tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post115233789432675517..comments2008-06-28T13:54:45.570-07:00Laymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-85672408219521396562008-06-28T13:54:00.000-07:002008-06-28T13:54:00.000-07:00

SCIENTIST CAN’T CALCULATE THE AGE OF THE EARTH.Regarding the scientific explanation of the earth’s creation, there are ways to know it by natural speculation or by a historical record. A cording to natural speculation, one meditates observe and conjectures about the creation. In a historical record, we go by what it says.Consider this:The earth does not have six thousand years it has billion of

Rafaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07855044421596537623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1171005917431276722007-02-08T23:25:00.000-08:002007-02-08T23:25:00.000-08:00

>Your page is basically one error after anotehr. Yet you fail to demonstrate one single mistake. Not one. Yet you seem to think you know what you are talking about. It is obvious you do not. A key point: Without any contemporary resource at all, there's no way to build a historical account, other than through historical inference.We have plenty of sources that go back to the time of Jesus.

Laymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1170993030776281422007-02-08T19:50:00.000-08:002007-02-08T19:50:00.000-08:00

"Your page is basically one error after anotehr."Such as . . . ?"Without any contemporary resource at all, there's no way to build a historical account, other than through historical inference."So, since most ancient histories we have are based on resources that aren't even as contemporary as the Gospels, you are basically saying that there's no way we can know almost anything historically from

BKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1170985035220940102007-02-08T17:37:00.000-08:002007-02-08T17:37:00.000-08:00

Your page is basically one error after anotehr. A key point: Without any contemporary resource at all, there's no way to build a historical account, other than through historical inference.And such methods cannot be used with supernatural claims.So any reference to historical claims here commits a false analogy fallacy.

todangsthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735143136820068094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1166111603204846762006-12-14T07:53:00.000-08:002006-12-14T07:53:00.000-08:00

Evidence in the Talmudic teachings shows a Rabbinical Sermon around 60AD that is a point-by-point parody of the Gospel of Matthew. Based on the idea that a Gospel would have had to be widespread and well known at that time for this Sermon to have had any cultural significance, most historians are now dating Matthew to between 30-40AD.That is all.

James Belcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05828317916568165644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1153473152899118252006-07-21T02:12:00.000-07:002006-07-21T02:12:00.000-07:00

Hey, thanks for your post on this. I was quite the amused. (and a bit saddened that they lacked the maturity to admit they were wrong). I've linked you here

mxuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03956333218040153996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152740544448519662006-07-12T14:42:00.000-07:002006-07-12T14:42:00.000-07:00

You know, I thought you attached that phrase to People of God, and that's where I'm starting myself. I may have gotten it wrong, though.My mistake proves you are not a real historical person, by the way, and that I surely never read your review and that I heard your phrase second or third hand and that we never spoke...Now I'm getting indulgent.I'm about halfway through People and loved the

Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05825416797769424875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152671006650409382006-07-11T19:23:00.000-07:002006-07-11T19:23:00.000-07:00

Troy,Always good to hear from you.You are right. Someone knowledgeable about ancient Japan could provide one list, someone knowledgeable about ancient China another, someone knowledgeable about ancient Persia another. It just so happens that most people who will bother to respond to their already-withdrawn challenge are knowledgeable about the early Christian history.And yes, Christians as well

Laymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152662360519422692006-07-11T16:59:00.000-07:002006-07-11T16:59:00.000-07:00

Layman.I always love reading your stuff. It's funny because every student of history could provide a different list. I might toss this over to my brother who teaches history and see what his list would be.For me...I've decided it's an interesting concept when looking at all history, a parlor game perhaps, but worth nothing more.You are right in that skeptics can be isolated in their own

Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05825416797769424875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152519437652234542006-07-10T01:17:00.000-07:002006-07-10T01:17:00.000-07:00

slave,I agree about that there is likely a legal issue for anyone who met their challenge before they started changing the rules on us. But do we really want to clog up the courts with $100 lawsuits?The moral victory is enough for me here.

Laymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152514197095467872006-07-09T23:49:00.000-07:002006-07-09T23:49:00.000-07:00

So did they pay someone?They offered a monetary award for anyone who would do such and such, which is a contract. If it was written on-line, it is then a written contract. Once someone accepts the terms of that contract, the contract cannot be withdrawn or anulled unless the party which accepted the contract broke their end of the deal. But if the party which accepted did not break their end

slaveofonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17493574936843969520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152385984342021812006-07-08T12:13:00.000-07:002006-07-08T12:13:00.000-07:00

Thanks Jason,The examples could be myriad. The "Rational Responders" might claim that Jesus' brother Symeon and all the other relatives did not exist either. Of course, this would make them look more and more ridiculous as they denied the existence of Jesus, John the Baptist, all Jesus' relatives, etc. I saw they are entertaining doubts about Peter and Paul's existence as well. I also suspect

Laymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152380464891459222006-07-08T10:41:00.000-07:002006-07-08T10:41:00.000-07:00

Good article, Chris. In addition to the examples you, J.P. Holding, and others have cited, I can think of some other examples from the early post-apostolic church.Around the middle of the second century, Hegesippus writes about a cousin of Jesus named Symeon, who apparently was a prominent figure in the early church and lived several decades earlier. I don't know of any reference to Symeon in any

Jason Engwerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152375650014394112006-07-08T09:20:00.000-07:002006-07-08T09:20:00.000-07:00

Don't apologize. My post was a long time ago, and I am surprised you even remembered it. I only mention it because it focuses on the logical flaw of their demand, whereas you have gone in and shown how their demand can be met quite clearly despite the limitation that I note. Of course, they aren't interested in the truth, and the fact that they are offering $666 as the reward shows that they are

BKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152368844545276232006-07-08T07:27:00.000-07:002006-07-08T07:27:00.000-07:00

Ya know, in the planning stages of this dispute I fully intended to refer back to your good piece on this. But as the night got later and my patience shorter, I forgot. My apologies.

Laymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1152361504334646052006-07-08T05:25:00.000-07:002006-07-08T05:25:00.000-07:00

Just for the record, I had discussed this same offer a while ago from a different angle. You can find my comments on the stupidity of their contest here.

BKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.com