contention is the constant claim that the only answer is that it had to be supernatural. Supernatural is neither logical nor is it scientific, therefore as this is the only explanation you have ever offered then you have neither used logic nor science to prove anything.

As to disproving the existence of a God - No, I cannot, because I believe in Science. Science, by its nature does not seek to disprove anything - only to prove things. In the same way you cannot prove that my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants (which have just as much credibility) don't exist.

As for your 'Brief Comment' regarding the census (which was far from brief, yet said nothing of any relevance) you clearly didn't understand anything I made in my post, which was clear enough - you just didn't want to see the main fact I was making, and none of the crap you pasted contradicted anything I said, which was simply that there was a Census. Yes! I said that from the start. That much is a recorded fact. No problem. What is NOT mentioned is that Censuses do NOT require people to return to their place of birth. They never have done. It would serve no purpose - especially for when it comes to reasons of taxation. The authorities need to know who owes taxes and where they're to be found. Where they were born is of no significance at all. None of what you pasted even made any claim to say that they did go to their place of birth, quite simply because they didn't. They probably just had to make their way to their nearest registry point, which may or may not have been Bethlehem. As usual you have pasted an epic of useless information without understanding why.

Entropy.

Once again an example of your not knowing what it is you're talking about. You introduced the word without understanding its meaning, using it to define a total contradiction to the law of physics in your claim that energy would run out. That is not what entropy means, yet time & time again you have constantly used to word to quantify your erroneous claims. Finally, though, it seems you may have finally accepted the first law of thermodynaics that Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed, Only Transformed from One Form Into Another, which entropy doesn't dispute - only your (and Brown) have ever made this claim, just as with your usual solution - "if the facts don't fit, just make some up", and claim it to be the "Will Of God".

An example of Entropy would be that if you take a sponge (which has its own order), and then put it into a liquidiser, so that it has no order, it is then in a state of entropy. However, if you then leave it alone that sponge will reform itself into the original ordered sponge. Furthermore, if you take 2 sponges, one red, the other yello, say, and put them both in the liquidiser, once again you will have a state of entropy. But then, if you leave them alone they will reform to their original individual constituent colours. The point is that order can, and does, come from disorder. A random spark of energy compounds 2 elements (or more) to result in the conversion of that energy into a molecule of matter, making that matter a storage of the energy that went into making it. However, even there, entropy is still only a hypothetical condition, as there is no such thing as true disorder. Even the foundation of an atom is ordered with the nucleus & electrons etc. When iron filings are on a sheet of paper they appear to be disordered. Run a magnet underneath & they suddenly become very ordered.

You constantly use the argument of random events as arguments against that of logic. However, the whole point of randomness is that chance events happen & they then continue to be the cause of additional results which become less & less randomised. You seem to accept this much, but cannot seem to accept the possibility of a big rock hitting another rock, by chance & knocking a big chunk out of it, in the same way as a primitive man might make an arrow head by fashioning a piece of flint by bashing it with another stone. Incidentally, it is also a commonly held theory that the Pacific Ocean is the hole which once held the moon, as it's about the same sort of size & volume. Also, the fact that the earth wobbles on its axis also supports the theory of a massive astronomical collision. Although not 100% certain, there is a great deal of evidence to support these theories, as we continue to discover evidence & continue to learn, without attributing everything not yet understood to something 'supernatural' & therefore to be dismissed as unanswerable.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:57 am

FourPart;1474795 wrote: I have never needed to explain how the Universe came from nothing because it didn't. It was always there, even if a microscopically, infinitely small something.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

As to disproving the existence of a God - No, I cannot, because I believe in Science. Science, by its nature does not seek to disprove anything - only to prove things.

When science proves something to be true, it is disproving the opposite. I have shown, using logic, based on the facts of science, that God exists.

Censuses do NOT require people to return to their place of birth. They never have done. It would serve no purpose - especially for when it comes to reasons of taxation. The authorities need to know who owes taxes and where they're to be found. Where they were born is of no significance at all. None of what you pasted even made any claim to say that they did go to their place of birth, quite simply because they didn't.

The Romans required everyone to go the the place of their birth in the first century as my post explained.

Entropy.

Once again an example of your not knowing what it is you're talking about. You introduced the word without understanding its meaning, using it to define a total contradiction to the law of physics in your claim that energy would run out.

That is not what the definition I gave says. Look again:

1 Physics a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder

the system.

Notice it says nothing about energy running out.

That is not what entropy means, yet time & time again you have constantly used to word to quantify your erroneous claims. Finally, though, it seems you may have finally accepted the first law of thermodynaics that Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed, Only Transformed from One Form Into Another, which entropy doesn't dispute

Energy and matter be created nor destroyed. Before the universe existed in did not exist including matter and energy. The came into existence when the universe came into existence from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:24 pm

Pahu;1474833 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. ...

You keep saying this, over and over, but you have yet to offer any science to support such a supposition.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:39 pm

Pahu;1474833 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).
Why do you keep saying this? It has no meaning whatsoever. You are contradicting yourself in that single sentence. You have already defined entropy as being "UN-usable Energy", then you claim it to be Useable Energy. You give the Dictionary Definition of the word, and then use it to define the exact opposite. You can't have it both ways. You have admitted that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, yet you claim it would be lost. This cannot be so. Energy cannot be lost. It is merely transformed from one form into another. You can use the word 'Entropy' as many times as you like. In this context it doesn't mean anything. It is totally irrelevant. I might as well say "Elephants would have been used up (rabbits)". The two things have nothing to do with each other & it makes as much sense.

No matter how much you repeat the same meaningless sentence doesn't make it mean anything. It is erroneous as far as the matter of physics is concerned & it has nothing to do with entropy, either in the actual meaning of entropy or in the way you seem to think it means.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:59 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:04 am

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:39 am

Originally Posted by Pahu:

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing.

LarsMac;1474850 wrote: You keep saying this, over and over, but you have yet to offer any science to support such a supposition.

The fact is self evident that requires no further evidence. Putting it another way; according to the scientific Second Law of Thermodynamics, everything is moving from greater organization to lesser organization, eventually reaching a state of stability. If the universe has always existed it would have reached a state of stability with no movement and no difference in temperature.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:44 am

Posted by Pahu:

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).

FourPart;1474857 wrote: Why do you keep saying this? It has no meaning whatsoever.

It makes sense to those willing to think!

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:46 am

Ahso!;1474874 wrote:

What a wonderful example of the moronic, simple minded, uneducated and gullible disciples of an evolutionism age superstition!

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:08 am

Pahu;1474881 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing.

The fact is self evident that requires no further evidence. Putting it another way; according to the scientific Second Law of Thermodynamics, everything is moving from greater organization to lesser organization, eventually reaching a state of stability. If the universe has always existed it would have reached a state of stability with no movement and no difference in temperature.

Sorry, wrong again.

IF you are going to refer to the laws of thermodynamics, perhaps we should have them around.

First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.

Second law of thermodynamics – The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Third law of thermodynamics – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.

Now please demonstrate how you interpret equilibrium or even stability to mean that there would be no movement or difference in temperature.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:20 am

LarsMac;1474892 wrote: Sorry, wrong again.

IF you are going to refer to the laws of thermodynamics, perhaps we should have them around.

Now please demonstrate how you interpret equilibrium or even stability to mean that there would be no movement or difference in temperature.

The definition of equilibrium is a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced or in a state of physical balance. That means there would be no movement or difference in temperature if the universe always existed. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:26 am

Pahu;1474897 wrote: The definition of equilibrium is a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced or in a state of physical balance. That means there would be no movement or difference in temperature if the universe always existed. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

Simply put. But, you are simply wrong. Again.

A reminder, again. The Universe is not necessarily a closed system. Meditate on that fact for a while.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:54 am

Pahu;1474897 wrote: The definition of equilibrium is a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced or in a state of physical balance. That means there would be no movement or difference in temperature if the universe always existed. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

Once again you have eloquently described why everything you have said thus far is wrong.

"The definition of equilibrium is a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced or in a state of physical balance."

Correct.

"That means there would be no movement or difference in temperature if the universe always existed."

There hasn't been any change. Energy is constant. Temperature is not a form of energy - it is a MEASUREMENT of just ONE FORM of energy. For instance, unit of matter can be broken down to its component parts. The total sum of those parts remain the same. They have equilibrium. It matters not how large the container in which that unit exists is. The unit size remains the same. It has equilibrium. It is, it always has been and, to the best of our knowledge, always will be. You have, therefore defined why you are wrong.

"Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural".

Since that IS the state of the Universe everything is explained by a Natural cause, therefore there is no such thing as anything being Supernatural.

I love it when you explain things like this. It shows how stupid you really are.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:23 am

LarsMac;1474898 wrote: Simply put. But, you are simply wrong. Again.

A reminder, again. The Universe is not necessarily a closed system. Meditate on that fact for a while.

The Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and order can increase in an open system. If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable. So what is entering the universe to make it improbable for an increase in order? What energy is the sun and other stars receiving to make entropy improbable? The fact remains that the universe is running down in compliance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which conflicts with the notion of it having always existed. That means it had a beginning before which it did not exist and there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor, the cause of the universe was supernatural.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:38 am

FourPart;1474915 wrote: Once again you have eloquently described why everything you have said thus far is wrong.

"The definition of equilibrium is a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced or in a state of physical balance."

Correct.

"That means there would be no movement or difference in temperature if the universe always existed."

There hasn't been any change. Energy is constant.

How does conservation of energy work in general relativity, and how does this apply to cosmology? What is the total mass-energy of the universe? Conservation of energy doesn't apply to cosmology.

General relativity doesn't have a conserved scalar mass-energy that can be defined in all spacetimes.[MTW] There is no standard way to define the total energy of the universe (regardless of whether the universe is spatially finite or infinite). There is not even any standard way to define the total mass-energy of the observable universe.

There is no standard way to say whether or not mass-energy is conserved during cosmological expansion. Note the repeated use of the word "standard" above. To amplify further on this point, there is a variety of possible ways to define mass-energy in general relativity. Some of these (Komar mass, ADM mass [Wald, p. 293], Bondi mass [Wald, p. 291]) are valid tensors, while others are things known as "pseudo-tensors" [Berman 1981]. Pseudo-tensors have various undesirable properties, such as coordinate-dependence.[Weiss]

The tensorial definitions only apply to spacetimes that have certain special properties, such as asymptotic flatness or stationarity, and cosmological spacetimes don't have those properties. For certain pseudo-tensor definitions of mass-energy, the total energy of a closed universe can be calculated, and is zero.[Berman 2009] This does not mean that "the" energy of the universe is zero, especially since our universe may not be closed.

One can also estimate certain quantities such as the sum of the rest masses of all the hydrogen atoms in the observable universe, which is something like 10^54 kg. Such an estimate is not the same thing as the total mass-energy of the observable universe (which can't even be defined). It is not the mass-energy measured by any observer in any particular state of motion, and it is not conserved.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/w ... se.506985/

I love it when you explain things like this. It shows how stupid you really are.