Reply With Quote
Its a she unless I'm completely missing something here.
Google search for "Acharya S" found the answer.
FWIW:
A guy named DM Murdock used it as a pseudonym.
Acharya is a hindu word that approximates "enlighted teacher", by the by.
Its a she unless I'm completely missing something here.
I have gone a few rounds with ES on something a while back that I can't quite remember at the moment, but here is something you should be aware of:
ES is in seminary school pursuing, I think, a PHD in theology. He probably won't tell you as much in a thread like this, because that would be a bit petty, and that isn't the way he rolls.
He is also the most intelligent and educated person I see post here regularly. When he makes statements of fact, they are ALWAYS thorough and accurate. The width and depth of his knowledge on any topic you would care to name is good to excellent. In his area of expertise, which is theology, he could easily write authoritive textbook that any college would find more than acceptable. It would not surprise me if he does just that for a living.
I'll stop there, but it seems to me that you are doing fairly well, but haven't really conclusively locked anything up from what I have read.
Good luck.
My bad.
This is so NOT my area of expertise.
The historical accuracy of the Gospels and epistles has not been disproven. In fact, the former professor of Archeaology at Oxford University, Sir William Ramsey, worked for years to discredit the gospel of Luke. At the end of his research he concluded, "Luke is a historian of first rank...In short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."
See...I just don't see that I'm closing my eyes, putting my fingers in my ears, and humming loudly. I've responded to each and every one of your critical claims. You, on the other hand, offer no rebuttal but to simply repeat what you've said over and over again. Perhaps it is you who closes your eyes, puts your fingers in your ears, and hums loudly.
Ignoring for the moment the misnomer that "evolutionary theory" really says anything about comets, lets point out the factual mistakes the article makes:
1) Comets and the material in the solar system are older than 5 billion years, having both been ejected from a supernova at some point in the very distant past.
2) The implication that if something can't be detected, it isn't a "scientific concept is false. Things that can't be detected, such as dark energy, and gravitons are scientific concepts that can't be detected, merely their effects are observed.
3) The entire article presents an inaccurate depiction of what modern understanding of what the Oort Cloud is.
In a static, unchanging universe where our solar system was not in motion relative to other stars, we would indeed have seen the last comets within 100,000 years of our solar system formation.Besides the galactic tide, the main trigger for sending comets into the inner Solar System is believed to be interaction between the Sun's Oort cloud and the gravitational fields of near-by stars[1] or giant molecular clouds.[30] The orbit of the Sun through the plane of the Milky Way sometimes brings it in relatively close proximity to other stellar systems. For example, during the next 10 million years the known star with the greatest possibility of perturbing the Oort cloud is Gliese 710.[35] This process also serves to scatter the objects out of the ecliptic plane, potentially also explaining the cloud's spherical distribution.[36][35]
The mechanism that drives the occasional comet into close solar orbit supplies new comets over time due to the disruptions and very tiny pushes/pulls from nearby stars.
If one is going to try and discredit a theory, one should try to understand what it says first.
There have been many arguments surrounding Luke. No original text is the easiest one and if it was real it wasn't written based on first hand accounts but off other gospels and most arguably from other sources entirely. So we have hearsay. Obviously the question would be answered if we had a copy with his signature on it from said time period. We don't and I'm not ever sure if you have a copy of a copy of a copy that would be within 100 years.
Just checked and I was right.
So well over a century later they have a copy of a copy. A century is a long time. Could have been rewritten 100's of times by then. No doubts its different than the others and some have argued that its the most contradicting.The Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV, handwritten in Greek around the year 200, contains "about half of each of the Gospels of Luke and John," Cardinal Tauran explained.
Talk about circular logic.
"Our eye is a marvel of design and superior creation, therefore it was created and not evolved."
Eyes are advantageous adaptions, no more, no less, just like lungs, and thumbs/legs/fins and what have you.
When you include the Chester Beatty Papyri (dated 250 AD, including most of the book of John), the Ryland Papyri (dated 120 AD, including pieces of the book of John), and you consider that John was the latest gospel written, you can support the other gospels being written in the first century. Also throw in the writings of Clement of Rome (dating 95 AD), Ignatius (115 AD), Polycarp (120 AD), and Justin Martyr (150 AD) which include references to the gospels. By this you can conclude that the gospels were written and circulated by the end of the first century.
This dating shows that the gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses of Jesus, and they very likely include firsthand accounts. This, of course, according to noted historians and archeologists.
Again, not accurate.
Science is about having a testable hypothesis.
"If creatures evolve and change over time, then we would expect to see intermediate forms".
"If creatures evolve and change over time, then the more recently any two species had a common ancestor, the closer they should be genetically."
"If the universe is older than 10,000 years, we would expect to see X, Y, and Z."
"If the universe is only 10,000 years old, we would expect to see A, B, C."
These are all testable hypotheses.
If this thread has shown me anything, it's that: mouse = worst troll ever.
Or best troll ever since you guys keep responding to his crap.
Never understood why those who don't believe try to prove something they can't.
true dat!
A short, fat, burntout, bag that spends his life on the internet pretending to be someone he's not..........................shocking.
oooh, wrong again. This entire article completely misstates what the "theory of evolution" says.
Genetics is the newest scientific discipline to add to the weight of evidence supporting evolution and let me outline what it has shown us.
When we sequence the genes of closely related species, we expect to see similarities.
Mutations generally don't "create" new appendages, or startlingly different animals, but rather tend to be neutral ones that don't create new genes, but simply modify how existing genes are expressed.
Our hands for example are different from a chimpanzee's merely through the length of time certain genes are expressed in fetal development.
The majority of differences in our genomes are not entirely new genes, for new proteins or anything that drastic. Simple on/off switches that slightly effect the timing of genetic expression.
Our brains, our thumbs, and a host of things that make us different turn out to be almost all due to simple timing.
The mutation that gives us a different number of chromosomes from our nearest ape cousins is an example of a non-fatal mutation.
Most apes have 24 pairs, we have 23.
A mutation that "loses" a chromosome's worth of information is 100% fatal, no ifs, ands, or buts.
A creationist says "AHA! God simply created us this way. It is not a problem. If you are right then for that reason there is absolutely NO way we could be related to a common ancestor with the apes as you say we are."
What would the theory of evolution predict then? At some point our ancestors should have had 24 chromosomes.
Care to guess what we found when we went out and sequenced the genes of a chimp and a human?
Did we lose a chromosome?
Nope.
Two chromosomes fused together at some point, in a non-fatal mutation. A simple coding error, and no important information was lost.
Evolutionary theory would predict this, because if most apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we all shared a common ancestor, then it is highly likely that we could find exactly where we had 24 chromosomes at some point.
It's gotten to the point where both sides don't even care about the truth, they just want to be right. In the end it's just like any other debate on SpursTalk, except everybody thinks they're smarter because they've subs uted God and Evolution for LeBron and Kobe.
I have a quick question. Does an aborted baby go to Christian ? It's alive right, and there's clearly no bible nor church in the womb, so the fetus can have no concept of Jesus. He's not going to make up the idea and the history of the church on his own.
??
truth=right
Either there is a God or not.
Unless of course God is Schroedinger's Cat. In which case there is a 50% chance we are screwed when we figure it out.
This question has been addressed at some point by some Catholic scholar or another.
Can't remember the doctrine, something about "innocent......." (fill in the blank)
Basically if you never have the chance to hear about Jesus, God presumes you are innocent until proven guilty.
He/She/It is nice that way, I guess. I am sure ES has the scoop.
But is it a Catholic doctrine, or is it actually in the bible? Catholic doctrine used to be buying your way into heaven at one time.
Is there a God? God, I hope so.
Actually, it is quite obvious from your articles that is often the case.
The Oort Cloud and the mutation thing were two really obvious bits that very clearly demonstrated that the authors of the articles didn't really quite understand what they were critiquing.
In this case, I would not ridcule them as simpletons, just encourage the writer, and by extension the normal reading audience of such material, to develop an accurate understanding, which is all that science seeks in the first place.
That is something I can't answer. I dimly remember hearing about it at some point.
We will have to wait for ES to finish his pint at the pub and log on.
There is a theory in Christian thought that talks about an "Age of Accountability", and is sort of supported by the following scriptures:
"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." (Deu 1.39)
"For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings." (Isa 7.16)
Basically, that's saying that children have no knowledge of good and/or evil and are not capable of choosing one or the other. They will be allowed into heaven.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
