Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 161 (237505)
08-26-2005 5:54 PM


Good Grief
Is there any connection between the last few pages and the topic?

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2005 6:57 PM AdminJar has not replied
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 4:09 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 92 of 161 (237517)
08-26-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by AdminJar
08-26-2005 5:54 PM


Re: Good Grief
Meanwhile a thread started to discuss some gross logical fallacies promulgated here is closed. One has to love irony. This needs to be closed for consistency, perhaps for a day, to bring it back on topic.
So far the only transitions noted were from YEC to evo, and none the other way.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*26*2005 07:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by AdminJar, posted 08-26-2005 5:54 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 93 of 161 (237549)
08-26-2005 8:49 PM


For God's sake!
HoaryHeed =
People cannot be this ignorant.

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 161 (237684)
08-27-2005 11:39 AM


We Have Found Intelligent Life!
Thank you, arachnophilla.
Webster: mathematics; the SCIENCE of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure,measurement, transformstions, and generalizations.
You fellows opposing this well-documented fact have been doing what is described in the Bible as,
"foaming out your shame."
But that is water under the bridge.
Let us continue our discussions in a more rational manner.
hoaryhead

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 161 (237692)
08-27-2005 12:04 PM


How Is Evolution False?
Reply to Brian; #93.
"There have been lots of scientific changes in the last 160 years.
How does this make Evolution false?"
In the more exact sciences, such as, mathematics, and chemistry, and engineering; they have both "taken away" and "added to" their science.
For instance, Madame Curie won a Nobel Prize for her research in radiology (or, something similar). But I have read that she worked on a false premise. When this was discovered, they corrected the premise.
Also in the Dark Ages, men had a premise in medicine for healing, which relieved much pain. [Forgive me, I have forgotten the title of the treatment.]
But when a more correct premise was confirmed, they discarded the false premise.
And that is the reason that Evolution is wrong.
They don't throw anything out.
All the false premises, to the false science, are retained in tact.
This is extremism.
Every new book increases the age of the earth.
There is never an exposure of over-stating the date, and REDUCING the age of the earth.
Sciences do not work like that.
hoaryhead

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by CK, posted 08-27-2005 12:18 PM hoaryhead has not replied
 Message 97 by nwr, posted 08-27-2005 12:23 PM hoaryhead has not replied
 Message 99 by Nuggin, posted 08-27-2005 2:16 PM hoaryhead has not replied
 Message 100 by Brian, posted 08-27-2005 2:40 PM hoaryhead has not replied
 Message 101 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 3:12 PM hoaryhead has not replied
 Message 102 by Gary, posted 08-27-2005 3:57 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 96 of 161 (237694)
08-27-2005 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by hoaryhead
08-27-2005 12:04 PM


Re: How Is Evolution False?
quote:
Every new book increases the age of the earth.
There is never an exposure of over-stating the date, and REDUCING the age of the earth.
Why would they reduce the age if their advancing knowledge told them this was not the case? You argument seems to be that because they don't fall into line with your thinking and that of your christian godhead it must be wrong.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Aug-2005 12:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by hoaryhead, posted 08-27-2005 12:04 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 97 of 161 (237695)
08-27-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by hoaryhead
08-27-2005 12:04 PM


Re: How Is Evolution False?
For instance, Madame Curie won a Nobel Prize for her research in radiology (or, something similar). But I have read that she worked on a false premise. When this was discovered, they corrected the premise.
This is so vague, that we cannot tell what you are talking about.
Also in the Dark Ages, men had a premise in medicine for healing, which relieved much pain. [Forgive me, I have forgotten the title of the treatment.]
Likewise, this is far too vague to be useful.
And that is the reason that Evolution is wrong.
They don't throw anything out.
This is wrong. As one example, Darwin based his original account on a Lamarckian view of inheritance, which is now known to be wrong. The current theory of evolution is based on Mendelian inheritance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by hoaryhead, posted 08-27-2005 12:04 PM hoaryhead has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Chiroptera, posted 08-27-2005 2:05 PM nwr has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 161 (237717)
08-27-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by nwr
08-27-2005 12:23 PM


Re: How Is Evolution False?
quote:
Darwin based his original account on a Lamarckian view of inheritance....
This isn't quite correct. Darwin's theory was not based on any theory of inheritance. While it is true that Darwin did speak of the theory of inheritance current to his day, namely pangenesis and the possibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, his theory of evolution was independent of any particular theory of inheritance.
The only particulars of inheritance that are necessary to the theory of evolution is that physical characteristics are largely inherited, and that new variations of heritable physical characteristics can spontaneously appear; both of these were known even at that time to occur from observation. The exact mechanisms by which these occur are unimportant, and even if modern genetics were somehow found to be largely erroneous it would not at all be a significant set back for the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by nwr, posted 08-27-2005 12:23 PM nwr has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 99 of 161 (237720)
08-27-2005 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by hoaryhead
08-27-2005 12:04 PM


Re: How Is Evolution False?
And that is the reason that Evolution is wrong.
They don't throw anything out.
All the false premises, to the false science, are retained in tact.
This is clearly and demonstratably incorrect.
Look at Piltdown Man, a hoax/forgery. It was believed (for racist/eurocentric reasons) for a long time. Eventually, as the data collected by scientists studying in Africa stacked higher and higher against Piltdown, the forgery was exposed.
Lamarkian Evolution, namely that the giraffe has a long neck because it stretches more and more each generation, has been likewise disproven and discarded.
There are debates raging within evolutionary studies about the rates at which change happens. (Stair step evolution vs slope)
Science, all science, is constantly moving forward, correcting falsehoods, seeking better data.
Your point that mathematics has less debate within it than biology is an apples and oranges non-starter. That's like saying that the alphabeta is in alphabetical order and therefore better than chemistry. Math is a construct. Biology tries to explain what we observe around us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by hoaryhead, posted 08-27-2005 12:04 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 100 of 161 (237724)
08-27-2005 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by hoaryhead
08-27-2005 12:04 PM


Re: How Is Evolution False?
You do know that you havent supported a single comment in this entire message?
Take this for example:
Every new book increases the age of the earth.
You certainly haven't read every new book that is published, so how can you justify saying this?
When you start supporting your comments maybe you will be taken seriously.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by hoaryhead, posted 08-27-2005 12:04 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 101 of 161 (237726)
08-27-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by hoaryhead
08-27-2005 12:04 PM


Re: How Is Evolution False?
Ok let me make it very simple for you.
All the early western scientists started with the ideas from the bible. Slowly but surely research has shown more and more that the world is vastly older than originally thought. Therefore it only makes sense that 200-300 years ago the best EDUCATED guesses would be much less than what more an more research has shown what we know now. Why would there be a lessening when reality shows an increase. Your argument defies logic. But back to my original question why does this make Evolution false?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by hoaryhead, posted 08-27-2005 12:04 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 161 (237739)
08-27-2005 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by hoaryhead
08-27-2005 12:04 PM


Re: How Is Evolution False?
hoaryhead writes:
And that is the reason that Evolution is wrong.
They don't throw anything out.
All the false premises, to the false science, are retained in tact.
This is extremism.
Every new book increases the age of the earth.
There is never an exposure of over-stating the date, and REDUCING the age of the earth.
Sciences do not work like that.
How has the age of the Earth increased, even as evidence appartly supports a younger Earth, according to your claims? What assertions have the supporters of evolution kept, even though such assertions have been proven incorrect?
If evidence supports the idea of an older Earth, what is wrong with accepting that evidence? Why should scientists claim the Earth is younger than about 4.5 billion years?
It seems to me that scientists have corrected the works of previous generations. It was once beleived that the Earth was around 20 million years old. This was shown to be false, and an older date was applied. What errors have scientists made in making such assessments?
Are you aware that carbon dating is not used to find the age of the Earth? Carbon-14 degrades to useless levels after about 50,000 years. It is only used on relatively young objects. We have other methods of radiometric dating which are useful for older objects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by hoaryhead, posted 08-27-2005 12:04 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 161 (237746)
08-27-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by hoaryhead
08-25-2005 7:22 PM


Admin prefers OT posts, it seems, so ...
I originally posted this in coffeehouse to keep this thread from getting to far OT. Seeing as Admin has closed that topic for political reasons, while letting this one stagger on OT post after OT post, it appears that this is the admin preferred venue for response. THEREFORE:
From: http://EvC Forum: hoaryhead: evidence and logic please.
RAZD writes:
In answer to hoaryhead's (off-topic) post on {Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?}
msg 37
Man Was Created Before the Beast
Can you show us the fossil evidence for humans being the oldest lifeform?
Can you show us fossil evidence for humans older than dinosaurs?
Can you show us fossil evidence of humans being virtually unchanged in time and existant in every age that any other life is found in?
In other words, you have made an assertion: now provide the evidence that makes it a legitimate conclusion.
Evolution Contradicts the Word of God.
So the evidence that is provided by god by his action contradicts the human record of his words.
What is the logical conclusion from that premise?
For the uninformed
You have yet to demonstrate that (1) you are informed and (2) that others are uninformed. Using knowledge of the bible would only mean relative to the bible and not to the rest of the universe.
when it was nations symbolized by beasts
In other words, the "word" of the bible either (1) can be interpreted to mean whatever you want at the time or (2) are so couched in mystic misrepresentation that none of the words mean what they mean. This holds for the daze of creation as well.
and from: http://EvC Forum: hoaryhead: evidence and logic please.:
RAZD writes:
and msg 15, same thread:
hoaryhead writes:
Bishop Ussher, and Barnabas had added the Bible story up to about 4000 years, in 2nd century, and 17th century.
Show that there math was correct. Given that the calendar based on the biblical theoretical birth of christs is wrong by several years, and that is dealing with historical times where there are other written records for comparison. Demonstrate that a high level of accuracy is used in these calculations.
Correlate {biblical} dates with dates known from other historical records where-ever possible.
hoaryhead made one response before the thread was arbitrarily closed, and I have included that below together with my comments in yellow :
FROM: http://EvC Forum: hoaryhead: evidence and logic please.
hoaryhead writes:
For RAZD:
1) Can you show fossil evidence for man before beast?
Absolutely not! Good, your position is just an assertion and completely unsupported by any evidence.
But carbon-dating changes every year; The amount of change is minor and predictable. Several geological ages were expected to have different levels of 14C due to climate influences. When correlations were found with information from other sources for the actual age compared the 14C age, not only were the errors minor but the climate correlations were confirmed. :God never changes. The interpretation certainly has. Or do you claim that the christianity practiced today (any form) is identical to what developed in ~AD300?
The world is full of debates about fossil evidence. but NOT that they (1) exists or (2) show compelling evidence for common decent. Nor is there fossil evidence that contradicts evolution.
The Bible has been proven accurate with the predicted downfall of all nations mentioned. show the specific passages that list the years, then show the conversions to the calendar developed over 1000 years later.
Judah - 588 BC. Babylon (2 falls) - 539 & 518 BC.
Persia - 331 BC. Greece - 167 BC. Rome - 478 BC. Noting that the bible was "written" in ~AD300, these hardly qualify as "predictions" rather than "postdictions" - a logical fallacy
Constantinople - AD 1453. show specific reference to "Constantinople" Papal States - AD 1870. show specific reference to "Papal States"
Ottoman Empire - AD 1918. show specific reference to "Ottoman Empire" Millennium murdered off - AD 1959.
Beast & False Prophet into the lake of fire (Rev 20.10) - going on today; and for last several years.
This ends up being a rambling list that has no real relevance to today's current events.
2) Prove you have a legitimate assertion.
All of the afore mentioned proofs of other parts of the Bible are proof that the statement "man formed before the beast" is true.
The "afore mentioned proofs" are logical fallacies and self-references, not a single piece of evidence is from another source. This is totally invalid and not even close to a Proof.
3) So the evidence that is provided by God by His action counterdicts the human record of his words.
You do not know God's words; how can you claim this to be true? It is your claim not mine. All I did was clarify your position to show the logical howler involved.
But,what you have termed "the evidence by His actions" is the subject of debate; The "evidence by His actions" is obviously the real universe and the life on this planet, the full panoply of everything we know about the natural world is the "evidence by His actions" and nothing else. but you have declared it settled.
This "contested evidence" is fossil speculation and carbon-dating.
These are not God's works. Again you assert with no evidence other than the argument from ignorance. Fossil evidence is not "contested" by saying: 'I don believe it' and carbon-dating is not contested by saying 'I don believe it' ... they are contested by showing the errors AND a better alternate explanation. Based on the lack of this activity, they have withstood the challenge.
Note this is the second time you have asserted gross errors in carbon-dating: please address the specifics of this claim with factual evidence and logical argument on this thread:
{Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.} thread (click). NOTE: you will be expected to show how all the other dating methods show the same errors not just that 14C dating is wrong. If you cannot provide such evidence then your claim is invalidated, and continued repetition of this claim will just demonstrate that you intentionally chose to remain ignorant of the truth and intractable on the topic.
4) You make the Bible say whatever you want it to say, such as, "beasts = nations."
Genesis 49; Judah was a lion's whelp; Dan was a serpent, Benjamin was a wolf, Issachar was a donkey, and educated men have been aware of these facts for over 3000 years.
So I did not force any interpretation. But you did. You said "I noticed a comment about God hating beasts and killing them; when it was nations symbolized by beasts that were destroyed." You have connected two different parts and used one as an allegory for the other, thus allowing you to make all kinds of similar assertions.
For RAZD:
Why does The Theory of Evolution change every year?
Every year? The theory of evolution is that species change over time. This is unchanged, validated and not falsified. Theories about mechanisms change as we know more about the systems and how they work. But I know of no {yearly turn-over} of theories, or even decade-wide ones. What I do see is the progress in putting together a picture puzzle where whole chunks are fit together.
Why does carbon-dating change every year? Already answered, and as noted above, your repeating this claim without any substantiation just shows that you are not willing to consider the evidence that you are wrong.
Will the speculatiions ever "level-off"? When humanity becomes uncreative. But there is a large difference between speculations (ID, Creationism, YEC, etc. are speculations) and scientific theory (based on actual evidence, prediction, falsification tests and validation). Evolution is a scientific theory: claiming otherwise is just exhibiting ignorance on what science involves.
5) Learning to count. This is only a summary.
Fall of Judah - 588 BC.
502.5 years of reign of kings of Israel - 1090 BC.
Samuel judged Israel 20 years - 1110 BC.
450 years of Judges - 1560 BC.
Driving 7 nations from Canaan -1594 BC.
41 years in wilderness - 1635 BC.
430 Years of sojourning, in Canaan 215 years, and in Egypt (215) -2065 BC.
Again validate this with actual dates quoted from the bible and conversion to our 1000 year later erroneously developed calendar.
And, you should be able to add up the genealogies.
Why? If your position is based on anything like a credible basis there should be universal agreement on this stuff. How come so many speculating YEC speculators have speculated so many different ages for the Earth and have been unable to find a single piece of evidence to validate a single one of them? Care to speculate?
As for being able to add, consider this ... FROM:Pinus longaeva (click):

The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV.
That's one tree that is older than your whole creation. Notice the specific reference to crossdating correlations.
hoaryhead
Questions asked originally that were not answered:
(I'll assume your total capitulation on "man older than beasts" to answer the first two in the negative)
Can you show us fossil evidence of humans being virtually unchanged in time and existant in every age that any other life is found in?
Let me simplify that: show fossil evidence of humans being virtually unchanged in the time and existence of all hominids.
Show that there math was correct.
Correlate {biblical} dates with dates known from other historical records where-ever possible.
Particularly of interest would be the date of the worldwide flood, especially from a source other than the bible.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by hoaryhead, posted 08-25-2005 7:22 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 161 (237798)
08-27-2005 6:48 PM


Responses to Message #95
1) Charles Knight has corrected me, in that evolution (according to him) has changed from Lamarckian view to Mandelian inheritance.
But Chioptera (#98) disagrees with him, saying that, "inheritance is independent of evolution."
Knight: [You think] "that because they don't fall into line with your thinking and that of your Christian godhead it must be wrong."
I did not mention God's view of the subject; or my view. You were presented with the Timeline of the Bible; but not the interpretation of the Bible.
I believe evolution to be wrong.
I believe Christian and Jewish notions of the creation to be wrong.
Creation is both (1) a parable (Gen 1.1-2.4), and a literal account of creation (as in, man before beast; Gen 2.4-25).
But then, only the children of the Spirit (meaning supernatural beings) can comprehend these things.
I have been dealing in worldly thoughts, easily comprehended, because of the state of your minds.
Brian - #100. Who are you to say that evolution has been constantly changing?
This was quoted from "The Universe" - Isaac Asimov.
I gave you the source. Why didn't you believe me?
Gary - #102. What assertions have the supporters of evolution kept, even though such assertions have been proven incorrect?
A) Cause and Effect is the foundation of scientific investigation.
But evolution has no cause.
Because evolution has no cause; it has no effect.
B) The popes teaching that "the earth is flat" in the Dark Ages, also misdated the Exodus of Israel from Egypt.
Their erroneous date was in 13XX BC.
The real date was 1635 BC. See our Timeline for proof.
I was shocked to read that those boasting of the accuracy of carbon-dating had the popes' wrong date for the Exodus.
RAZD - #103. Your questions have been answered before, but this is the last time that I will repeat the same answers.
A) Can you show us fossil evidence that humans lived before the dinosaurs?
Absolutely not!
But your study of fossils does not establish your position either.
So then, fossils do not settle the question.
The Bible is interpreted by history and mathematics and the Spirit of the Living God.
Isaiah wrote of the doom of Judah, which happened later in "the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar" (2Ki 25.8). See: Isa 24.1, 23:
"Behold, 'He Is' (Yahweh) makes the Earth (Israel) empty and makes her waste, distorts her surface and scatters abroad her inhabitants ... Then the Moon (Levitical Priesthood) will be disgraced and the Sun (Zedekiah) ashamed; for 'He Is' of hosts will reign."
These symbols are constant throughout the Old Testament, when referring to Israel; and the Moon was a "thousand lords" (Dan 5.1) when Belshazzar was killed (Isa 13 & 14).
God had taught that this identification of symblism would be done by His servants in these words:
"It is the glory of Gods (Elohim) to conceal a thing; but the glory of kings to search out a thing" - Prov 25.2.
"Surely 'He Is Gods' (Yahweh, Elohim) does nothing, unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets" - Amos 3.7.
Let me ask you, "Are you faking ignorance to avoid the debate?"
Herodotus of Greece, and other historians have dated these nations being destroyed by God.
In Junior High School, this was required learning in World History.
I thought this forum would be for high school graduates.
Why do you pretend not to know these universal facts?
RADZ - #103; Date the Flood!
2492 BC. See: Genesis 12, and Promise to Abram in 2065 BC; and add the genealogies back to the 600th year of Noah.
RADZ - #103: "In other words does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know, for they are spiritually discerned" - 1Cor 2.14.
"Therefore, since we have such hope [of resurrection], we use great boldness of speech -- unlike Moses who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what 'is passing away' [AD 57; present tense, but mistranslated]. But their minds were blinded. For until this day [AD 57] the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Anointed (Christ). But even to this day [AD 57], when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away" - 2Cor 3.12-16.
Your charges are false. In the first case, I quoted Genesis 49; and you said I was forcing the issue.
In the second case, the sons of the kingdom are blessed; those outside the kingdom are "in darkness" (1Thes 5.4).
I respect your superior knowledge of evolution; in like manner you should respect my superior knowledge of God, and of the word of God.
hoaryhead

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 7:00 PM hoaryhead has not replied
 Message 106 by nwr, posted 08-27-2005 7:16 PM hoaryhead has not replied
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2005 10:27 PM hoaryhead has not replied
 Message 111 by Brian, posted 08-28-2005 5:33 AM hoaryhead has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 105 of 161 (237801)
08-27-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by hoaryhead
08-27-2005 6:48 PM


Re: Responses to Message #95
Hoary why dont you answer. I clearly asked for the biblical passages for the following. YOu make assertions now back them up. [qs]1)
The Bible has been proven accurate with the predicted downfall of all nations mentioned.
Judah - 588 BC. Babylon (2 falls) - 539 & 518 BC.
Persia - 331 BC. Greece - 167 BC. Rome - 478 BC.
Constantinople - AD 1453. Papal States - AD 1870.
Ottoman Empire - AD 1918. Millennium murdered off - AD 1959.
Beast & False Prophet into the lake of fire (Rev 20.10) - going on today; and for last several years.[qs]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by hoaryhead, posted 08-27-2005 6:48 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024