you make an excellent point at the beggining, but you miss one out:
suppose you work efficiently and hard, and are not only healthy enough to enjoy retirement, you have also earned through hard graft enough money to enjoy it.
What will most likely happen?
It will be taxed away from you for enjoyment by those who had a less enterprising youth.
I think along the same lines, 'Carpe Diem'. The world is full of people too focused on working in a dead end job that earns them a bit of cash and a basic pension none of them seem to realise that today is for living, gathering knowledge about the little planet we live on, making a difference NOW. Devote your life to your family, immediate or global, live by the morals of human decency and respect. TF...a voice of intelligence speaking loud and clear above those of idiots.xxx
You told me to read the NIV and it's still the same as the KJV.
IT'S NOT A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE LAST TIME. It is not scientifically accurate. We don't go by physical appearance like size but internal structures. They were unable to make a difference so what does that tell you about their technology?
why would classifying creatures in difference by say whether they spin webs or not instead of whether they have six or eight legs..why would one be wrong its just a classification method it was classified differently why is our method right and that wrong its just a different method..u are getting hung on a word it really doesnt make sense why you cant understand that. And of course technology was less advanced
its not like they thought the whale was something other than a whale they just classified it according to their method absolutely nothing wrong with that.
So if one country classified birds based on flight and another based on whether they can swim or not u are actually saying ones wrong and ones right thats silly its just different method of categorising.
"In Ezekiel 26:21, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be brought to an end and would never again be found. When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of world powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult."
"According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town."
..different method of classification why cant u wrap your head around that
Rome was burned down to the ground several times. It's still Rome, is it not? Tyre, or Sur as it is known now, is still not desolate. The prophecy was directed towards Tyre, not Phonecia.
I refuse to speak of the damn taxonomy of a whale now as I promised earlier.
Ok lets address Ezekial 26 (though what it refers to does extend to other chapters). to illustrate a few points i will quote PARTS of verses (not the full verse) to not fill up too much space.
3: "I will bring many nations against you, O Tyre," Nebuchadnezzar was formidable of mention but not the only the only one among these.
4: "I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock." this was done by Alexander.
And though there is a city called Tyre it is not in same spot. (plz b precise
Let me also make a point. Nebuchadnezzar had no success in taking Tyre. After thirteen long years of siege, Tyre only compromised to accept Babylon as its sovereign lord.
And all cities will eventually come under attack. Take for example, Moscow which was destroyed by the Tatars several times, the Polish Lithuanians occupide it, and more recenty, Napoleon and Hitler attempted to take it.
It's not called Tyre, it's called Sour (French pronounciation) and it's got close to a hundred thousand people. It's not on the island but on the coastal town where the original Tyre lays upon.'
Alexander took the original rubble from the ruins and dumped it into the ocean to create a path where his soldiers can cross.
Anyone can predict the destruction of a city and it will come true because all cities will, sooner or later, be destroyed. And Tyre isn't a bare rock, is it?
u have to show me where it says that it will be Nebuchadnezzar who alone would destroy Tyre indeed it was not him but Alexander..u must note "many nations" v3.
You make the point of pretty much 'of course it will eventually be destroyed' but how is a question and HOW it was destroyed is part of the prophecy.
It is a bare rock as the ACTUAL site (remember ancient geography) does not have a city.
Nebuchadnezzar never stormed Tyre and frustrated with it, he diverted resources to his campaign to take Egypt. It specified that Nebuchadnezzar would desolate Tyre and that it will never be rebuilt. That's roughly the definition of utter destruction.
There is a city on the damn site for the last time.
Google Earth it. There is a town on it. The reason why the ruins are still there is because it is a cultural heritage site and protected by the Hague Convention.
U tell me where it says that Nebuchadnezzar would singal handedly destroy Tyre.."many nations" remember. But he did do indeed "ravage your settlements on the mainland".
"The reason why the ruins are still there is because it is a cultural heritage site and protected by the Hague Convention."
in one comment u both say its built on and not built on...saying that its because its a cultural heritage site doesnt mean 'it doesnt count' or so, w/e the reasons it has not been built on again
No. 1 - Nebuchadnezzar was unable to breach the wall. He reached an uneasy truth with the citizens of Tyre after thirteen years of siege.
No. 2 - So by your reasoning, since Hiroshima was destroyed by a nuclear bomb, the parts of Hiroshima dedicated to the Memorial that are left unrestored are not considered part of Hiroshima?
ALSO the exact location of the Phonecian ruins are unknown. It is still being excavated. The Roman ruins are the ones being preserved.
like i said where is it single handedly...in the end a truce is irrelevant he was part of the downfall as said.
..it sounds like because a site is protected from being built on that thats 'unfair' and somehow means not only is the prophecy void but wrong..that doesnt make sense
No. 3 - Nebuchadnezzar was not part of the downfall because he did not contribute to the destruction of Tyre.
No. 4 - Apparently you do not understand that the Roman ruins are being preserved and that the Phonecian ruins are below the present town (as you've said.)
No.5 - The outside settlements would count as part of the Phonecian empire, not Tyre.
No.6 - The city of Sour is built over the original Phonecian town. The causeway has gained land because of the tidal movements depositing sand on its beaches and even has a neighborhood built on it. Sour has 117,000 people.
" The outside settlements would count as part of the Phonecian empire, not Tyre." well your pushing your definition because the prophecy says that ppl will still fish later.
Prophecied that many nations would attack: it happened
It would be thrown into the sea: and the debri was by Alexander
Ppl would still fish there: and they do
..so how do u know that this Sur is actually built on Tyre..or has the area of Tyre be redefined to include more hmm
He said that people would fish ON Tyre, the city, that it would sink into the sea. The causeway made of debris that Alexander threw in was used to make the causeway, which has a NEIGHBORHOOD on it.
Sur is built on the island, the causeway, and the mainland itself.
In the words of cdk007, THINK ABOUT IT.
If you don't care to watch AronRa's video, then don't say anything.
And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock.
She shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken it, saith the Lord Jehovah.
When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and the great waters shall cover thee.
It is saying that Tyre will be BELOW water where they will fish on the city ITSELF. And the fishermen can't fish on something when it is now part of the land, can they? The Causeway is covered with sand because the coastline built around it. There is a neighborhood on it for the last time.
wheres the problem...u seriously believe that in the same prophecy what is said is that it will be uninhabited but ppl will inhabit it and fish NO of course not that would be contradictory, no the fishermen indeed are not on Tyre, do u really believe the prophecy contradicts itself by saying that people fish the waters but tTyre will be unhabited
No, I am simply stating that the Bible was saying that Tyre will sink into the sea and become a place where the fishermen will spread their nets on. I mean, literally on the city itself because it is below water.
She shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken it, saith the Lord Jehovah.
When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and the great waters shall cover thee.
are you saying that the fishermen should be living underwater in Tyre debris!!!!!!????
I dont if u answered it before but is Tyre the same place today as it was before "there is a city of Tyre today, but it is located down the coast from the original Tyre"
i already said the prophecy talked about fishing ..and what do we have today fishing towns near where Tyre was..where is the conflict..there is none unless u think thats a contradiction which i will discuss if u want
Not living UNDERWATER. The prophecy said that fishermen will fish on the city itself. It didn't say fishermen from Tyre but simply fishermen. "I shall bring the deep against you." It didn't say that He shall bring the city to the deep. He said the waters will rise to swallow up the "bare rock" of the city. I don't know why you don't see this.
" 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations," according to NIV
5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.
She will be OUT in the sea. I want you to see it like this: Water will consume the bare rock of the city until it is below water, much like how New Orleans would look like if the levees broke. Fishermen will fish ON the water ABOVE the city. Do you understand? Alexander scraped debris but it's still not a bare rock. The ruins are below the city.
"They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD." ((NIV) 26:12-14)
This is become tedious on the web and I think T-foot is getting pissed off with us because no one else can get a word =P. Let's continue with messaging. The 500 word limit is really pissing me off.
heh what did he send a message?? ok fine..id be glad for u to give me links for your argument too but not like compulsory to read otherwise i might be getting 8, 9 pages essays or so :) ok fine PM
another "life" quote I really like: "Life isn't measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away." I think you would agree with this also.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
can reality be contradictory..(perhaps in some obscure abstract way) but the point is whether evolution or creationism in the end it doesnt matter as God's actions and Scriptures account are less abstractly evident and commentated within in the study of history.
"Thou shalt not kill." Pretty goddamn clear-cut- in my opinoin.
So where is there room for stoning adulturers, men with long hair, and disobedient children in there?
Also, Genesis dosn't just seem unusual- it's a collection of parables. Which is all well and good- untill nimrods try to sell them as historical accounts.
Attempting to take it as historical fact destroies the purpose of the stories to begin with and devalues religion on a fundamental level.
Furthermore, it dosn't matter if even one sentence in the bible is factually accurate. That isn't the point. It never was the point. Christians ( and others ) trying to make it into the point are doing more for atheism than an eternity of scientific discovery could hope to accomplish.
Most of the people doing that very work believe in some form of religion. Mull that over for a while.
u didnt watch "who really wrote the Bible" or w/e its called did u, the idea that the Bible doesnt call for people to see it as fact is completely ludicrous..read it, its obvious
The Bible has many portions which call for you to take it as fact. There are also many portions which don't call for you to take it in any particular way.
There also just might be- OBVIOUS parables which you are called on to take as fact.
Remember, this document's been fucked over by hundreds of authors. Any one might add that you should take X parable literally.
Adam and Eve is a parable, layered with symbolism. Regardless of what ANYONE says about it. Reading comprehension is win.
Noah's Ark is not real. How the fuck is anyone able to bring two of every SINGLE animal onboard when they didn't have the techniques to build a strong boat.
i was saying its silly to think that God doesnt want his word taken seriously. How some people say 'the Bible was never intended to read as true' OF COURSE IT WAS.
Im not here to argue evidence but there certainly is.
I was just saying to say that the Bible is supposed to be read as fiction is certainly not what the Bible has written in it
Go watch AronRa's foundational fallacies series and you will see that people like you have ended up equating God with a book. GOD is an omniscent, omnipotent entity, not some book that a bunch of Jews wrote for political purposes and religious incredulity.
People like you who think the Bible is literal are brainwashed.
i dont equate Scripture as being God i dont know why thats relevant and i certainly dont know why u sed that.
"People like you who think the Bible is literal are brainwashed." doncha just hate that predictability when someone disagrees with u they just call u brainwashed well i can say that to u to so what.
So far i havent anything in Scripture positively negated so yeah what u sed doesnt change anything
Antisyncretism, I know for sure now that you HAVE NOT WATCHED ARONRA's VIDEOS. You have no idea of how stupid the authors of the Bible were. Tyre was conquered by Alexander the Great, not Nebuchadnezzer. The Book of James thought the number pi was 3! The Bible thought that whales were fish! AND YOU STILL DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG? My fucking God.
instead of giving me a video better yet give me these specific verses so i can look at them myself and other info.
Ive read James and i cant ever recall him saying anything about pi at all..and pi is 3 btw yes 3.14 but still three who said how much someone should roundup.
"The Bible thought that whales were fish"
its a matter of classification its not incorrect to classify different but just different.
"Tyre was conquered by Alexander the Great, not Nebuchadnezzer" plz give verse
Whales are not fish. They have totally different anatomy. Jonah was swallowed by a fish? He could not have been for there were no fish big enough living in the Mediterranean. He would've been digested by the stomach juices by then.
In Ezekiel 26, Ezekiel predicts that Tyre would fall to Nebuchadnezzar. He attacked it but he did not conquer it, Alexander did it. Alexander was the one that made it desolate.
Ezekiel said that Nebuchadnezzar would make it desolate but he only drove the people off to an offshore island. They continued to thrive. Alexander destroyed it completely and destroyed them.
And NIV? Did you make a new one to cover up the faults with the older version?
And guess what? Tyre's still not completely desolate today! It's name is Sur in Lebanon. Sur is the fourth largest Lebanese city.
AND P.S. It's still the same exact description in the NIV.
"He made a sea of cast metal circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about
I have been reading "the bible" and you are correct that it is self consistent within itself, but not when placing it under the scope of...umm...lets say modern understanding of how the world works(science)....It all depends on what you want out of it I believe...I do like things such as "do onto others as you would like them to do on to you"...etc...but not the Adam and eve story....
but why does Genesis seem silly to u..cause it sounds unusual..well ud hope it would wouldnt u i mean the creation of the world isnt normal after all.
History is however much more easy to interpret in relation to Scripture than science is
The problem is that history does NOT line up with scripture at all.
Jesus birth, death and ministry do not line up in any of the scriptures with the actual time frames and personalities listed.
There is no acheological evidence in suppot of Moses, Abraham, Solomon or King David. Nor any written evidence of the Egyptian plagues, the infanticide of Herod, or the guiding star of the nativity.
And the events at the crucifixion only exist in the bible. They are NOT mentioned anywhere else.
Tacitus was dictating what Christians were always saying, not first hand infomation.
You also failed to mention that this paragraph is also deriding of Christians as the arsonists of Rome. And the title "Procurator" was never bestowed upon Pontius Pilate as he was a "Prefect".
Josephus account of John's death was between 34CE and 36CE. The Gospels all place it before 33CE. Contrary to the gospels, Josephus states his imprisonment was due to being blamed for Herod's defeat in 36CE.
Tacitus is a good historian im sure he sourced (well and if he did consult Christians i wouldnt see that a problem).
When Tacitus refered to what he didnt really believe (like Hercules0 he would say 'it is thought' or 'some say' or 'and they even say' none of that here.
The title name of Prefect was changed to procurator in Tacitus' time so Pontius Pilate according (correctly) to them was a procurator
If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great then it was before 4 BCE. If he was born during the Roman census, then it must have been in 6 CE.
Luke stated that Jesus was about thirty years old when he began to preach (Luke 3:23) and that was during the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar" (Luke 3:1). Augustus Caesar died in 14 CE and Tiberias was his successor. Thus the fifteenth year of his reign would be around 29 or 30 CE. This sets his birthdate around 1 BCE or 1 CE.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Us white people are the only ones who don't believe in god, and yet we also rule and run the entire planet through superior intellect. So basically you're saying intelligent people don't believe in god and stupid people do?
I was fortunate enough to take a month long trip around the country 8 years ago --and even with a month it was only enough time to get a glimpse--but it was magnificent.
The two most beatiful places I remember were Death Valley (the colors from the volcanic deposits were out of this world) and Rocky Mountain Natl Park in Colorado.
i most likely sound idiotic from this considering i have no comprehensive clue on the foundations of life on this planet. but i would like to try to point out to you the one fact i do know that life did not come from no were.
and if you try to prove that wrong ill ask you these questions.were did god come from,if god is all powerful why did he need 7 days to create everything,give me your explanation of the start of life. and please stop being such a hypocrite.
"were did god come from,if god is all powerful why did he need 7 days to create everything,give me your explanation of the start of life"
You really should look up more of Thunder's vids and maybe check out DonExodus2's vids as well. They both tackle that little problem with relative ease...
history lesson for you. life did not come out of no were.[quote]Life emerged through a complex chain of evolutionary events, dictated by the physical-chemical environment on the early Earth. ]] favorable conditions lead to the formation of relatively complex polymers from organic monomers these were already present on primitive earth..the monomers came from, 1.ormed from terrestrial synthetic pathways2.or were derived extraterrestrially from solar system materials.. (a lot of this is not my own
"history lesson for you. life did not come out of no were.[quote]Life emerged through a complex chain of evolutionary events"
I'm not going to get into an arguement with you about this. But trust me when I say that chemistry allows for the creation of simple proteins, which in turn allows for the building blocks of life.
The seeds life are in the chemistry my friend.
Now I believe in a 'God' or 'Creator'. BUT, I also believe Modern Evolutionary Theory is correct for the most part.
that would be an incredibly valid argument if the mathematical probability of the universe creating itself weren't zero.
then after it starts itself it has to form laws of gravity and so on. then planets that orbit around warm little heaters because space is too cold to support life and then the some planets get the perfect atmosphere for life and then life spontaneously generates from nothing just as the universe spontaneously came from nothing.
also, if we have no purpose then this argument has no purpose. there is no moral law, no code, and no real reason why anyone shouldn't do whatever they feel is right except for maybe social backlash.
might it be reasonable, anonazero, that the reason we feel the need to tout academic righteousness against creaionists and spewers of stupidity is because we care for not only what people are told but to offset their effectiveness?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
or maybe its a vengeance thing because you feel that you're persecuted for all of these years.
i talk to atheists often (people from every religion, really) because i like to know what people believe... and the basis for everything that the atheist believes about how we got here can be summed up with:
"i dont know but it can't possibly be a God"
and that just seems a little self-reighteous for me.
Its not self-righteous, its no different then "That plane cannot possibly be powered by soda-pop." or "This earthquake cannot possibly be the result of hundred of invisible gnomes dancing with overly large shoes.". When we say those things we aren't literally claiming we know what is possible or impossible but we infer that it is so unlikely and improbable that we can say with a degree of certainty that such things aren't true. For instance unicorns could exist, but ill still say they don't.
that would be an incredibly valid argument if the mathematical probability of the universe creating itself weren't zero.
then after it starts itself it has to form laws of gravity and so on. then planets that orbit around warm little heaters because space is too cold to support life and then the some planets get the perfect atmosphere for life and then life spontaneously generates from nothing just as the universe spontaneously came from nothing.
"but if nothing is eternal (without beginning or end) how did anything come to be?" Eternity is a concept of time, time and space are of the same construct therefore time did not exist before the universe for there to be 'eternity'.
Also, life is not evidence for the creation of the universe since life exists as a result of the universe. Thats like saying that the universe was created for the sake of planets, matter, space and time instead of being a result of its existence.
You argument is simply a bullshit argument in all respects. In order to know the probability of a universe being created you would need to observe from outside the universe and know whether or not other universes exist and how each one was created. You don't know the probability of our universe being created nor do you even know if it could have arisen in any other way. To claim otherwise is being blatantly dishonest.
Because god obeys the law of conservation of mass and energy?
Also my philosophical and time-space argument don't defy that law, to blanket my points under such a simple concept is a strawman fallacy.
And while were on the subject how is the universe extrapolated back into a singularity before time and space existed a violation of that law? The mass and energy existed and there was never a point at which it hasn't. So, I'm sorry but your completely wrong.
"the universe is growingthat means its finite" And that is could be extrapolated to a singularity, it also doesn't show how its finite since it could mean that it will grow and not stop or collapse back into a singularity.
"if something occupies space then there must be unoccupied space" False dichotomy, space exists as a result of the universe, show how something can exist 'outside' the universe.
You really don't get the whole universe = time and space thing, do you?
"and where did this singularity come from?" Time exists due to the expansion of space since it expands with it. Causality exists as a result of time so the very concept of "before" is flawed in this context.
You should also be aware that while im defending the classical model for the Big Bang there are other Expanding Universe theories that are just as probable. But the important thing to remember is that they are all many times more likely than someone creating the universe for the benefit of its denizens that do not yet exist and explain it without much more elegantly without the need of undefined mechanisms aka. 'magic'.
And remember, its not the probability of the universe creating itself i have to contend with, its the probability that any of the millions of made up gods in the world including the Judeo-Christian one created it. Even the abstract idea of an undefined intelligence creating the universe is incredibly improbable since, like I said, its undefined.
Have I? Well lets reflect on all that we've discussed then shall we? You claim that the probability of the universe coming to be is 0 and that it couldn't always have existed. I correct you by showing how you cant know the probability and that eternity requires time which began with the universe. You claim Conservation of Mass refutes everything I say. I correct you again showing that some of my points had nothing to do with that and that the big bang doesn't have a problem with that.
...You explain that the universe must be created because its growing and that space exists outside of the universe. I explain that the universe is time and space and that those elements don't exist outside of it, I also explain that there was no "before" without time. You ignore all my points once again and claim my reasoning is flawed without showing me HOW its flawed. My reasoning is flawed? Sounds like you're just full of it to me.
A. Forever is a concept of time and is't a problem if time becomes realized only when space expands.
B. How can something be caused if there exists no time to allow for causation? But heres an even better question for you, why does God need to cause it? Youve completely ignored the fact that the important thing here isn't the Big Bang its your argument from ignorance that God needs to cause it. There are many valid expanding universe theories that allow for causation but without the need of God
Ive simply been showing you that all your misnomers about God being necessary are false and you switched gears to attacking the theory itself. Thats a red herring and I almost missed it to be honest. God isn't and never will be a necessary part in any equation, no matter how much you enjoy begging the question to justify his existence. So no, my argument doesn't hinge on the "Big Bang" it simply hinges on the fact that NO theory requires God and NO reason for God exists.
you think i have a need to justify the existence of the only actual explanation for the universe coming from nothing.
when you posit that we (as in matter and energy) have always been here and we are the product of cosmic chance and you are working backwards from our existence to justify the random occurrence that you believe us to be.
and if in fact you are correct then nothing has meaning, this is just chance... even if i didn't trust in my God i would still see holes in your story.
furthermore, whats even more ironic is that i spent most of my youth angry with the idea of God and hoping that there was some way i could rationalize it away.
i've spent a lot of time on this one and i've seen just about everyone in my life come to the eventual resolution that there has to be something, even if they do not subscribe to my belief system.
its not a matter of faith, its a matter of philosophical reason.
Yes science is built upon philosophy, but science doesn't say anything about God. Your argument is a logical fallacy, you suggest that because of a lack of scientific data God must exist. Thats begging the question and even philosophy has problems with God. The more I read your posts the more it sounds like cognitive dissonance instead of genuinely caring about what is true. I'll admit that God is possible (as I said before) but highly improbable on both philosophical and scientific grounds.
Funny strawman you got there, apparently a singularity is "nothing". Not to mention all the other expanding universe theories, what bout the theory that the universe is a black hole that was created by a previous collapsing singularity? All these have more evidence then the notion of a God creating the universe and yet you believe it in the face of alternative theories that can explain it based on observation. Thats called cognitive dissonance, look it up.
And yet you continually fail to say why it needs to be God, which I would think is much more important since it would amazingly convert your argument from an argument from ignorance to a valid claim.
Really? Is it one of the many claims you made that I corrected? Or is it subtle and all your 'space outside of space' and 'probability of the universe is 0' claims that you pulled out of your ass were in fact riddles not to be seen at face value. Enlighten me oh swami of secrets, what incredible truth is this that philosophers have never discovered that your privy to while mere mortals like myself grapple with archaic things like reason and logic.
Ive read your tripe, theres nothing there but argument from ignorance and false dilemma fallacy's. How difficult is it to present a single coherent thought experiment? Heres an example. Moral Autonomy argument: 1. If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
2. No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent.
3. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.
carpe diem, carpe noctem, carpe vitam
seize the day, seize the night, seize the life
scarhead1698 1 year ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, Tf00t has the same eyepiece case for his telescope as I do. I feel touched by his greatness! lol
IlSilentEarthIl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'd kill for one of those airplanes. lol
lamjer68 1 year ago
And there is the camera plane! xD
guyfromdubai 1 year ago
carpe diem seize the day a change of seasons dream theater
SystematicChaos08 2 years ago
Cool! Mechwarrior 2 music. I still listen to that CD. Thanks for the enjoyable and educational vids.
mississippitweak 2 years ago
Anyone have the exact quote?
EyesLikeHoles 2 years ago
I subscribed to the beautyintheuniverse,
and I look foward to what you can cook up there. Awesome vid btw :)
sntenced2burn 2 years ago
carpe diem translates to "harvest the day"
1qaz6yhn5tgb 2 years ago
no its seize the day i learned it in global or you can think of it as party like a rock star
chip279 2 years ago
Bob Dylan
NemeSisLFay 2 years ago
I second that....
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
you make an excellent point at the beggining, but you miss one out:
suppose you work efficiently and hard, and are not only healthy enough to enjoy retirement, you have also earned through hard graft enough money to enjoy it.
What will most likely happen?
It will be taxed away from you for enjoyment by those who had a less enterprising youth.
Carpe diem indeed!!!
richardcadbury 2 years ago
Do never stop my man!
canerdc 3 years ago
Brillant...as always
ireland58 3 years ago
small minded muppets. WAY too funny
LTDcunuk 3 years ago
2:53 jaja curious detail :)
Maracachucho 3 years ago
Your work is fantastic and entertaining!!!
aquatania 3 years ago
I see you're a bit of an R/C-fan as well.
sonykroket 3 years ago
We love you, thunderf00t!
sonykroket 3 years ago
My company is called carpe diem!
SuperiorSavior 3 years ago
What page is that quote from The Simarillion from? I've read the story several times and I don't recall reading that.
pantera692 3 years ago
I think along the same lines, 'Carpe Diem'. The world is full of people too focused on working in a dead end job that earns them a bit of cash and a basic pension none of them seem to realise that today is for living, gathering knowledge about the little planet we live on, making a difference NOW. Devote your life to your family, immediate or global, live by the morals of human decency and respect. TF...a voice of intelligence speaking loud and clear above those of idiots.xxx
pjpitstop 3 years ago
So Noah was on an Ark and he had every single pathogen with him on the ship like anthrax and syphilis. That's why they are here, right?
Go watch DonExodus2's video about the ark.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
Relevance? EZEKIEL's PROPHECY.
You told me to read the NIV and it's still the same as the KJV.
IT'S NOT A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE LAST TIME. It is not scientifically accurate. We don't go by physical appearance like size but internal structures. They were unable to make a difference so what does that tell you about their technology?
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
why would classifying creatures in difference by say whether they spin webs or not instead of whether they have six or eight legs..why would one be wrong its just a classification method it was classified differently why is our method right and that wrong its just a different method..u are getting hung on a word it really doesnt make sense why you cant understand that. And of course technology was less advanced
Plz give reference
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
its not like they thought the whale was something other than a whale they just classified it according to their method absolutely nothing wrong with that.
So if one country classified birds based on flight and another based on whether they can swim or not u are actually saying ones wrong and ones right thats silly its just different method of categorising.
Plz give reference
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
IT'S NOT ACCURATE FOR THE LAST DAMN TIME.
If this is not proof for you, that I have nothing more to say to you because you simply don't understand taxonomy.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
why do animals demand the modern form of classification hmm.
Also give me the reference in Ezekial already
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
I ALREADY GAVE YOU A REFERENCE:
EZEKIEL 26! THE ENTIRE CHAPTER!
They said Jonah was swallowed by a fish! A FISH! Anything wrong with that? THERE IS NO FISH IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND RED SEA BIG ENOUGH TO BE A WHALE.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
"In Ezekiel 26:21, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be brought to an end and would never again be found. When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of world powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult."
quote continues nxt comment
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
"According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town."
..different method of classification why cant u wrap your head around that
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Rome was burned down to the ground several times. It's still Rome, is it not? Tyre, or Sur as it is known now, is still not desolate. The prophecy was directed towards Tyre, not Phonecia.
I refuse to speak of the damn taxonomy of a whale now as I promised earlier.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
Ok lets address Ezekial 26 (though what it refers to does extend to other chapters). to illustrate a few points i will quote PARTS of verses (not the full verse) to not fill up too much space.
3: "I will bring many nations against you, O Tyre," Nebuchadnezzar was formidable of mention but not the only the only one among these.
4: "I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock." this was done by Alexander.
And though there is a city called Tyre it is not in same spot. (plz b precise
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Let me also make a point. Nebuchadnezzar had no success in taking Tyre. After thirteen long years of siege, Tyre only compromised to accept Babylon as its sovereign lord.
And all cities will eventually come under attack. Take for example, Moscow which was destroyed by the Tatars several times, the Polish Lithuanians occupide it, and more recenty, Napoleon and Hitler attempted to take it.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
It's not called Tyre, it's called Sour (French pronounciation) and it's got close to a hundred thousand people. It's not on the island but on the coastal town where the original Tyre lays upon.'
Alexander took the original rubble from the ruins and dumped it into the ocean to create a path where his soldiers can cross.
Anyone can predict the destruction of a city and it will come true because all cities will, sooner or later, be destroyed. And Tyre isn't a bare rock, is it?
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
u have to show me where it says that it will be Nebuchadnezzar who alone would destroy Tyre indeed it was not him but Alexander..u must note "many nations" v3.
You make the point of pretty much 'of course it will eventually be destroyed' but how is a question and HOW it was destroyed is part of the prophecy.
It is a bare rock as the ACTUAL site (remember ancient geography) does not have a city.
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Ezekiel 26: 7 - 14.
Nebuchadnezzar never stormed Tyre and frustrated with it, he diverted resources to his campaign to take Egypt. It specified that Nebuchadnezzar would desolate Tyre and that it will never be rebuilt. That's roughly the definition of utter destruction.
There is a city on the damn site for the last time.
Google Earth it. There is a town on it. The reason why the ruins are still there is because it is a cultural heritage site and protected by the Hague Convention.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
U tell me where it says that Nebuchadnezzar would singal handedly destroy Tyre.."many nations" remember. But he did do indeed "ravage your settlements on the mainland".
"The reason why the ruins are still there is because it is a cultural heritage site and protected by the Hague Convention."
in one comment u both say its built on and not built on...saying that its because its a cultural heritage site doesnt mean 'it doesnt count' or so, w/e the reasons it has not been built on again
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
No. 1 - Nebuchadnezzar was unable to breach the wall. He reached an uneasy truth with the citizens of Tyre after thirteen years of siege.
No. 2 - So by your reasoning, since Hiroshima was destroyed by a nuclear bomb, the parts of Hiroshima dedicated to the Memorial that are left unrestored are not considered part of Hiroshima?
ALSO the exact location of the Phonecian ruins are unknown. It is still being excavated. The Roman ruins are the ones being preserved.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
like i said where is it single handedly...in the end a truce is irrelevant he was part of the downfall as said.
..it sounds like because a site is protected from being built on that thats 'unfair' and somehow means not only is the prophecy void but wrong..that doesnt make sense
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
No. 3 - Nebuchadnezzar was not part of the downfall because he did not contribute to the destruction of Tyre.
No. 4 - Apparently you do not understand that the Roman ruins are being preserved and that the Phonecian ruins are below the present town (as you've said.)
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
no.3 He destroyed outside settlements im pretty sure
No.4 ..so u tricked me u dont believe they are preserved..is that right or did i misunderstand what u said.
The causeway still remains and old Tyre is as flat as a rock.
And Sur a fishing village indeed does not contradict the prophecy in fact it accomodates or compliments it
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
No.5 - The outside settlements would count as part of the Phonecian empire, not Tyre.
No.6 - The city of Sour is built over the original Phonecian town. The causeway has gained land because of the tidal movements depositing sand on its beaches and even has a neighborhood built on it. Sour has 117,000 people.
In the words of cdk007, THINK ABOUT IT.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
" The outside settlements would count as part of the Phonecian empire, not Tyre." well your pushing your definition because the prophecy says that ppl will still fish later.
Prophecied that many nations would attack: it happened
It would be thrown into the sea: and the debri was by Alexander
Ppl would still fish there: and they do
..so how do u know that this Sur is actually built on Tyre..or has the area of Tyre be redefined to include more hmm
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
He said that people would fish ON Tyre, the city, that it would sink into the sea. The causeway made of debris that Alexander threw in was used to make the causeway, which has a NEIGHBORHOOD on it.
Sur is built on the island, the causeway, and the mainland itself.
In the words of cdk007, THINK ABOUT IT.
If you don't care to watch AronRa's video, then don't say anything.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
..what u just said contradicts the prophecy how?
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock.
She shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken it, saith the Lord Jehovah.
When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and the great waters shall cover thee.
Above water and inhabited with 117,000 people.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
i ask what is above water as i said Alexander scraped the debri into the sea.
People fishing as i said is not contradicted but supported by the prophecy u should be trying to tell me these fishermen dont exist instead :)
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
It is saying that Tyre will be BELOW water where they will fish on the city ITSELF. And the fishermen can't fish on something when it is now part of the land, can they? The Causeway is covered with sand because the coastline built around it. There is a neighborhood on it for the last time.
It also says Tyre will be under water. It's NOT.
It says it will remain desolate.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
..so Tyre was thrown into the sea check
..there are ppl fishing check
wheres the problem...u seriously believe that in the same prophecy what is said is that it will be uninhabited but ppl will inhabit it and fish NO of course not that would be contradictory, no the fishermen indeed are not on Tyre, do u really believe the prophecy contradicts itself by saying that people fish the waters but tTyre will be unhabited
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
No, I am simply stating that the Bible was saying that Tyre will sink into the sea and become a place where the fishermen will spread their nets on. I mean, literally on the city itself because it is below water.
She shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken it, saith the Lord Jehovah.
When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and the great waters shall cover thee.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
are you saying that the fishermen should be living underwater in Tyre debris!!!!!!????
I dont if u answered it before but is Tyre the same place today as it was before "there is a city of Tyre today, but it is located down the coast from the original Tyre"
i already said the prophecy talked about fishing ..and what do we have today fishing towns near where Tyre was..where is the conflict..there is none unless u think thats a contradiction which i will discuss if u want
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Not living UNDERWATER. The prophecy said that fishermen will fish on the city itself. It didn't say fishermen from Tyre but simply fishermen. "I shall bring the deep against you." It didn't say that He shall bring the city to the deep. He said the waters will rise to swallow up the "bare rock" of the city. I don't know why you don't see this.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
" 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations," according to NIV
-Alexander had the debri scraped into the water.
-and there are fishermen round today
no problem
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.
She will be OUT in the sea. I want you to see it like this: Water will consume the bare rock of the city until it is below water, much like how New Orleans would look like if the levees broke. Fishermen will fish ON the water ABOVE the city. Do you understand? Alexander scraped debris but it's still not a bare rock. The ruins are below the city.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
im using NIV what are you using??
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
I just copied and pasted off what you just posted
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
?:) oh oops....
"They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD." ((NIV) 26:12-14)
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
This is become tedious on the web and I think T-foot is getting pissed off with us because no one else can get a word =P. Let's continue with messaging. The 500 word limit is really pissing me off.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
heh what did he send a message?? ok fine..id be glad for u to give me links for your argument too but not like compulsory to read otherwise i might be getting 8, 9 pages essays or so :) ok fine PM
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock.
It's not a bare rock, is it? Can you PLEASE google earth it!
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
another "life" quote I really like: "Life isn't measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away." I think you would agree with this also.
AjaPuppy1 3 years ago
Maybee venomfangX should travel to OZ to find god and ask for a brain.
10secstomeltdown 3 years ago
sounds cool
mattschol 3 years ago
"carpe carpe" Find and Seize the Fish.
dingorex 3 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCK MAN I know. But hey, do u want to watch TV on ur PC
You'll get all the SKY CHANNELS there is
AND from any country IN THE WORLD, on your pc screen!!!!
Go to this website...
frexis.*com/PCTV#18.html
(DELETE the *)
check it out................its cool, i've got it myself.
ooiui10 3 years ago
yo man open up an IRA account and retirement will be a breeze
ragnar336 3 years ago
Careful man, youtube's Terms of service only allows one account per person, your new account could sting you.
4202ymous 3 years ago
You are absolutely right, we should not waste our youth worrying abou work and retirement, we need to live!
"dream as though you'll live forever, live as though you'll die tonight"
I really look forward to your nature vids, cool camera-plane you built thar.
IKnowThings 3 years ago
the first minute- IVE BEEN SAYING THIS TO MY FRIENDS AND PARENTS FOR YEARS... but people don't listen.
smithhedgehog 3 years ago
Very cool, as ever. Keep up the good and varied work.
dirtrail 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
can reality be contradictory..(perhaps in some obscure abstract way) but the point is whether evolution or creationism in the end it doesnt matter as God's actions and Scriptures account are less abstractly evident and commentated within in the study of history.
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
..heh why did i say "(perhaps in some obscure abstract way)" im sure its not..oops
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Hmm....well I am one who uses logic, and I am very much skeptical about scripture.
Plasmon19 3 years ago
one who uses logic plz dont bother say that everyone says that. Of course u do i do not many people dont.
If ur skeptical of Scripture then u should research it externally understand internally and ull see Scripture is consistent internally and externally
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
I disagree utterly.
"Thou shalt not kill." Pretty goddamn clear-cut- in my opinoin.
So where is there room for stoning adulturers, men with long hair, and disobedient children in there?
Also, Genesis dosn't just seem unusual- it's a collection of parables. Which is all well and good- untill nimrods try to sell them as historical accounts.
Attempting to take it as historical fact destroies the purpose of the stories to begin with and devalues religion on a fundamental level.
getonwithitgawd 3 years ago
Furthermore, it dosn't matter if even one sentence in the bible is factually accurate. That isn't the point. It never was the point. Christians ( and others ) trying to make it into the point are doing more for atheism than an eternity of scientific discovery could hope to accomplish.
Most of the people doing that very work believe in some form of religion. Mull that over for a while.
getonwithitgawd 3 years ago
u didnt watch "who really wrote the Bible" or w/e its called did u, the idea that the Bible doesnt call for people to see it as fact is completely ludicrous..read it, its obvious
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Genesis is not a collection of parables the writings make it clear Genesis makes historical claims
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
The Bible has many portions which call for you to take it as fact. There are also many portions which don't call for you to take it in any particular way.
There also just might be- OBVIOUS parables which you are called on to take as fact.
Remember, this document's been fucked over by hundreds of authors. Any one might add that you should take X parable literally.
Adam and Eve is a parable, layered with symbolism. Regardless of what ANYONE says about it. Reading comprehension is win.
getonwithitgawd 3 years ago
i was refering to Noahs ark
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Noah's Ark is not real. How the fuck is anyone able to bring two of every SINGLE animal onboard when they didn't have the techniques to build a strong boat.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
i was saying its silly to think that God doesnt want his word taken seriously. How some people say 'the Bible was never intended to read as true' OF COURSE IT WAS.
Im not here to argue evidence but there certainly is.
I was just saying to say that the Bible is supposed to be read as fiction is certainly not what the Bible has written in it
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
and i quote who i replied to
"Furthermore, it dosn't matter if even one sentence in the bible is factually accurate. That isn't the point. It never was the point."
thats ridiculous
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
What the fuck is with you?
Have you ever read the Bible?
Go watch AronRa's foundational fallacies series and you will see that people like you have ended up equating God with a book. GOD is an omniscent, omnipotent entity, not some book that a bunch of Jews wrote for political purposes and religious incredulity.
People like you who think the Bible is literal are brainwashed.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
u dont know what u are talking about
I have read the Bible
i dont equate Scripture as being God i dont know why thats relevant and i certainly dont know why u sed that.
"People like you who think the Bible is literal are brainwashed." doncha just hate that predictability when someone disagrees with u they just call u brainwashed well i can say that to u to so what.
So far i havent anything in Scripture positively negated so yeah what u sed doesnt change anything
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Antisyncretism, I know for sure now that you HAVE NOT WATCHED ARONRA's VIDEOS. You have no idea of how stupid the authors of the Bible were. Tyre was conquered by Alexander the Great, not Nebuchadnezzer. The Book of James thought the number pi was 3! The Bible thought that whales were fish! AND YOU STILL DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG? My fucking God.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
instead of giving me a video better yet give me these specific verses so i can look at them myself and other info.
Ive read James and i cant ever recall him saying anything about pi at all..and pi is 3 btw yes 3.14 but still three who said how much someone should roundup.
"The Bible thought that whales were fish"
its a matter of classification its not incorrect to classify different but just different.
"Tyre was conquered by Alexander the Great, not Nebuchadnezzer" plz give verse
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Whales are not fish. They have totally different anatomy. Jonah was swallowed by a fish? He could not have been for there were no fish big enough living in the Mediterranean. He would've been digested by the stomach juices by then.
In Ezekiel 26, Ezekiel predicts that Tyre would fall to Nebuchadnezzar. He attacked it but he did not conquer it, Alexander did it. Alexander was the one that made it desolate.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
It is arrogant to say one classification is correct and one isnt when its just a different method.
Concerning Tyre can Tyre only be defeated once..no i dont think so..point invalid.
Concerning 1 Kings 7:23..read NIV not kjv
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
It's arrogant? It's scientifically correct.
Ezekiel said that Nebuchadnezzar would make it desolate but he only drove the people off to an offshore island. They continued to thrive. Alexander destroyed it completely and destroyed them.
And NIV? Did you make a new one to cover up the faults with the older version?
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
no its just anothermmethod of classification.
Evidence plz.
Niv is another translation more closer to the hebrew of OT
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
A Whale has a four chambered heart.
FISH HAVE TWO.
Whales breathe through their blow hole, FISH breath through gills.
Whales have vestigial leg bones. FISH DON'T.
Whales have ribs that protect central organs.
FISH HAVE BISECTING BONE STRUCTURE.
Read Ezekiel.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
o boy..different types of classification thats all.
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
And guess what? Tyre's still not completely desolate today! It's name is Sur in Lebanon. Sur is the fourth largest Lebanese city.
AND P.S. It's still the same exact description in the NIV.
"He made a sea of cast metal circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
.."Tyre's still not completely desolate today!"..huh..relevance..?
So u said the NIV translation i see no issue at all..
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
1 Kings 7:23 (King James Version)
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about
that i diameter = 10, radius = 5 circumference=30
2*pi*radius=circumference
2*pi*5=30
pi=3
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
PWNED
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
I have been reading "the bible" and you are correct that it is self consistent within itself, but not when placing it under the scope of...umm...lets say modern understanding of how the world works(science)....It all depends on what you want out of it I believe...I do like things such as "do onto others as you would like them to do on to you"...etc...but not the Adam and eve story....
Plasmon19 3 years ago
but why does Genesis seem silly to u..cause it sounds unusual..well ud hope it would wouldnt u i mean the creation of the world isnt normal after all.
History is however much more easy to interpret in relation to Scripture than science is
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
The problem is that history does NOT line up with scripture at all.
Jesus birth, death and ministry do not line up in any of the scriptures with the actual time frames and personalities listed.
There is no acheological evidence in suppot of Moses, Abraham, Solomon or King David. Nor any written evidence of the Egyptian plagues, the infanticide of Herod, or the guiding star of the nativity.
And the events at the crucifixion only exist in the bible. They are NOT mentioned anywhere else.
smaugfrost 3 years ago
sigh that was a whole argument based on what u dont know.
When Tacitus says that Christus was crucified by Pontius Pilate was that a correct time frame
When the talmud said Yeshua was hanged on the eve of the passover was that off period
when Acts records an order of Claudius to have Jews leave Rome was that off period.
Does Josephus' account of John the baptist say a different date then Scripture
tsk tsk
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Tacitus was dictating what Christians were always saying, not first hand infomation.
You also failed to mention that this paragraph is also deriding of Christians as the arsonists of Rome. And the title "Procurator" was never bestowed upon Pontius Pilate as he was a "Prefect".
Josephus account of John's death was between 34CE and 36CE. The Gospels all place it before 33CE. Contrary to the gospels, Josephus states his imprisonment was due to being blamed for Herod's defeat in 36CE.
smaugfrost 3 years ago
Tacitus is a good historian im sure he sourced (well and if he did consult Christians i wouldnt see that a problem).
When Tacitus refered to what he didnt really believe (like Hercules0 he would say 'it is thought' or 'some say' or 'and they even say' none of that here.
The title name of Prefect was changed to procurator in Tacitus' time so Pontius Pilate according (correctly) to them was a procurator
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
on Joephus when do u think Jesus was born?
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
And which Yeshu reference in the Talmud are you referring to since there are MANY people given that name.
Yeshu ben Pandera, cited as the teacher of a second century CE heretic (Chullin 2:22-24, Avodah Zarah 16b-17a)
A sorcerer who had been stoned and hanged in Lod on the eve of one Passover. (Sanhedrin 43a)
An idolatrous former student of first century BCE rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachiah. (Sanhedrin 107b).
There are NO references to a man, "Yeshua" who meets the Jesus narrative.
smaugfrost 3 years ago
If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great then it was before 4 BCE. If he was born during the Roman census, then it must have been in 6 CE.
Luke stated that Jesus was about thirty years old when he began to preach (Luke 3:23) and that was during the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar" (Luke 3:1). Augustus Caesar died in 14 CE and Tiberias was his successor. Thus the fifteenth year of his reign would be around 29 or 30 CE. This sets his birthdate around 1 BCE or 1 CE.
smaugfrost 3 years ago
Carpe Diem. Carpe Diem.
GL and HF. Looking forward to your trip reports.
Now I go look at your links.
dacherx 3 years ago
Oh shush, Sambo. White people have no pride don't you know, it's not allowed. You can have black pride but not white pride, that's racist ;)
Also my ancestors were black, just like you, except I evolved ;)
Sconz30 3 years ago
Sconz30 and Casinova18 are the same person and are not fooling anyone.
thefunk0130 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Us white people are the only ones who don't believe in god, and yet we also rule and run the entire planet through superior intellect. So basically you're saying intelligent people don't believe in god and stupid people do?
Sconz30 3 years ago
You trolls are SOOO funny!!!! YOU DON'T FOOL ANYBODY. TRY AGAIN.
ubuntututorials 3 years ago
Have yourself a good trip. Glad to see you are into the R/C field.
Rolomax 3 years ago
WHAT do u do 4 a living? besides being smarter than ppl around U...
minizer999 3 years ago
Dude, thats racist.
animecha 3 years ago
I'm delighted to hear that you're not quitting the WDPLAC series. Keep up the awesome work.
tanzanman 3 years ago
This video is so great.
aevasic 3 years ago
WIN!
AddANumberToThis 3 years ago 2
Religon is dying education is killing it. But on the counter point it did keep the people in check.
superbadassweetdaddy 3 years ago
Thunderf00t, I've enjoyed all your videos.
Just wanted to wish you an enjoyable trip.
I was fortunate enough to take a month long trip around the country 8 years ago --and even with a month it was only enough time to get a glimpse--but it was magnificent.
The two most beatiful places I remember were Death Valley (the colors from the volcanic deposits were out of this world) and Rocky Mountain Natl Park in Colorado.
Montana is great too--
I'm jealous-- enjoy
rikerdodger 3 years ago
I noticed you are specifically going to places in the USA. Been anywhere else? A great plan you have but there is so many places you can go!
SAULGENESISFANREBORN 3 years ago
FYI folks, ExtantDodo's account has been reinstated.
coasterpro 3 years ago
Awesome use of the MechWarrior 2 soundtrack! I know that has nothing to do with what your video was about, I just love that track is all...
TheWindClaw 3 years ago
Looking forward to part 25.
Great vid's Thunderf00t!
Kille24sthlm 3 years ago
i most likely sound idiotic from this considering i have no comprehensive clue on the foundations of life on this planet. but i would like to try to point out to you the one fact i do know that life did not come from no were.
and if you try to prove that wrong ill ask you these questions.were did god come from,if god is all powerful why did he need 7 days to create everything,give me your explanation of the start of life. and please stop being such a hypocrite.
yyttr4 3 years ago
"were did god come from,if god is all powerful why did he need 7 days to create everything,give me your explanation of the start of life"
You really should look up more of Thunder's vids and maybe check out DonExodus2's vids as well. They both tackle that little problem with relative ease...
LordBLB 3 years ago
yyttr4...
I think I'm misquoting your comments for some reason this morning (lack of sleep). They were directed at another. My fault.
LordBLB 3 years ago
that would be an incredibly valid argument if the mathematical probability of the universe creating itself weren't zero.
hm.. lets look at this ^ lets restate this!
that would be an incredibly valid argument if the mathematical probability of a all powerful being creating everything in 7 days weren't zero...
yyttr4 3 years ago
Over time, simple molecules developed into larger, more complex biological molecules and eventually to cells. (a lot of this is not of my own work)
yyttr4 3 years ago
history lesson for you. life did not come out of no were.[quote]Life emerged through a complex chain of evolutionary events, dictated by the physical-chemical environment on the early Earth. ]] favorable conditions lead to the formation of relatively complex polymers from organic monomers these were already present on primitive earth..the monomers came from, 1.ormed from terrestrial synthetic pathways2.or were derived extraterrestrially from solar system materials.. (a lot of this is not my own
yyttr4 3 years ago
"history lesson for you. life did not come out of no were.[quote]Life emerged through a complex chain of evolutionary events"
I'm not going to get into an arguement with you about this. But trust me when I say that chemistry allows for the creation of simple proteins, which in turn allows for the building blocks of life.
The seeds life are in the chemistry my friend.
Now I believe in a 'God' or 'Creator'. BUT, I also believe Modern Evolutionary Theory is correct for the most part.
LordBLB 3 years ago
that would be an incredibly valid argument if the mathematical probability of the universe creating itself weren't zero.
then after it starts itself it has to form laws of gravity and so on. then planets that orbit around warm little heaters because space is too cold to support life and then the some planets get the perfect atmosphere for life and then life spontaneously generates from nothing just as the universe spontaneously came from nothing.
may i remind you how life started nice little
yyttr4 3 years ago
animecha (win!)
anonazero (fail)
iv foloed your posts and i have come to the conclusion that anonazero is incompetent
{quote}
that's pretty much the argument i usually have with atheists when you subtract unrelated circular logic and attacks on my faith.
a idiotic statement...showing your incompetence even more.
atheists attack your faith? wow.. and your religion doesn't hu?and ur not doing it right know hu?
yaaa riiighht...
yyttr4 3 years ago
Easy Star ftw!
gavinleet 3 years ago
also, if we have no purpose then this argument has no purpose. there is no moral law, no code, and no real reason why anyone shouldn't do whatever they feel is right except for maybe social backlash.
anonazero 3 years ago
its not scientists that like to argue. there is no creationist propaganda.
"You see, this is where the natural human arrogance kicks in, who told you we have any sort of importance whatsoever in this universe?"
we have no more significance than the dirt under our feet or the air that we breath.
thats called humility.
arrogance is pretending like what is here could have come from nothing when its a philosophical scientific impossibility.
anonazero 3 years ago
Carpe diem, cura nihil aliud nisi ut valeas, et cura ut valeas.
:)
LucidFlight 3 years ago
might it be reasonable, anonazero, that the reason we feel the need to tout academic righteousness against creaionists and spewers of stupidity is because we care for not only what people are told but to offset their effectiveness?
omar12331 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
or maybe its a vengeance thing because you feel that you're persecuted for all of these years.
i talk to atheists often (people from every religion, really) because i like to know what people believe... and the basis for everything that the atheist believes about how we got here can be summed up with:
"i dont know but it can't possibly be a God"
and that just seems a little self-reighteous for me.
anonazero 3 years ago
Its not self-righteous, its no different then "That plane cannot possibly be powered by soda-pop." or "This earthquake cannot possibly be the result of hundred of invisible gnomes dancing with overly large shoes.". When we say those things we aren't literally claiming we know what is possible or impossible but we infer that it is so unlikely and improbable that we can say with a degree of certainty that such things aren't true. For instance unicorns could exist, but ill still say they don't.
animecha 3 years ago 3
that would be an incredibly valid argument if the mathematical probability of the universe creating itself weren't zero.
then after it starts itself it has to form laws of gravity and so on. then planets that orbit around warm little heaters because space is too cold to support life and then the some planets get the perfect atmosphere for life and then life spontaneously generates from nothing just as the universe spontaneously came from nothing.
anonazero 3 years ago
"but we exist so it must have happened because of chance because a being that is eternal can't possibly exist".
but if nothing is eternal (without beginning or end) how did anything come to be?
"well it just did obviously because we're here now go back to your fairy tales"
that's pretty much the argument i usually have with atheists when you subtract unrelated circular logic and attacks on my faith.
does that sound like i nailed the atheist perspective?
anonazero 3 years ago
"but if nothing is eternal (without beginning or end) how did anything come to be?" Eternity is a concept of time, time and space are of the same construct therefore time did not exist before the universe for there to be 'eternity'.
Also, life is not evidence for the creation of the universe since life exists as a result of the universe. Thats like saying that the universe was created for the sake of planets, matter, space and time instead of being a result of its existence.
animecha 3 years ago 2
You argument is simply a bullshit argument in all respects. In order to know the probability of a universe being created you would need to observe from outside the universe and know whether or not other universes exist and how each one was created. You don't know the probability of our universe being created nor do you even know if it could have arisen in any other way. To claim otherwise is being blatantly dishonest.
animecha 3 years ago
the law of conservation of energy and mass would call BS on your entire post.
physics > you
anonazero 3 years ago
Because god obeys the law of conservation of mass and energy?
Also my philosophical and time-space argument don't defy that law, to blanket my points under such a simple concept is a strawman fallacy.
And while were on the subject how is the universe extrapolated back into a singularity before time and space existed a violation of that law? The mass and energy existed and there was never a point at which it hasn't. So, I'm sorry but your completely wrong.
animecha 3 years ago
and where did this singularity come from?
the universe is growing
that means its finite
if something is finite it occupies space
if something occupies space then there must be unoccupied space
thus, there is something outside of our universe. thus, our universe came from somewhere.
anonazero 3 years ago
"the universe is growingthat means its finite" And that is could be extrapolated to a singularity, it also doesn't show how its finite since it could mean that it will grow and not stop or collapse back into a singularity.
"if something occupies space then there must be unoccupied space" False dichotomy, space exists as a result of the universe, show how something can exist 'outside' the universe.
You really don't get the whole universe = time and space thing, do you?
animecha 3 years ago
"and where did this singularity come from?" Time exists due to the expansion of space since it expands with it. Causality exists as a result of time so the very concept of "before" is flawed in this context.
animecha 3 years ago
You should also be aware that while im defending the classical model for the Big Bang there are other Expanding Universe theories that are just as probable. But the important thing to remember is that they are all many times more likely than someone creating the universe for the benefit of its denizens that do not yet exist and explain it without much more elegantly without the need of undefined mechanisms aka. 'magic'.
animecha 3 years ago
"... and explain it much more elegantly..." sorry about that.
animecha 3 years ago
And remember, its not the probability of the universe creating itself i have to contend with, its the probability that any of the millions of made up gods in the world including the Judeo-Christian one created it. Even the abstract idea of an undefined intelligence creating the universe is incredibly improbable since, like I said, its undefined.
animecha 3 years ago
maybe your problem is that you think all religions are the same. do some reading.
i highly recommend brushing up on your philosophy.
anonazero 3 years ago
I highly recommend you point out where my philosophy is flawed instead of simply claiming that it is.
animecha 3 years ago
i think i did that about 7 or 8 times in the above posts. i broke it down further for you in the last one.
anonazero 3 years ago
And I corrected you, thus far.
animecha 3 years ago
actually you've just been posting up illogical fallacies and prechewed rhetoric that haven't been thought through.
anonazero 3 years ago
Have I? Well lets reflect on all that we've discussed then shall we? You claim that the probability of the universe coming to be is 0 and that it couldn't always have existed. I correct you by showing how you cant know the probability and that eternity requires time which began with the universe. You claim Conservation of Mass refutes everything I say. I correct you again showing that some of my points had nothing to do with that and that the big bang doesn't have a problem with that.
...
animecha 3 years ago
...You explain that the universe must be created because its growing and that space exists outside of the universe. I explain that the universe is time and space and that those elements don't exist outside of it, I also explain that there was no "before" without time. You ignore all my points once again and claim my reasoning is flawed without showing me HOW its flawed. My reasoning is flawed? Sounds like you're just full of it to me.
animecha 3 years ago 2
thats because your whole argument hinges on "the big bang" and components existing in the first place.
A. components had to come into existence somehow or be here forever ( something that cannot be without outside intervention) see laws of physics.
B. those inanimate components required outside force to be moved (see that other law of physics)
anonazero 3 years ago
A. Forever is a concept of time and is't a problem if time becomes realized only when space expands.
B. How can something be caused if there exists no time to allow for causation? But heres an even better question for you, why does God need to cause it? Youve completely ignored the fact that the important thing here isn't the Big Bang its your argument from ignorance that God needs to cause it. There are many valid expanding universe theories that allow for causation but without the need of God
animecha 3 years ago
Ive simply been showing you that all your misnomers about God being necessary are false and you switched gears to attacking the theory itself. Thats a red herring and I almost missed it to be honest. God isn't and never will be a necessary part in any equation, no matter how much you enjoy begging the question to justify his existence. So no, my argument doesn't hinge on the "Big Bang" it simply hinges on the fact that NO theory requires God and NO reason for God exists.
animecha 3 years ago
you think i have a need to justify the existence of the only actual explanation for the universe coming from nothing.
when you posit that we (as in matter and energy) have always been here and we are the product of cosmic chance and you are working backwards from our existence to justify the random occurrence that you believe us to be.
and if in fact you are correct then nothing has meaning, this is just chance... even if i didn't trust in my God i would still see holes in your story.
anonazero 3 years ago
furthermore, whats even more ironic is that i spent most of my youth angry with the idea of God and hoping that there was some way i could rationalize it away.
i've spent a lot of time on this one and i've seen just about everyone in my life come to the eventual resolution that there has to be something, even if they do not subscribe to my belief system.
its not a matter of faith, its a matter of philosophical reason.
reason begats science.
not the other way around.
anonazero 3 years ago
Yes science is built upon philosophy, but science doesn't say anything about God. Your argument is a logical fallacy, you suggest that because of a lack of scientific data God must exist. Thats begging the question and even philosophy has problems with God. The more I read your posts the more it sounds like cognitive dissonance instead of genuinely caring about what is true. I'll admit that God is possible (as I said before) but highly improbable on both philosophical and scientific grounds.
animecha 3 years ago
Funny strawman you got there, apparently a singularity is "nothing". Not to mention all the other expanding universe theories, what bout the theory that the universe is a black hole that was created by a previous collapsing singularity? All these have more evidence then the notion of a God creating the universe and yet you believe it in the face of alternative theories that can explain it based on observation. Thats called cognitive dissonance, look it up.
animecha 3 years ago
all of those theories depend on something existing prior to this universe.
you kids will see someday.
anonazero 3 years ago
And yet you continually fail to say why it needs to be God, which I would think is much more important since it would amazingly convert your argument from an argument from ignorance to a valid claim.
animecha 3 years ago
actually i did, you're just too thick to see it.
anonazero 3 years ago
Really? Is it one of the many claims you made that I corrected? Or is it subtle and all your 'space outside of space' and 'probability of the universe is 0' claims that you pulled out of your ass were in fact riddles not to be seen at face value. Enlighten me oh swami of secrets, what incredible truth is this that philosophers have never discovered that your privy to while mere mortals like myself grapple with archaic things like reason and logic.
animecha 3 years ago
reread and try again.
anonazero 3 years ago
Ive read your tripe, theres nothing there but argument from ignorance and false dilemma fallacy's. How difficult is it to present a single coherent thought experiment? Heres an example. Moral Autonomy argument: 1. If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
2. No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent.
3. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.
animecha 3 years ago