Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by coffeesippin

  1. On 9/18/2018 at 3:21 PM, StringJunky said:

    Isn't a proof an argument that can't be contradicted? Whatever path you take, you always end up in the same place.

    The path is space, but what about time? An argument may meet that test today, but what about when advancing technology, maths and experience contradict the proof?  We might say, 'proof for today' but later that day a stranger walks in with a proven contradiction.  How about 'the proof is in the pudding.' Shrodinger's cat may have eaten the pudding and declared it good, then entered the box and died because the pudding contained sweet poison.  Nevertheless, we can know.

  2. 1 hour ago, Eise said:

    -1 for evading and irrationality.

    Tell us what you found: how do you prepare for the youngest day? The way that Jesus said, or the way Paul said? Who of the two is right, and why? Or don't you prepare at all, even that Jesus and Paul both mention the youngest day several times? 


    John 14:6 King James Version (KJV)

    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    Romans 1:20 King James Version (KJV)

     For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    1 Timothy 4:10

    10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Revelation 7:14

    And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

    1 Corinthians 14:37

    If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

    Along with those things I learned that the entire King James Bible is true from first word to last, from the Alpha to the Omega.   I learned there are possibly other perfect translations in the English language, as well as other languages, but I can't testify to them.

  3. On 12/1/2018 at 1:26 PM, Sensei said:

    The main "problem" of Australia is that they have abundance of coal.. (which means there is large pressure of lobby of industry to maintain the status quo of fossil fuels production and usage)

    "Coal production in Australia increased 13.6% between 2005 and 2010 and 5.3% between 2009 and 2010.[2] In 2016, Australia was the biggest net exporter of coal, with 32% of global exports (389 Mt out of 1,213 Mt total), and was the fourth-highest producer with 6.9% of global production (503 Mt out of 7,269 Mt total). 77% of production was exported (389 Mt out of 503 Mt total)."


    (looking at graph production increased by 400% from 1980 to 2012)

    These kids should start from persuading their parents and family to invest in solar panels and alternative renewable energy sources for their own home usage.



    It would be a fun day off school .. they'll graduate and buy SUVs and big houses  plus a cottage and a powerboat plus a jetski and take jet airline vacations to distant beaches in foreign lands, etc etc etc.   Just like their parents and their parent before them.  

    22 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

    I disagree - responsibility at the government department level is, in a very legal sense, obligatory (or should be), but individuals have wide discretion to believe whatever they like. Collective actions that are beyond the scope of individual choice are what governments are for. Our civic institutions are necessary to put responsibility and decision making beyond the reach of individual self interest.

    I think a significant part of the counter-messaging by opponents of climate responsibility and climate action has been make the issue a will-of-the-people decision in order to justify those holding positions of trust and responsibility failing to take the expert advice seriously and failing to act, using a combination of widespread misinformation, apathy and denial to prevent appropriate policy from being developed, enacted or used effectively. That it appears that the tide is turning - a lot of people are informed and concerned and beginning to demand governments like Australia's act - doesn't let governments off the hook; they have had close to 3 decades of consistent expert advice, but many within governments not merely failed to act, they were (and many still are) active participants in misinforming their constituents.

    And when government comes and takes your car and tells you to take public transit?  Will you be one of the few happy people on the bus?

  4. 3 hours ago, Strange said:

    So it has no particular relevance to supporting your case here? It is another paper on voids. We know voids exist. So ... meh.

    We KNEW Voids existed as empty spaces .. now we KNOW they are dynamic structures .. we are just finding out how dynamic, but I've posted before how the nearest void is pushing our groups at a high rate of speed.  I hoped you'd get interested, but ..


  5. 4 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I once heard an old adage that went like this....It's great to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out

    Fear of the brain falling out keeps the mind from opening.  Fear is the enemy.  I have nothing to fear in this.  I have nothing to lose.  I have nothing to gain either.  Well, other than being invited to a Nobel ceremony.  :cool:


    2 minutes ago, Strange said:

    You are suggesting some new unknown type of matter that doesn't interact with either matter or antimatter but is able to hold them apart?

    That is pretty extraordinary new physics. We are well beyond suggesting that antimatter has antigravity.

    Especially when it is to explain something that is explained perfectly well by standard physics.

    What specifically is interesting about it? I don't really want to read a 6 page paper and have to guess why you posted it.

    You don't need to read the paper, just puruse it.   If you can't understand the math that I set before you, I guess you won't be getting the Nobel, and I won't be going to Sweden.  :wacko:

    I have a guest now I have to go maybe Judy will win the Nobel.

  6. Does this stuff mean anything to you?

    3 Expansion Rate of the Antimatter Cloud Using the AIV model proposed in this paper, the voids containing clouds of mutually repelling anti-hydrogen atoms would cause the spaces between the galaxies to expand. To calculate the expansion rate due to the antimatter, a Gaussian spherical surface is centered at an arbitrary point in an antimatter cloud. Using Gauss's law applied to gravity, the g-eld at the surface of a sphere relative to the sphere's center is g = GM/r2 . To calculate the

    g M = ρ(4/3 πr3 ) results in g = d 2 r dt2 = 2G r 2 ρ4πr3 3 = 8πGρr 3 . In the form of a dierential equation: d 2 r dt2 − 8πGρ 3 r = 0. Solving the dierential equation for r and nding v/r will gives an expansion rate of v r = r 8πGρ 3 . By setting the expansion rate of antimatter equal to the Hubble constant of 2.40 × 10−18 s −1 , the density of antimatter required to match the observed expansion rate of the Universe can be calculated as ρ = 3H2 0 8πG = 1.03 × 10−26 kg m−3 . This value equates to approximately 6 anti-hydrogen atoms per cubic meter and could contribute to, or be related to the eect known as Dark Energy.

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1001.0007v2.pdf      I can't do the math, but I can understand the principles.

  7. This is interesting.   http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1990MNRAS.247..473M&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES

    Just now, Strange said:

    If the shell is made of matter, it will annihilate with the antimatter inside.

    If the shell is made of antimatter, it will annihilate with the matter outside.

    And that does not need antimatter, or even antigravity to explain it. Otherwise the papers and article reporting it would be screaming "antigravity" and "antimatter". They are, not surprisingly, silent on the subject.



    And if the shell is neutral?  An insulator of some type?  How long did it take us to find a way of using electricity?  These questions only seem complex because the answer is not known.  

    The problems arise when we set our minds against an idea.  One person with a positive attitude will achieve.  The person with the negative attitude will fall behind.  

  8. 30 minutes ago, Strange said:

    So no evidence for antimatter, then. Just Villata's assumptions and your guesswork.

    If the voids were full of antimatter then it would be obvious because of the annihilation where it met with matter.

    The shell prevents the matter outside and anti-matter inside from touching.  A plasma shell probably.  Thing is, the effect has been measured, our group is being pushed by the void beside it.  I guess if we had evidence this thread would not be in Speculation.  But I'm sure there is a huge rush on to be the first person or group to confirm this stuff.   Ten years ago I knew it would take a decade or more for findings to become apparent.

  9. 6 hours ago, Strange said:

    The only place I can see that anti-matter is mentioned is the Villata paper. Does anyone else provide any support for this idea?

    Go for the Nobel, Strange.  Why not.  You might be interested in how I hit on the idea of Void growth driving Expansion.  I saw a simulation of the universe .. simple as that almost.  Olde sailors knew the world was not flat because when they looked out to sea at a returning ship they saw the topmast first, then the lower masts, then she top of the hull, then the hull .. you've probably seen the illustration or visualized it yourself. The sailors realized easily the ocean was curved, not flat.  If the ocean was curved, the earth was probably curved to. 

    One day I was browsing images of cosmology, and got interested in an image of the mapped known universe, I saw the swollen Voids, roughly like birthday party balloons being blown up. But the filaments of matter didn't push into the voids, rather the voids compressed the matter, so there had to be something pushing against matter .. which has to be anti-matter, anti-gravity, very simple, like wind blowing a tree.  Voids are now know to have a 'shell,' like an egg.  The Voids expand and contract, smaller Voids drawn into larger ones like multiple soap bubbles. The shell must allow Void to pass into Void, but act as a barrier between the anti-matter in the void, and the matter outside, to keep them from annihilating.  There's one more element to that account, but it will have to wait another day or week or month.  If you get the Nobel, send me an invitation to the ceremony.

  10. 10 hours ago, Eise said:

    Well, that is easy. This posting is written by Paul too. This is proof! 

    Really? (See bold passage)

    (Bold and Italics by me).

    Of which day? About 50 CE? Or 250 CE? See passages in italic above.

    The books of the bible are written by people, the bible was composed by people, it was falsified by people, people made errors copying, and therefore is full with errors, biases, falsifications, inconsistencies etc etc. E.g can you tell me.

    - What should we do in the face of the youngest day according to Jesus?

    - What should we do in the face of the youngest day according to Paul?

    Who is right, and why?

    Seek and ye shall find.  I was searching for the truth and I found it.

    On 11/14/2018 at 10:53 AM, Strange said:

    Please provide the data to support that claim 

    For example, there are about 300,000 books published per year in the US (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year) compared with 1 Bible

    100 million bibles printed each year.  25% in the U.S.  https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+homes+in+the+world+have+bibles%3F&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=how+many+homes+in+the+world+have+bibles%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.25786j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    "Almost nine out of 10 households (87 percent) own a Bible, according to the American Bible Society, and the average household has three."  http://www.bpnews.net/48743/study-americans-fond-of-bible-but-how-many-read-it

    "According to Guinness World Records as of 1995, the Bible is the best-selling book of all time, with an estimated 5 billion copies sold and distributed.[1] The Qur'an is also widely reported to be one of the most printed and distributed books worldwide."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

  11. My scientific interest is mostly cosmology.   My boyhood nickname was Sputnik from my interest in astronomy; boyhood pal Fred still calls me that 60 years later.  I became a believer in the King James Bible 41 years ago, that book proving accurate in every word.  I am not a Flat Earther, and believe Science will prove itself as accurate as the KJV if given the chance.  I have four grandchildren, one of them 30 years old, but because of the world condition I hope not to become a great grandfather.  In the past 14 years I've done a few solo canoe expeditions varying from six weeks to three months.  I make it a general rule stay out of whitewater, but find a great relationship to physics when afloat.  


    Mods .. if you think this topic fits better someplace else feel free to move it.

    "If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy" the star has arisen from nothing, that forumula stopping Einstein dead in his tracks as he crossed a street at Princeton, vehicle having to stop to avoid hitting him.  I believe it was Born who related the fomula to Einstein as they crossed the street.

    So yes, here we are talking about Jordan, despite an initial reception in the forum when I first presented his stars-from-nothing formula that said something like he should not be taken seriously because he thought the world was expanding;  but someone saved that day by providing a link showing there was at Jordan's time considerable science stating the same thing.  I haven't looked into that.

      We're also talking about Jordan because I recognized he was so important that I carried his formula for stars arising from nothing on the back cover of my day planner for many years, in my breast pocket.   

    Regarding whether Einstein nominated Jordan for a Nobel: 

     http://sphsdevilphysics.weebly.com/uploads/5/0/7/1/5071691/werner_heisenberg_1932_by_conor_mills.pdf   top page 2 of 3.

    "In 1928, Albert Einstein nominated Heisenberg, Born, and Jordan for the Nobel prize in Physics."    So that although some founders of QM talked about Jordan as a mathematician, Einstein nominated him for physics.  Conspiracy?  Only so many prizes for physics?  Kind of like pushing scientists who don't fit the tight Consensus into holes. 

    "Heisenberg was very affected by the fact that he alone and not Born nor Jordan had won the Nobel prize. In 1933 he even went as far as to write a letter to Born. He said he delayed writing it because he had a bad conscience about being the only winner out of the trio to win the the much sought after prize. Heisenberg openly recognized that he would not have been able to make the same advances that he did without the help of Born and Jordan." 

    Here's a biography showing Jordan's utmost importance to QM.   http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Jordan_Pascual.html

  13. 4 hours ago, Strange said:

    It would need to be demonstrated along with convincing evidence, not just be a speculative idea.

    Yep. Totally deranged. Why would there be a conspiracy like that? It would make scientists jobs pointless.

    There is little point linking to a search. I couldn't see the text you quote in a couple fo the search results I looked at.

    And yet, here we are talking about him. There is no conspiracy.




      Deleted a bunch of stuff because of Swanson's direction towards a different thread.  I'm not sure where to open the thread though.  

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    I think regardless of the veracity of the claims about whether Einstein nominated Jordan, it seems clear the issue that raised this discussion is clear: any potential anti-semitism that might have occurred would have been on the part of the Nobel selection board, and the inference that this was ascribed to Jordan is unfounded. Further, discussion of why one might not get a Nobel is on-topic, as it was a point made in the OP.


    I think further discussion of Nobel prizes should take place in a different thread, as they have nothing to do with the details of running SFN.




    I just saw this after posting additional on Jordan and the Nobel.  I'm trying to fix that problem. 

  14. 21 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

    I never thought or said that you intended it. I just tried to provide some facts stating that Jordans political views or bias seems to have limited impact on nominations.

    Jordan was not nominated by Einstein, where did you read that?
    I found:
    Physics 1951 Pascual Jordan nominated by K Wagner
    Physics 1963 Pascual Jordan nominated by R Liljeblad


    It's in the original posts .. I'm too tired to find it right now. I'll look for it later.

    9 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I think if someone showed that the Big Bang mode were wrong or unnecessary, that would guarantee them a Nobel Prize.

    I don't think anyone has received a Nobel Prize for purely speculative ideas. So maybe there were just better candidates in the years he was nominated. There 

     He clearly wasn't anti-semitic, so I don't see how that could have played a role.


    Maybe I'll win it then?   Not likely though, I put the idea on the internet freely a decade or more ago.  It's going to be a cumulative prize anyway if it happened, as it was for QM, several people sharing.  Another thought though, if someone proved BB unnecessary it could get them seriously disengaged from the Consensus community and rights to publich .. but hahaha that's just a conspiracy theory, right?

    28 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

    I never thought or said that you intended it. I just tried to provide some facts stating that Jordans political views or bias seems to have limited impact on nominations.

    Jordan was not nominated by Einstein, where did you read that?
    I found:
    Physics 1951 Pascual Jordan nominated by K Wagner
    Physics 1963 Pascual Jordan nominated by R Liljeblad



    "In 1928, Albert Einstein nominated Heisenberg, Born, and Jordan for the Nobel prize in Physics, however it was decided that the nobel prize in 1932 should be delayed until 1933. ... Many people believe that it was because Jordan had joined the nazi party and hence become a storm trooper."

    The second one is probably on that page too .. but it will have to wait.  Don't forget that Jordan's name was almost expunged from publicity because he had been a Nazi, and after the war he became a member of parliament who advocated nuclear arms for Germany because of the threat from Russia.



  15. 14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

    Some facts:
    Pascual Jordan is not listed as a committee member (wikipedia.org/Nobel_Committee_for_Physics)
    He has not submitted nominations according to the nobel database (www.nobelprize.org)
    Nominees and nominators are listed but not their political opinions. But someone interested may be able to cross reference other sources to see what kind of bias (political, national or other) there are to be found in early times*.

    Jordan was nominated twice. As a comparison Einstein is listed for 62 nominations.


    *) The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later. (https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/)

          I never intended for anyone to think Jordan was a committee member.  It never entered my thoughts.   It's significant that Jordan was nominated by Einstein himself twice.   My thought is that he was not accepted because his ideas showed easily BB was not essential to the creation of matter .. that it was accomplished through quantum fluctuations, even as Inflation is said to demonstrate, but Jordan moving it into the 'arise from absolutely nothing' space.  Some of the other Founders of QM thought Jordan was not a Physicist, but a mathematician, that attitude was also said to work against him.  Maybe there were only so many Nobels to go around for Physics, and the competition was too intense for friendship.  Jodan and Einstein remained in touch though.


  16. 15 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

    coffeesippin - there is a very good argument why anti-matter should have the same gravitational sign as ordinary matter.
    In every anti-matter particle detection so far observed, stretching back many decades, it's always the case deflection in a magnetic field is exactly opposite to the corresponding ordinary matter particle. This immediately means the inertial mass of both particle and anti-particle must be identical in magnitude and sign.
    The Equivalence Principle then requires the gravitational masses to likewise be identical.

    So if anti-gravity anti-particles were true, that fundamentally violates the Equivalence Principle. It's why afaik a main reason the Wheeler-Feynman notion of anti-particles being ordinary particles traveling back in time, was abandoned. Because that idea does naturally imply anti-gravitation of anti-particles.

    ????? Just read the two paras under 'The evidence spoke for itself' in that very article you linked to!! First observed in 1932 (positrons), and whole anti-hydrogen atoms made back in 1995.

    Now if you meant antimatter in an astronomical/cosmological setting, that should have been clearly stated. And you would still have been wrong:

    What hasn't been identified is large scale structures i.e. voids comprised mostly or entirely of anti-matter as neutral atoms/molecules.

    [Just saw your late edit at bottom admitting positrons have been created in lab. Also anti-hydrogen - as mentioned in the very article you cited.]


    Hi Q .. Thanks for your thoughts. 

    BeeCee brought the created particle in as a diversion, apparently without even looking at the articles I included that clearly show an anti-matter/anti-gravity void propelling our local group of galaxies at speeds far greater than what they normally would be moving.  I think it's easy to see in the original post.

    Most of what I read said the verdict is still far, far out on the behaviour of anti-matter, as it is on many topics.

    One of the most important aspects though of my speculation is that it easily accounts for the large structures like the Great Wall which should not be there in the time frame approved, along with the mature galaxies in the distant universe.   If spacetime were seeded across its measurements time becomes no hindrance to those maturations because everything began at the same time with no need for Inflation or frequent expansions of the age of the universe, that being a constant since BB was proposed. That thought is explained further in my posts above.

    I'm finding more solid science all the time for the idea.  If I'm not booted again I'll be presenting what I find.

    Also, I hope everyone realizes the idea works with Relativity, so I'm not trying to topple Einstein, I don't have enough understanding for that, my talent seems to be the big picture into which I and others fit the details.

    5 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I have enormous enthusiasm for the CERN ALPHA project! Although it will almost certainly confirm the fact that antimatter behaves the same as matter, there is a small chance it won't, which is always exciting.

    I apologize for my poor wording, I meant your lack of enthusiasm for results supporting my proposal.  

  17. For anyone interested, discussion on the accusation of anti-Semitism was split off, taking some important points with it that did not involve the accusation, not that I'm upset, it was a long paragraph.  

    End of that story.   

    But hopefully I'll see some discussion on this topic, which despite, Strange, your lack of enthusiasm for, "...CERN ALPHA project which will probably falsify this hypothesis before too long..." is becoming surrounded by evidence as shown this early in the topic. Let it be known though, I first proposed this idea 10 or more years ago, before Villata, not that I'm bragging or accusing Villata of anything, he almost certainly never knew my name or my idea, and if he did, more power to him for getting it out, because it's the science behind the idea that is important.   

  18. 3 minutes ago, swansont said:



    Here is the post in question (emphasis added):



    You might note that the topic is why Einstein did not get a Nobel. Further, it is quoting another source.

    There is no reasonable interpretation of this post ascribing the motivation to Jordan. 

    I remember it differently as a little inclusion immediately after the mention of Jordan with no mention of Einstein .. though It's possible I DID misread it, but not likely, and in any case there was no reason for BeeCee to go off topic with it, it had no relevance to Jordan.   And those deceptions and insults and refusal to discuss the topic are why he's off my topic.  End of Story.

  19. 1 hour ago, Strange said:

    So that article may have been irrelevant, but it wasn't accusing Jordan of anti-semitism. 

    Okay, we'll drop discussion on why Jordan didn't get the Nobel, but we need to clear some things up:  BeeCee posted the inclusion on anti-Semiticsm directly as we discussed why Jordan did not get a Nobel.  BeeCee made it LOOK like Jordan was anti-Semitic.   That's one of the reasons I don't want to see his stuff .. look at how many posts took away from the topic, as you pointed out.

    BeeCee was not answering the points brought up in the articles supporting the Speculation, rather totally ignoring all articles, and went off about creating anti-matter or DE in the lab, and the anti-Semitism stuff, along with his insults of 'Nonsense' rather than discussing the Speculation, and comments like, "I got that. Coffeesippin, obviously didn't."  I didn't get it because it wasn't there to get.  BeeCee also tried to spin off into GR instead of discussing the speculation despite I highlighting in red "Today, we know the theory of general relativity permits a non-singular cosmology, with no Big Bang, at least in theory.”    More reasons I don't want to see his stuff.

    The following is not discussion on why Jordan did not get the Nobel even though Einstein nominated him twice for it, it is an example of DeeCee twisting the thread:  "He, coffee was asking why this Jordan never received the Nobel for what was is no more then  a possible hypothetical situation."   That statement is untrue and totally misleading.  I speculated that he never got the Nobel because his work which so stunned Einstein showed no need for a Singularity or Big Bang, that position conforming to the speculation of this thread, and not Off Topic.   In using the term, "this Jordan" BeeCee shows he probably never heard of Jordan before my post.  

    I wanted to clear those points because BeeCee will be pretending I can't keep up with his science, when it's crystal clear he's NOT interested in reading the articles and discussing the topic.  And I may as well post here I've blocked his messages as well, because he's invited me to discuss religion in the past, then reported me for doing so.  

    End of This Story.   But hopefully I'll see some discussion on the topic, which despite, Strange, your lack of enthusiasm for it, "...CERN ALPHA project which will probably falsify this hypothesis before too long..." is becoming surrounded by evidence as shown this early in the topic, so much evidence it should be bumped up out of Speculation.  But I'm content with it here until someone with more paper on the wall pushes it up.  Let it be known though, I first proposed this idea 10 or more years ago, before Villeta.





    3 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Moderator Note

    There was no accusation. You misread the post. If you want to discuss the details of this, make a post in "suggestions, comments and support" 


    Your post came after my last post, so I was not ignoring this Moderator Note in posting about needing to clear some things up.  Also, I no longer have access to BeeCee's original statement in the format it appeared, as I've blocked his access, so there's no way I can discuss it further.

  20. 46 minutes ago, Eise said:

    It seems 80% of the scholars agree that Timothy (yes, both) is not written by Paul. So where does your certainty come from? 

    1.   Both books say they are written by Paul

    2.  Both books are written in Paul's style and intent.

    3.  Both books complement each other and the other NT books.

    4  Both books are accurate in every word compared with a Strong's Concordance.

    5.  Both books accurately reflect the doctrines of the Christian church of that day founded on the day of Pentecost.

          Also, (but that which will probably be deemed unacceptable here even though those deeming it CANNOT prove it to be false,)        Direct Personal Revelation of the Holy Ghost.  

         For many articles refuting the link you provided, look these many articles over, not stopping on page 1:   https://www.google.com/search?q=who+wrote+Paul's+letters+to+Timothy%3F&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=who+wrote+Paul's+letters+to+Timothy%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.24461j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


  21. 28 minutes ago, Strange said:

    That article is suggesting that anti-semitism by the Nobel Committee against Einstein may have played a role in the fact he didn't get a second Nobel Prize. I don't see where Jordan comes into it. Was he on the Nobel Prize Committee?

    We had been talking about Jordan lacking a Nobel, not Einstein. 

    What's the process for blocking participants?  BeeCee is entirely unacceptable to me for many good reasons.

    Never mind .. I found the Ignore User function, and used it.  


  22. On 10/21/2018 at 7:11 AM, mistermack said:

    Scripture is when someone writes. Somebody has recorded their thoughts. They might make false claims for what they wrote, or others might later.

    As in the case of all of 2 Timothy, which was almost certainly NOT written by Paul, but by someone CLAIMING to be Paul. A later fantasist claiming to be an earlier more famous deluded individual.

    It doesn't really inspire confidence in the contents. 

    Ah well, you included the "which was almost certainly NOT written by Paul..."     Escape room is important.   I say is certainly was written by Paul. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.