Posts by Buggman

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Benjamin Netanyahu: Spanish Court Issues Arrest Warrant for Israeli Prime Minister, Reports Say

    11/19/2015 11:24:15 AM PST · 44 of 45
    Buggman to markomalley

    What would be hilarious is if Bibi in turn issued arrest warrants against the same Spanish officials. Mossad would have all of them in Israeli jails in a matter of months.

  • Is the Big Bang Cycling Through Hidden Time?

    06/02/2015 9:11:46 AM PDT · 95 of 100
    Buggman to MHGinTN
    You realize that all of these collisions you're depending on to explain away the effects of E=MC^2 would themselves create more radiant energy, right? (Laws of conservation of matter and energy.) Adam's fried either way.

    But let's think about this for a second as a thought experiment: You're having to posit that light was traveling a couple million times faster (at least) at the time of Adam. So, 2 million squared equals 4,000,000,000,000 (4x10^12, or four thousand billion) times the amount of radiant energy from the sun. So to absorb all that extra energy, you're positing that the universe was 4x10^12 times smaller at that time so as to create the necessary particle density. Congratulations, you now have everything in the visible universe (about 30 billion light-years) condensed into an area the size of our solar system only six thousand years ago.


    - It's too hot for matter to form, especially with the increased energy output from the increased speed of light.

    - The speed at which the universe would have to expand to get to its current size is so fast that it tears apart atoms, let alone stars and planets. We have a universe today with nothing but thinly diffused hydrogen at best.

    - Since the speed of light affects chemistry, you can't get the fine-tuning required to maintain biological life.

    - You require constantly shifting laws of physics throughout history. Yet the Bible points to the consistency of the laws of physics as proof of the consistency of God in his moral laws and covenantal fidelity.

    And all this because you are insisting on a woodenly literal reading of the English translation of Genesis. None of this is necessary to someone who understands the original Hebrew.

    I'm a huge Chuck Missler fan--he got me to take the Scriptures seriously and opened up a whole world to me back in the day--but he's just plain wrong on this. And so is Setterfield. His own biography admits that he never completed his university studies in physics and geology. That's not to say that this automatically invalidates his ideas, but rather that I would want to see his math checked by someone who has the expertise to do so. Go talk to a Christian astrophysicist like Hugh Ross--or even Danny Faulkner, if you insist on having a Young-Earth Creationist. Faulkner admitted years ago in a debate with Ross hosted by John Ankerberg that speed-of-light decay wasn't a feasible defense of YEC. In fact, he admitted that YEC doesn't have a valid physics model.

    When even YEC astronomers object to Setterfield's hypothesis, that tells you how weak the position is.


  • Is the Big Bang Cycling Through Hidden Time?

    06/01/2015 6:45:39 AM PDT · 90 of 100
    Buggman to MHGinTN
    It isn't. E=MC^2. If the speed of light was even twice as fast in Adam's day, he would have been incinerated by a sun putting out four times as much radiant energy, or else the solar system could not have remained in stable orbits due to the sun gaining four times as much mass. (Ignoring the conservation of mass and energy for the moment.)

    Not to mention that those kind of incredible changes in energy and/or mass could not have been hidden from our modern telescopes. We'd be seeing them every time we looked at distant galaxies.


  • Why I am No Longer a Dispensationalist

    05/27/2015 8:56:51 AM PDT · 523 of 935
    Buggman to editor-surveyor
    Nobody here is asking you to take our word in anything. By the same token, "he who answers a matter before he hears it, it is a folly and a shame unto him." Scripture also tells us to "test all things, and hold on to the good." Are you prepared to test Rood in all things, including his past record? Are you willing to find out why the criticisms of Rood aren't just about his doctrine (there will always be that for any Messianic or Hebrew Roots Christian from our Sunday brethren), but about his past and his claims?

    Cynical Bear has just posted proof that Rood has claimed to be a rabbi in the past. While he may have stepped back from that more recently and removed those references from his "official" sites, the record is there for those who wish to pursue the matter. So is the record for the other issues most of us have with Rood.

    I know that Rood is an engaging teacher. He's also one that is very good at pushing the pride buttons: Oh, thanks to Rood, you now know the Truth that both the Church and the Jews are blinded to! And anyone who challenges Rood's teaching must be the instrument of the Adversary to keep men blinded to this Truth!

    Don't let pride lead you to reject what we've been trying to tell you out of hand, nor to only get your information about Rood from Rood himself so as to confirm what you want to believe.

    If you aren't willing to do your homework in this area, then you're no better than anyone else who blindly follows a tradition of men over the Word of God.

    Shalom uv'rekha m'ach Yeshua HaMashiach

  • Why I am No Longer a Dispensationalist

    05/27/2015 8:34:11 AM PDT · 515 of 935
    Buggman to CynicalBear

    Then I definitely understand your frustration.

  • Why I am No Longer a Dispensationalist

    05/27/2015 8:19:51 AM PDT · 510 of 935
    Buggman to CynicalBear

    Has that been time just on this thread, or is this an ongoing conversation?

  • Why I am No Longer a Dispensationalist

    05/27/2015 6:53:17 AM PDT · 496 of 935
    Buggman to CynicalBear; MHGinTN; xzins
    It's the natural response of the first shock. He's not going to suddenly repudiate Rood here and now on this thread. It takes time to assimilate new information that completely undermines something or someone that you have put a lot of stock in. God willing, editor-surveyor won't just close his ears, but will set out to "disprove" the accusations against Rood by doing his own research--and in the process, will uncover the truth for himself.

    But that will take time, and we need to give him that time in sympathetic love, not throw rocks at him. Torah, after all, forbids putting stumbling blocks in the path of one who does not see.

    Shalom uv'rekha m'ach Yeshua HaMashiach
    Peace and blessings from a brother in Jesus Christ

  • Why I am No Longer a Dispensationalist

    05/26/2015 10:57:25 AM PDT · 434 of 935
    Buggman to xzins; editor-surveyor; CynicalBear
    I know of Rood. In short (and I'm sorry, E-S), he's a false teacher who operates under false pretenses.

    He claims to be a rabbi, but he hasn’t been ordained as such by any Messianic or traditional Jewish organization. He is not recognized by any major Messianic Jewish organization. His only known ordination as a minister comes from The Way International, which has its own problems. He keeps making false predictions on the timing of the Second Coming based on his “corrected” Jewish calendar. He makes extravagant and false claims about the traditional rabbis agreeing with him on various issues.

    He relies on a supposed "Hebrew original" of Matthew that is, as far as anyone can tell, just a translation from the Greek with a few novel changes. He also casually tosses out passages of Scripture that disagree with him: Most famously, realizing that having three Passovers in John's Gospel account messes up his rather novel interpretation of the 70 Weeks, Rood has declared--without any scholarly support--that John 6:4 was falsely inserted into the text. That is easily refuted by anyone with even a basic knowledge of the Biblical manuscript data and the early Church fathers, or even with just access to Google.

    Here’s a good summary of some of the other problems Rood has.

    Or just Google michael rood false teacher

    Unfortunately, between the extravagant claims, the garish pseudo-priestly costumes, the Gandalfian beard, and an incredible talent for self-promotion, he’s a lot of peoples’ first taste of the Hebrew Roots / Messianic movement. Most seem to start catching onto the false claims and drift away after a few years, but there’s always someone new who has just heard of him and gets caught up in his cult.

    Honestly, First Fruits of Zion is a much better resource for someone trying to understand the Jewish roots of the Christian faith and where the Messianic movement is today.


  • Should Christians Own Guns? A British theologian's view

    05/20/2015 5:59:09 AM PDT · 3 of 85
    Buggman to OK Sun
    ". . . the right to bear arms against a tyrannical dictatorship is a different question as to whether Christians need to own guns now in a stable democratic environment."

    Uh, riiiiiiight. Has this guy even glanced at the news?

  • 'Eternal flames' of ancient times could spark interest of modern geologists

    05/20/2015 5:56:16 AM PDT · 16 of 25
    Buggman to gleeaikin

    And the gas started talking? And somehow didn’t burn down the bush?

  • 250 Year-Old Shipwreck Could Hold Thousands of Litres of Rum

    05/20/2015 5:54:39 AM PDT · 50 of 50
    Buggman to Harmless Teddy Bear

    The rum is always gone.

  • Like the President and Hillary, My Views on Marriage Have Evolved

    04/28/2015 9:02:47 AM PDT · 30 of 36
    Buggman to ThePatriotsFlag

    No can do. They aren’t happy, they think they’ll only be happy when everyone not only tolerates, but openly celebrates their particular fetish, so you simply MUST bake that cake.

  • Shirt printer that wouldn’t make gay pride shirts vindicated by court

    04/28/2015 7:11:01 AM PDT · 23 of 55
    Buggman to who_would_fardels_bear

    Yes, because there is already a clear legal precedent that art is “speech” for purposes of the 1st Amendment.

  • How not surprising: Top 'gay' charged with raping boy (high # of pedophiles who are homosexual)

    04/22/2015 8:55:16 AM PDT · 26 of 48
    Buggman to allendale
    Hey now! Hillary may be a serial liar, a drunk, and a lesbian, but . . . what was the fourth thing you said?


  • The ‘Sustainability’ Craze Is Nothing but an Empty Pose

    04/16/2015 11:35:38 AM PDT · 6 of 8
    Buggman to SeekAndFind
  • (Pitt) University Warns Professors That Their Students’ Genders May Change Over Time

    04/16/2015 8:25:24 AM PDT · 8 of 41
    Buggman to Zakeet

    Yes, my gender has changed over time to “Majesty.” From now on all liberals must address me as “Your Majesty,” to other people as “His Majesty,” and so forth. Anyone who doesn’t do so is simply Buggophopic and must be fired from their jobs immediately.

  • 'Free Range' Kids Picked Up Again By Police In Maryland; 'Beyond Ridiculous,' Mother Declares

    04/14/2015 11:29:12 AM PDT · 10 of 193
    Buggman to Cowboy Bob

    Seriously. My mom used to kick me out the door on a Saturday afternoon and tell me not to come back until dinner. (I was prone to staying indoors and reading all the time.)

  • Yawning Over the Left's Pizza Bullies

    04/08/2015 6:08:50 AM PDT · 11 of 19
    Buggman to relictele

    Fascinating observation. Can’t wait to throw it into the mix the next time I’m dealing with a rant from the other side.

  • ISIS Wants a Truce

    04/01/2015 8:14:26 AM PDT · 17 of 60
    Buggman to TangledUpInBlue

    “Truce” is Arabic for, “Hang on, I’m reloading.”

  • If Liberals Are The Good Guys, Why Do They Lie So Much?(Lying Comes Natural To Them)

    03/31/2015 7:03:14 AM PDT · 31 of 46
    Buggman to Kaslin

    Bump to show to my teenage daughter later. Many thanks!

  • Of Course: Iran Makes Another Last-Minute Demand, West Looking to Achieve 'Narrative'

    03/31/2015 6:14:13 AM PDT · 10 of 10
    Buggman to george76
    a "narrative," whatever that means

    A narrative is a story. Obviously, what they want is a good-sounding fiction.

  • Chino High School Teacher Who Learned As An Adult That She’s Genetically Female Goes Public

    03/24/2015 12:40:15 PM PDT · 4 of 68
    Buggman to ConservativeInPA

    If it’s actually a genetic / hermaphroditic condition, she has my sympathies and support. But self-deception does seem more likely.

  • Why Liberals Love the Enemies of Israel

    03/20/2015 5:30:58 AM PDT · 10 of 12
    Buggman to Kaslin

    Simple: Because in their hearts, they recognize that they and Israel’s enemies serve the same god.

  • Luther's Comments About the Jews vs. The Papal Bull "Decet Romanum"

    03/06/2015 9:16:23 AM PST · 10 of 23
    Buggman to Paleo Conservative
    Which at the time was the closest thing we had to chemistry.

    I'd also point out that while Luther got rather more irascible in his later life, he was also responsible for penning, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," which was radically philo-Semitic for its time.


  • Secular Study: No Big Bang?

    02/24/2015 6:12:06 AM PST · 39 of 40
    Buggman to JoeFromSidney
    Unfortunately for the above authors, while the red shift was the initial proof of an expanding universe, it's not the only one. For example, we can measure the flow of time, and therefore the relativistic effects of an expanding universe, by measuring the periods of Cepheid variable stars, the eruption time spans of novae and supernovae, star formation time spans, stellar burning rates, and galaxy rotation periods. Each of these confirm the Big Bang.

    Moreover, we can directly observe that galaxies were closer together in the distant past thanks to a finite speed of light.

    Besides which, a static universe still couldn't be eternal, because there's a limit to the amount of usable hydrogen in the universe. If the universe were infinitely old, it would also be infinitely entropic, having suffered its "heat death" long ago.

  • Prayers to God in wrong spot? (Temple Mount location 'misplaced'?)

    02/24/2015 5:51:36 AM PST · 38 of 51
    Buggman to xeno

    I don’t think it fits. There’s no room for the Court of the Gentiles, Solomon’s Portico, and it puts the Temple right on top of the City of David rather than north of it.

  • Secular Study: No Big Bang?

    02/23/2015 11:24:01 AM PST · 26 of 40
    Buggman to Teacher317
    The only dangers are those to the zealots who have taken a stand on their interpretation of a thousands-year-old book that has been translated through numerous languages . . .

    It's been translated directly from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English, not from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to French to English, or from Greek to English to Greek again.

    It'd be nice if the critics of the Bible weren't relying on grade-school misunderstandings of what it is and how it's been passed down to us.


  • Secular Study: No Big Bang?

    02/23/2015 11:20:13 AM PST · 25 of 40
    Buggman to fishtank
    Unfortunately, Humphries' work has some serious flaws, as noted on
    The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians. . .

    To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. . .

    In his latest attempt to defend Starlight and Time, Humphreys actually quietly abandons it. The three central arguments of the original Starlight and Time proposal were:

    1.The alleged physical significance of the Schwarzschild time coordinate of the Klein metric. This is so important in the original Starlight and Time argument that Humphreys called it "the essence" of his new cosmological model.

    2.The gravitational time dilation effects of differences of gravitational potential in a bounded universe which, it was alleged, do not occur in an unbounded universe. Again, this is essential to the original argument.

    3.The alleged profound effects of event horizons in a bounded universe. In Starlight and Time, Humphreys attributed most of the effects of 1 and 2 above to the action of an event horizon, which he claimed would cause Earth clocks to be static while billions of years of time elapsed on clocks in the distant universe.

    It has been shown in a number of articles that all three of these claims are manifestly false. In particular, 1) the Schwarzschild time coordinate has no physical significance at all for the behavior of physical clocks in a bounded universe, 2) the pattern of gravitational field and potential differences is manifestly identical for bounded and unbounded universes (this is sufficiently important and sufficiently simple that we will revisit it below) and physical clock behaviors are manifestly identical for both cases, and 3) the event horizon of a bounded universe has absolutely no effect on the passage of time on physical clocks in such a universe.

    In his most recent defense of this theory, "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics", Humphreys gives up so much ground on each of these three central arguments that one can fairly say that he has abandoned the original formulation of his hypothesis.

    Go read the articles on Reasons to Believe to get the citations and the rest of the argument. If even Humphreys has ceded the core elements of his original hypothesis, then it really is dead in the water and we need to acknowledge it as such.

    And yes, I did read the book back in the day. I got initially excited by it, but even in the layperson section there were flaws that the careful reader could discern.


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/20/2015 7:59:43 AM PST · 100 of 114
    Buggman to ctdonath2; Mr Rogers
    Well said. I'll add another point: By creating a universe with enormous age and a finite speed of light, God has not only allowed us to verify that the universe itself has a beginning, He has given us the means to backwards-engineer how He did it.

    For example, we know that due to the high concentration of hydrogen gas in the early universe, the first stars were supermassive and super-hot, and that it was out of these supermassive first-generation stars that hydrogen and helium were fused into the heavier elements that make up planets and, well, us.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I find the idea of God using supermassive stars as His forges to create the building-blocks of life to be pretty darn cool.

    Another example: Zinc is highly water-soluable, and originaly all the earth's zinc deposits were dissolved into our oceans. That gives us two problems: 1) Most life can't exist in that much zinc, and 2) we need zinc deposits for much of our technology. God could have just removed all the zinc from the oceans and into deposits, but then we wouldn't have known that He had done it. So instead, He created an organism (I forget the name) that actually ate the zinc and gathered into colonies that eventually died. The oceans became suitable for other life, we got the zinc deposits that we need, and God not only showed us how He did it, but has given us the capacity to backwards-engineer what He did. One day we may mutate or create microbes of a similar nature that we could use to clean up the royal mess we've made of the seas.

    That's just one example of a million of how the universe and the earth had to be carefully designed to support us. My biggest problem with Young Earth Creationism is that it sacrifices such valuable apologetic arguments on the altar of a very shallow reading of the Scriptures.


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/20/2015 7:45:39 AM PST · 99 of 114
    Buggman to Mr Rogers
    God has not lied.

    Then before I get to the rest of your post, I'll ask you again: When we see the light of a supernova--the brilliant explosion of a star in its death-throes--in a galaxy millions or even billions of light-years away, did that star ever really exist?

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/20/2015 5:55:52 AM PST · 94 of 114
    Buggman to Mr Rogers; ctdonath2
    "Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

    Which is incompatible with the idea of a universe created with the appearance of age.

    The Bible tells us repeatedly that the heavens declare the glory and the justice of the Lord, and that we can know Him by what He has created. Well then, if He created a universe that has an appearance of immense age according to every scientific and logical test we can put to it, then either a) it is indeed 13.8 billion years old, and that gulf of time demonstrates God's eternality; or b) He is a trickster god who creates illusions for the sake of confounding those seeking the truth rather than a God of truth who cannot lie.

    Let's look at it another way: The Bible is a creation of God, but one composed by human authors. The universe is God's direct creation, and no hand but His is responsible for it. If He created the universe so as to so confound honest interpretation by adding a false appearance of age, then on what basis could we assume that the Bible would be any easier to come to a right understanding of?

    BenLurkin hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread. When asked if God was incapable of creating a universe with the appearance of age, he responded, "Of course God can do that. But why would He?”


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 12:55:06 PM PST · 90 of 114
    Buggman to Mr Rogers
    The back story for Middle Earth is not real.

    No it isn't. That's the difference between God and the good Professor--the back story of the universe, which we can observe thanks to a finite and constant speed of light, is real.


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 9:01:35 AM PST · 80 of 114
    Buggman to GodAndCountryFirst
    It's not a science book, though it does indeed contain predictions that we can now test. To wit: The Bible says almost a dozen times that God stretches out the heavens. The same evidence the proves Big Bang cosmology proves the Bible's prediction. However, the Bible does not contain the necessary equations to predict the exact rate of expansion, because it was written to and by a pre-scientific society.

    I will also tell you candidly that the more one learns the Hebrew and the original context of Genesis 1-11, the less one is worried that an old universe contradicts the Bible. The Hebrew words for "day," "evening," and "morning," for example, have broader meanings and different connotations than one would expect from the English translation. Moreover, by the time we get to the end of verse 1, the earth already exists in some form, so there's no problem with the universe being around for billions of years before that.


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 8:46:14 AM PST · 77 of 114
    Buggman to GodAndCountryFirst

    Tell me, when we see a supernova exploding in a distant galaxy, millions or even billions of light years away, did the star whose dying light we are seeing ever exist?

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 8:11:06 AM PST · 74 of 114
    Buggman to ctdonath2


  • The Book That Deflated Darwin Day

    02/11/2015 1:25:16 PM PST · 9 of 21
    Buggman to sparklite2

    Didn’t read the article, did you?

  • Sociologists: 'Christianophobia,' Anti-Christian Hostility Infects Powerful Elite Subculture

    01/29/2015 12:24:26 PM PST · 10 of 19
    Buggman to lowbridge

    The phrase, “Duh,” comes to mind.

  • UNRWA Spokesman Chris Gunness Suffers Mental Breakdown on Twitter

    01/29/2015 9:07:26 AM PST · 11 of 14
    Buggman to Slings and Arrows

    lol That’s brilliant. I’m going to start using that.

  • 'Junk' DNA Mystery Solved: It's Not Needed

    01/19/2015 6:03:23 AM PST · 28 of 31
    Buggman to DannyTN
    Heh. A few years ago, a friend of mine had surgery on his coccyx. Basically, it was abnormally long and that, combined with a sedentary career in IT, had resulted in a cyst forming. He spent weeks going on about how his abnormal coccyx was proof that it was a vestigial tail, of evolution from primates, etc. etc.

    Finally, I just said, "Okay, you win! I give! I admit that your long tailbone is proof that you, personally, evolved from a monkey!"

    Even our other evolutionist friends thought that was hilarious.


  • HuffPost Religion's People Of The Year Are The Religious Leaders Of Ferguson

    12/29/2014 1:49:19 PM PST · 15 of 22
    Buggman to chajin

    Introduce them to Kedem—still a sweet red, but not nearly as cloying.

  • Not so secret: New book features 105 documents from Vatican archives

    12/29/2014 5:57:11 AM PST · 23 of 23
    Buggman to MarkBsnr; MrPiper

    I’d also point out that they didn’t just pick 66 books out of the air. The Old Testament canon was perfectly in agreement with what the Jews already regarded as the canon of the Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings). As for the New Testament, the “vote” was in substantial agreement with what the vast majority already accepted as canonical. Everyone agreed there were four Gospel accounts, the book of Acts, and most of the epistles. Only 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, and (in a very few eastern churches) Revelation were really up for debate, IIRC.

  • Behold, atheists' new Ten Commandments

    12/23/2014 7:25:53 AM PST · 30 of 35
    Buggman to C19fan
    Here, let me translate for you:

    1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence. (Unless the evidence points to an Intelligent Designer, in which case disregard it.)

    2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true. (But see the exception to rule #1.)

    3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world. (But we'll use it to make pronouncements about non-physical realities, from the spiritual to the moral, when it suits us.)

    4. Every person has the right to control of their body. (Unless they are Christians, in which case they must put their bodies to work for us; e.g., baking cakes for homosexual unions.)

    5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life. (Yeah, this isn't a commandment, but since when have we ever been coinsistant when it didn't suit us?)

    6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them. (We'll ignore that without God, there is no reason why this is would be true--all that matters is what you can get away with in this life.)

    7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective. (Unless they're those religious nuts--you should demonize and mock them every chance you get.)

    8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations. (Vote the way we tell you to.)

    9. There is no one right way to live. (Just all the ways we consider to be wrong.)

    10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. (True, this is just repeating #8, but we're running out of things to say and need to end on a sanctimonious note.)

  • Hollywood's Race Problem: "It's a White Industry"

    12/11/2014 9:10:28 AM PST · 9 of 98
    Buggman to Borges

    I remember seeing an interview with Dave Chappell a few years after he got out of Hollywood where he pointed out that if you’re a black man in Hollywood, and you’re not Will Smith or Denzel Washington, they’re going to find a way to get you in a dress sooner or later.

  • For 8 years I helped kill unborn babies. How did I not see the truth?

    12/03/2014 5:42:28 AM PST · 7 of 40
    Buggman to rjsimmon

    Agreed, but what I think she’s driving at is that your common abortion mill worker is more likely to be blind than intentionally evil, and therefore needs to be treated as a person who needs to be rescued into the light rather than as a monster to be put down.

  • Bill Cosby’s Media Lynching

    12/02/2014 5:55:39 AM PST · 6 of 63
    Buggman to LeoMcNeil

    You know, Cosby’s been an outspoken critic of gang culture and poverty pimping for years, as well as a figurehead for the classic family among blacks. In other words, and attractive target for the Left.

  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 1:48:30 PM PST · 84 of 103
    Buggman to fishtank
    Already addressed back in post 56. In short, Humphries has refused to do any proper peer review and has continued to sell his book mostly to people who don't know enough to check his math. And I'm not saying that as someone who hasn't bothered to read the book--I have, and while I liked it back in the day, there were always problems with it even from a lay perspective.


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 12:49:50 PM PST · 73 of 103
    Buggman to MrB
    The Answers in Genesis article is fairly easy to break-down by argument and respond to:

    Argument #1: Speed-of-Light Decay (aka CDK)
    There are literally a dozen different ways to time the speed of light that do not depend on atomic clocks, including the ability to measure the energy--and therefore the speed--of photons at their point-of-origin no matter how far away.

    But there's another much simpler response: E=MC^2. If the speed of light were different in the distant past, we would be able to detect the dramatic (square-function) changes in energy output and/or mass in distant stars. For that matter, even a small increase in C would have resulted in the incineration of Adam by our own sun.

    Argument #2: Time on earth might pass at a dramatically different rate than the rest of the universe
    This is basically just a play on Humphries White Hole Cosmology, which I addressed back in post #56. There are a number of problems with this view that are addressed in the article I linked to, but I'll focus on just one:

    Earth is not the center of our local galaxy, which we know is well over a mere 6000 light-years in diameter. To have the kind of effect that YEC demands, you'd have to have the galaxy rotating around the earth, not the other way around. Morever, we've observed active events like supernovas in our own galaxy at a distance of over 20,000 lightyears, so that invalidates the whole raison d'etre of the theory.

    Argument #3: Assumptions of Synchronization
    This doesn't actually make a difference, since nobody is arguing about how old the universe would seem to be to a photon, and the relative speeds of the galaxies to each other can be measured via red-shift. Moreover, there are certain types of supernovae that have a very distinct time-line in terms of their energy outputs that we use as universal clocks to measure the relative speed of time in distant galaxies.

    So it's true that different parts of the universe have different ages. It's also true that thanks to the finite speed of light, we can watch the whole history of the universe right back to when the light first separated from the darkness--and that history is far older than 6000 years in our local time.

    Argument #4: The Assumption of Naturalism
    It doesn't take naturalistic assumptions to look up, take measurements, and realize quickly that there's no way for the light to have reached us in a mere 6000 years. This argument is just a scare-tactic by the YEC crowd: "If you believe in an old universe, you don't believe in God!" That's utter nonsense.

    Argument #5: The visible universe is larger in radius than the age of the universe
    Already addressed. The continued stretching out of space-time provides a sufficient mechanic to explain this when the difference is 15-17 billion light-years to 13.8 billion years. It is insufficient to explain seeing 15 billion light-years in 6000 years--the speed at which the universe would have to expand would actually rip the atoms to shreds and nothing could ever form.

    As I've said in another post, the problem is not the Bible vs. Science, the problem is an interpretation of the Bible based only on its English translation vs. virtually everything we can observe around us. Those with an ability to read the original Hebrew and understand how it's just plain different from English (very different tenses, for example, which actually resolves the Day 4 problem) generally have no problem at all with an old universe.

    To put it another way, the Hebrew can be read in a YEC way and an OEC way equally well. Why not then use the information God has made available to us in his other direct creation--the universe itself--to break the tie?


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 12:10:11 PM PST · 69 of 103
    Buggman to Resettozero; Gideon7
    I would argue that if you have a sequence of events (as you do on days 1-6), you have time. However, it is true that until Adam, there's no reason for the Bible to track time in human units.

    And without going into too much detail at the moment, I would point out that the original Hebrew words for "day," "morning," "evening," etc. have somewhat different ranges of meaning than you might assume from the English translation. As a matter of fact, as my ability to read the Hebrew has increased, so has my comfort with Old-Earth Creationism.


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 11:31:51 AM PST · 65 of 103
    Buggman to MrB
    Who’s to say that the rest of creation wasn’t perfect as well (it was).

    Indeed it was. How would an Old-Earth Creationist perspective be a problem for that?

    We’re seeing light coming from far more than the “Big Bang” estimation of the age of the universe as well, so that isn’t a valid argument.

    Actually, it is. The reason we can see light coming from 15 billion light years away when the universe is only an estimated 13.8 billion years old is because it has continued to stretch out, just as Scripture predicted. Basically, the fabric of space-time itself isn't constrained by the speed of light, so light that began travelling when the size of the universe was smaller effectively travels from further away by the time it reaches us.

    As far as the “lying illusion”, I’ve addressed that as well. God told us exactly what happened. How is that “lying”?

    We currently track the detonation of super-novas in distant galaxies. If we see a star explode in Andromeda, 2 million light-years away, and the universe is only 6000 years old, that means that the star we just saw explode never even existed. Therefore, anything further than 6000 light-years away would have no actual existence and the appearance of a universe beyond that point would be a deliberate deception on the part of its Creator.


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 11:23:23 AM PST · 62 of 103
    Buggman to Resettozero
    Then someone said to me, you're going to checkmate God?

    I would argue that discerning what God says about his own actions is hardly "checkmating" him.

    No longer do I try to limit God in my daily walk of faith in His Firstborn Son Jesus Christ who said “My Father is working until now, and I am working,” for which He was accused of blasphemy.

    Yeah, but look at the context: Yeshua (Jesus) was accused of sinning by healing on the Sabbath. His response is that God himself does indeed "work" on the Sabbath, since the world continues to exist and children continue to be born, and that therefore doing what was obviously another (if more blatant) miracle from God could hardly be considered a sin.

    That point remains true whether we're talking about the weekly Sabbath or God's cosmic Sabbath.

    Are you an Israelite in whom there is no guile?

    My own Jewish heritage is muddled at best. However, my wife and therefore my children are Jewish (and my son was circumcised on the eighth day by an Orthodox rabbi) and I have chosen to say to her, "Your people shall be my people."

    Are you a believer yet in Jesus Christ as Lord of all Creation?


    Are you part of "the latter rain" that was foretold?

    I know about six different ways Joel 2:23 has been interpreted, so you'd have to be more specific before I could answer in truth.