Inspirational Words from Nixak77.

Nixak*77*  Jim  6 days ago
'Repent & Sin No More.'

PS: In his piece I see that Bart.E slams Bill.O's book on 'Jesus' which says 'Jesus' [Yeshua] opposed the Roman occupation of Judea [IMO true], but then Bill.O tries to spin that fact to Him being against so-called 'big gov't' & taxes. Well I say to Bart.E despite Bill.O's anti 'big-gov't' & taxes 'spin', can there be any doubt the Yeshua was against the Roman occupation of Judea that resulted not only in His own crucifixion, but also the sacking of Jerusalem & the destruction of the Temple? IMO of-course NOT!!

Nixak*77*  Arthur Jeffries  a month ago
Most folks [including me] agree that Josephus' account of Yeshua being executed by Pontius Pilate, most likely was tampered w after the fact by some over-zealous Xtian scribe.... That being said why does Carrier even think Josephus' TF should read like a quasi mini-gospel &/or quasi Pauline type epistle account narrative of Yeshua's life, especially since Josephus was a non-Xtian Judean-Roman writer?? IMO had Josephus covered 'all the bases' Carrier's griping about, historians & scholars would have {mis}taken Josephus for a Xtian, instead of a non-Xtian Judean.
- And IMO Carrier's being a bit disingenuous to say Josephus doesn't name any of Yeshua's relatives, when in fact he talks about the death of His brother Yaacov [aka St James] & even Yokhanon [John] the Baptist too [G.Luke says they were cousins]. And re those accounts, almost no-one thinks they were tampered with.
- A Carrier objection: 'Nor does it [TF] mention any Christians ever being persecuted—at all, much less why.'
- First of all Carrier, Josephus notes the persecution & execution of the 2 top leaders of Yeshua's Judean movement, Yeshua [by the Romans] & His brother Yaacov [by the Sanhedrin], along w one who's associated w Yeshua, Yokhanon the Baptist too. IMO it doesn't take a 'genius' to figure out that if you're killing off the top leadership of a movement, the whole movement was likely under full-assault- Duhh!! 2ndly Josephus was NOT writing for jokers like Carrier, he was writing for Romans & Judeans toward the end of the 1st century after the Romans had already sacked Jerusalem. It was well known at that time in both Judea & Rome that members of Yeshua's movement were under persecution in both Judea & in Rome, so why does Carrier insist that Josephus should have noted something that was most likely common knowledge to Josephus' target audience(s)? When Einstein wrote E = M(C^2), would Carrier insist Einstein should have noted that 2+2 = 2*2 = 2^2= 4? Hell NO! It's assumed anyone studying hi-level physics must already know basic arithmetic- Duhh!
- But of-course IMO all Carrier's trying to do is discredit all what Josephus says re to Yeshua, His Brother Yaacov [& likely even Yokhanon the Baptist too], so he can push his whacked 'Jesus Mythicism' & try to make it seem more 'credible' & 'scholarly' [just because something seems 'credible & scholarly', don't mean it's true].



 Nixak*77*  Jim  a month ago
I didn't mean to imply G.Mark may have copied from G.Matt, but IMO since we know G.Matt was likely first written in Hebrew / Aramaic, it likely was written concurrent w or even before G.Mark was written. And IMO both could have been written before 60 ACE. That ain't the current Erhman type 'secularized' Gospel-scholar consensus view, but... Erhman & his ilk can't actually prove otherwise.

 Nixak*77*  Jim  a month ago
On the issue of Yeshua's genealogies per G.Matt vs G.Luke, Erhman misspoke on at-least 2 counts: 1st} All the names between Yosafe & David are NOT totally different. At-least 2-3 names in both genealogies between Yosafe & David do match-up.
2nd } IMO the biggest problem w trying to reconcile the 2 genealogies [G.Matt vs G.Luke] is not necessarily the many different names between the 2, after all oft-times the same person in the Bible was/is known by more than just 1 name [IE: Abram / Abraham; Jacob / Israel; Benjamin / Ben-oni; Joseph / Zaphnath-paaneah; Esau / Edom; Daniel / Belteshazzar; Kush / Ethiopia; Egypt / Mizraim / the Land of KHam; Ur of the Chaldeans / Shinar; etc...], the biggest issue to reconcile is the difference in the number of generations between David & Yeshua per G.Matt [28 gens] vs G.Luke [42 gens] in combo w the different names.

The other issue w Erhman, is he takes it as 'gospel' that G.Mark precedes G.Matt & that G.Matt & G.Luke were written circa 85 ACE. Yet IMO G.Matt may well been written at the same time or even before G.Mark, & both may have been written before 60 ACE [as early as 50 ACE, but G.Matt first written in Hebrew / Aramaic & without the genealogy].


Nixak*77*  Anthony66  a month ago
Uhm Ant666, HTF can you even 'test' for macro-evolution in real-time?? You CAN'T!!! - You can only 'extrapolate', 'interprelate' & HYPE-O-Thesize re it!! Whether in "virtual-'reality' " or real reality!!

Nixak*77*  Anthony66  a month ago
Re your 'plant/animal symbiosis' quip, of course when insects were created / appeared such a relation would 'evolve' to the mutual benefit of both insects & plants. Insects like bees & butterflies would helped proliferate many plants that much faster & efficiently. Ditto when birds were created / appeared, But... Plants & algae had to come first otherwise what would have been the base of the food chain for insects, birds & fish? Even more crucial & critical, without plants & algae to oxygenate the atmosphere w increasing levels of O2 via photosynthesis- How could insects, birds, land animals & even fish have even breathed??


Nixak*77*  Anthony66  a month ago
Uhm Ant666, I can't see what any of that has to do w extracting & doing any actual DNA analysis of fossil-fragments that allegedly are over +3mn to over 7 - 10 mn yrs old or even older....
- But anyway Ant666, since you're trying to just 'wowzer' me w 'nested hierarchies' & such, & blah, blah, blah..., IMO you can take this back to your 'nest of hierarchies' & chew on it: BIO-Complexity Presents Better Model than Common Ancestry for Explaining Pattern of Nature [see @ https://evolutionnews.org/2... -&- https://evolutionnews.org/2... -& also @ https://evolutionnews.org/2... -&- https://evolutionnews.org/2... ]!!

Uhm Ant666 re your 'end of science' quip, you know as well as I do, that most of the 'fathers' / pioneers' of the modern scientific age [IE: Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, etc] were Men of Faith. In fact they said their scientific endeavors glorified God. As such their faith in God as they did science, marked the beginning of the modern scientific age NOT the end of it- Duhh!! That's just a LAME anti-theistic rhetorical 'spin'-meme!!




Nixak*77*  Jim  a month ago
This article shows just how uncertain many things still are in cosmology: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe? [@ www.livescience.com/how-can... ]
- The star's in question [aka 'Methuselah'] estimated age is 700 mn yrs older than the current standard guesstimated age of the Universe itself [14.5 vs 13.8 bn yrs]. Plus 'Methuselah' ain't even near the outer realm of the observable Universe, which per the standard cosmological model is where the oldest stars, galaxies & quasars should be; but instead is 'just' 190 lys away from our solar-system.
- The article goes on to say that the value of the Hubble constant [H0] ain't really settled either [standard value for H0 = 67.8 km/s per mega-parsec], but could be as hi as 84.5 km/s per mega parsec. But if H0 increases, the age guesstimate of the Universe could drop to as low as 'just' 11.5 bn yrs [still a long way from Ham type YECs' assertion of 'just' 6k - 10k yrs].
- Obviously if 'Methuselah' is 14.5 bn yrs old, the Universe must be older than that, & thus well older than the current best guesstimate of 13.8 bn yrs. Yet if the age of the Universe is closer to 15 bn yrs than 14 bn yrs, then H0's value must be less than 67.8 km/s per megaparsec [63.3?].

Point being despite the hype, 'scientists' ain't got it all figured out- Not by a long shot!!


Nixak*77*  a month ago
Outline of the 6 ‘Day’ [epoch] of Creation Process per each of the 6 Stages / ‘Days’ of the Process:
- ‘Day’ / Epoch 1: As the 'Big Bang' confirms, God caused the Universe to burst into existence w a sudden brilliant burst of light energy, ‘illuminating’ & ‘bursting thru’ the ‘darkness’ of the 'void', as is denoted by the diagram of Big Bang @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... -&-
Thumbnail
; for which a cosmologist just won a Nobel Prize [not Penrose’s CCC HYPE-O-Thesis] – Also note per Einstein’s [E = M(C^2], when you have light-energy you can / will get matter / the material universe. Note the Sun & Moon were actually created ‘In the Beginning’ when God ‘Created the Heavens & Earth’ via the ‘Light’, NOT during 'Day' / Epoch 4.
- ‘Day’ / Epoch 2: Separation of Earth’s hydrosphere from its atmosphere. Apparently the atmosphere was initially super-saturated w water-vapor [fog / mist & clouds] & IMO CO2 too, which would have effectively obscured stars & heavenly bodies [including the Sun & Moon] from earthly view.
- ‘Day’ / Epoch 3: God uses plate tectonics & volcanism to lift continental land-masses from the depths of the sea. Then upon these land-masses God caused vegetation to appear, & readily grow & proliferate in an environment ‘rich’ in water-vapor, CO2 & volcanic-ash enriched soil.
- ‘Day’ / Epoch 4: Plant photosynthesis absorbs excess water-vapor & CO2 from the atmosphere, while steadily increasing its O2 levels. The effect was that atmospheric visibility increased to the point that the Sun & Moon became clearly visible from Earth. Thus the Sun & Moon could now be used as markers for the daily day-night cycle, monthly [‘moonly’] cycles, seasonal cycles [ala the 4 seasons] & yearly cycles. IMO insect-like creatures [IE: trilobites] also likely appeared & began to proliferate on ‘Day 4’.
- ‘Day’ / Epoch 5: Via photosynthesis God caused atmospheric O2 levels to rise to a % level that could support bird & fish / sea-creature life-forms [@ % atmospheric O2 levels of 8 – 11%]. We know birds [but not dinos] can survive & thrive at O2 levels of 8 – 11%, because migratory birds can / do soar for days at a time at altitudes above 20K ft above sea-level [ASL] to even as hi as 35-40K ft above sea-level [FYI: @ 20K ft above sea-level the O2 equivalent = 10% & @ 30K ft ASL the O2 equivalent = about 7%]. Also most fish can survive in water where the dissolved O2 levels is 1/3rd to 1/2 of normal levels [equivalent to O2 atmospheric levels of about 7% to 10-11%], which is roughly the equivalent minimal % O2 levels required by birds. PS: By this epoch the Earth would have already been teaming w both plant & insect life-forms = an abundance of food-sources for both birds & fish [& of-course some aquatic birds do also eat fish].
- ‘Day’ / Epoch 6: Via photosynthesis God caused the % of atmospheric O2 to rise to & beyond 17% [current normal level = 21%], which is hi enough to support land-animal / land-creature life-forms- The last land-creature that God made being Man / Humans in the region of the Earth ‘Eastward in Eden’ arching between Kush [= ancient Ethiopia & parts of ancient Sudan] & ancient Egypt [KHemit] over to the Mesopotamia [Note the ‘Garden of Eden’ aka the Fertile Crescent].
-
-
Why Darwinian Macro-Evolution is NOT Reconcilable w the Genesis Account [IMO YECs miss the real point, it ain’t really about whether God created the Earth 6K ybp in 6 literal 24-hr earth-solar days]:
- 1} Per Darwinian random-selection theory, the Creation including life itself was a ‘lucky’, unintended, unguided accident [thus no God required / involved], which is totally contrary to ‘In the Beginning God [purposefully] Created the Heavens & Earth. The effect is to deny God was / is the ‘Author of Life’, the ‘Creator of the Creation’.
- 2} Per the 1st point above re the Darwinian paradigm, life in general including human-life, has no true ultimate purpose beyond ‘survival of the fittest’ to ‘spread one’s ‘selfish’-genes’. Yet the Bible makes it clear that life in general & human-life in particular has a purpose that surpasses / transcends ‘survival of the fittest’ to “spread one’s ‘selfish’-genes” [a key theme of the Bible is selflessness {= love for & service to one’s fellow man} vs Darwinian selfishness per its ‘survival of the fittest’ doctrine]
- 3} Darwin’s ‘theory’ asserts given enough time via random-mutation & NS [= ‘survival of the fittest’ - Note: RM + NS = random-selection], a dino can ‘macro-{d}evolve’ into a bird & a long extinct mini-hippo type land-mammal can ‘macro-{d}evolve’ into dolphins, orcas & whales; etc... Yet Genesis says each species reproduces & multiplies after its own kind, which is NOT a ‘theory’ / HYPE-O-Thesis but a true observable biological-fact in real time.
- 4} Per the Darwinian paradigm humans {d}'evolved' from the physical & behavioral ‘image’ of a long extinct ape-like creature, yet per Genesis humans were originally created to be in the spiritual, intellectual & moral image of their Creator. Note that ‘In the Beginning’ for each ‘Day’ / Epoch of Creation God said ‘Let there be such & so’… Then when God created Man, He let Man behold each creature that God had made & then told Man to ‘name each creature & whatever you call it, that’ll be its name’. Question for Theistic evolutionists, Xtian Darwinists, etc: Where does it say & God spoke to some ape-like creature & told it to name all the different creatures that God had made?? Do apes talk / communicate by any spoken &/or written language?? Hell NO!! The only ‘creature’ it says God spoke to / communicated w & thus gave specific instructions to, was Man / the Adamic Generation / the Human Family!
- Thus IMO there can be NO ‘harmonizing’ / ‘reconciling’ of the Darwinian macro-evolution w the core principles & ideals of the Genesis Creation account re any the 4 Points above- especially for Points 1 & 4!!
-
Questions for Darwinists [ala Andrew Parker]
- How can a strictly-materialistic & mindless process ala Darwinian evolution, ever ‘evolve’ any creature / being who could have any real sense of the ‘divine’ / ‘spirituality’?
- How can an inherently A-moral process [ala Darwinian evolution] ever ‘evolve’ any ‘creature’ / being w any true sense of morality?
- How can an inherently mindless goalless process w no ‘sense of fore-sight’ [ala Darwinian evolution] ever ‘evolve’ any ‘creature’ / being w a mind that can set long-term goals based on said mind having fore-sight / a long-term vision for the future?
- These are questions that are NOT so easily ignored / dismissed by 'sincere' Darwinists, yet Darwinists tend to assert that Darwinian ‘evolution’ must have done it [as Andrew did here], rather than actually explain in some detail how it could have possibly been done via the Darwinian paradigm.