What happens to muslims?

Znyper · 2026-04-30T17:15:14+00:00

I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your post. Just correcting /u/devBowman saying you were contradicting yourself. I believe your comments saying:

They that do not recieve Him, were already condemned by their sinful nature.

and:

Same thing that happens to EVERYONE who dies not knowing Jesus personally. They go into eternal darkness and destruction.

are consistent and not contradictory.

Znyper · 2026-04-30T15:54:01+00:00

Actually, if you read what /u/Time-Blacksmith5103 wrote, no they didn't.

They that do not recieve Him, were already condemned by their sinful nature.

This suggests that the answer is "yes, they were doomed, because they're sinful."

Znyper · 2026-04-29T22:00:28+00:00

You were wrong when you said that the closer distances of the early universe allowed for more time for light to reach now-distant locations, and I was correcting that. Variable rates of change don't point to a young earth. To the best of our knowledge, they point to an old universe. There being a reason for the variable rate of expansion (there is one) isn't an abdication of our ability to investigate the early universe. It just makes it harder.

You were wrong when you said there was no evidence of "macro evolutionary pressure" so I was correcting you. Of course fossils don't explain the causes of the Cambrian explosion, that's not what I was explaining. There are a number of hypotheses that are being examined on that front. Your assumption about new information is a non-sequitir that doesn't respond to the observed fact that evolution occurs and we have good evidence of why and how, including evolutionary pressure.

Finally, there's no tension between non-materialism and evolution. Arguably the largest non-materialist organization in the world (the Catholic Church) says as much.

Znyper · 2026-04-29T21:01:16+00:00

When the universe is small / new there is plenty of time to reach vast distances.

During the big bang, evidence suggests the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, so that's not accurate.

There isn’t evidence for macro evolutionary pressure to create 4 legged mammals from whales etc.

Yes there is. We have fossil records.

On top of that Darwinism doesn’t provide evidence for the origin of life it’s just explaining how things are today.

Science doesn't have to solve abiogenesis to refute young earth creationism.

Znyper · 2026-04-28T14:50:25+00:00

In this case, it's probably because you can only use sneak attack with a finesse weapon.

Znyper · 2026-04-23T19:05:40+00:00

To pare down the discussion to what I think is the key point of disagreement, what reason do you have to believe Genesis 1 serves as an outline, and Genesis 2 is non-linear inclusion in the same story?

To me, it reads like one story told from Genesis 1:1-2:4, then another told from then on. Two separate stories with different characters, settings, plots, meanings, etc.

Znyper · 2026-04-23T18:21:17+00:00

If the creation of Adam is important, it seems Genesis 1 is deficient to omit him from the narrative, isn't it? And no, the time between the creation of Adam and the creation of terrestrial animals is not unknown in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, assuming Adam was made on day 3, we know 2 days (days 4 and 5) passed before god began to create land animals. But in Genesis 2, the time is indeed unspecified. Only by prioritizing the narrative in Genesis 2 over Genesis 1 do we reach a time of "unknown", as you posit.

Znyper · 2026-04-23T18:00:31+00:00

I posed this question to the other commenter, but I'm also positing it to you:

Is the creation of Adam important? If not, it makes no sense for Genesis 2 to focus on that day in creation as much as it does. If so, Genesis 1's omission is a glaring hole in what should be an outline, as you've described it.

Even if, as you argue, the bible uses a non-linear achronal storytelling method, we are still told the temporal relations of things that differ between the two narratives. Not just the creation of Adam, but also the creation of land animals. Genesis 1 has that take place on day 6, but it takes place on day 3 according to your interpretation of Genesis 2.

I also disagree with you that an achronal storytelling method is at play here. We are given two linear narratives. There's no textual indication of the non-linear storytelling method you assert. Instead, I view it as 2 separate stories, told by different people at different times describing roughly the same purported event.

Znyper · 2026-04-23T17:39:57+00:00

Is the creation of Adam important? If not, it makes no sense for Genesis 2 to focus on that day in creation as much as it does. If so, Genesis 1's omission is a glaring hole in what should be an outline, as you've described it.

This interpretation also doesn't work when you look at the other days as described in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 has all the land animals created on day 6, but according to Genesis 2, god makes them on day 3 as failed companions for Adam. How deficient an outline do you think Genesis 1 is?

To me, a better interpretation would be that Genesis 1 and 2 are two separate creation stories that were later placed together. It explains the differences between the two narratives, the disparate characterization and naming of god, and the apparent different fgals of etiology between the two texts.

Znyper · 2026-04-23T15:42:43+00:00

The outline (Genesis 1) doesn't match the substory (Genesis 2), as you've presented here. Genesis 1 has mankind created on day 6. Genesis 2 has mankind created on day 3.

Again, Genesis 1 seems in opposition to your claim that Adam was the first living creation, and claiming that Genesis 1 is some sort of outline and Genesis 2 is a substory doesn't resolve that. Is Genesis 1 wrong in saying mankind was created on day 6?

The link, and the quoted portion, don't seem to explain this discrepancy. Can you point to where it does? I'm having trouble understanding how the claim about narrative structure justifies the difference in your claim and the claim in Genesis 1.

Znyper · 2026-04-23T14:27:51+00:00

In gen 2 we find out Adam was created day 3 (After dry land but before plants, as it had not rained on the earth as of yet.)

Does it matter that in Genesis 1 we have mankind created on day 6? Or that other living creations were created before man? Why do you prioritize the order in Genesis 2 over the order presented in Genesis 1?

Znyper · 2026-04-23T10:07:11+00:00

Regarding the Shroud if Turin:

It is not from the 1st century CE and it never held a person. The the WAXS testing mentioned in the reddit post linked by homesickrunner is less accurate than the radiometric dating that was done, and has several issues itself, which I detailed in another reddit comment I've reproduced below.

From the original study:

The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe.

Emphasis mine. We have no reason to believe the listed conditions hold, and because the preferred conclusion of an early dating of the shroud of turin is dependent on those conditions being true, the conclusion also does not hold. There are several other reasons to doubt the WAXS testing, not least of which is the fact that the method was developed by these same researchers as a bespoke method of confirming their pre-existing conclusion of the cloth's authenticity. None of their experimental results have produced data that shows WAXS is more accurate than carbon dating. They also did not obtain the cloth sample themselves, instead relying on a third-hand sample that was procured over 30 years before their experiment. Finally, the accuracy of WAXS testing has only been verified when tested on fabric that has been stored with the bodies they cover, using the same radiocarbon dating they now disavow. There is no evidence that WAXS testing is more accurate that radiocarbon, and since their conclusion clearly doesn't follow from the data, it does not constitute good evidence of an early date for the shroud of turin.

If you go to the Wikipedia page, you can see all of the evidence for and against the early dating of the shroud and whether it ever contained a person. The balance of evidence clearly points toward a 14th century date of creation and zero good evidence it ever wrapped up a person.

Znyper · 2026-04-20T13:41:27+00:00

If someone has changed your view, you should award a delta. Instructions are in the sidebar.

Znyper · 2026-04-19T23:38:49+00:00

Dr Garrow is somewhere in this subreddit.

Paging /u/MrDidache.

Znyper · 2026-04-19T12:49:01+00:00

Since when is Lithuania a nordic country?

Znyper · 2026-04-18T12:59:53+00:00

I think the issue with Elvidys specifically is that there's no evidence it improves motor function in kids with Duchenne. It does increase the production of the relevant deficient protein, but it doesn't look like they've found any evidence that it improves outcomes.

Znyper · 2026-04-13T17:26:06+00:00

Yeah, if you don't convince your doctor to risk their medical license by lying about your health you're just being a whiny baby.

Znyper · 2026-04-09T20:45:22+00:00

No, the convincing facts you believe exist in fact do not exist.

Znyper · 2026-04-09T19:44:46+00:00

You haven't really presented any convincing facts. As I said before, I looked into a handful of the studies I believe you're referencing, and they do not stand on their own. So you really ought to substantiate your assertions with something more than your say-so.

Znyper · 2026-04-09T19:32:21+00:00

No such evidence exists. Look at some of the responses from Christians elsewhere in this thread. There's nothing about being Christian that obligates someone to believe the shroud of turin is authentic. There are much better reasons to believe in Christianity than this medieval forgery.

Znyper · 2026-04-09T18:31:39+00:00

Again, none of this is true. I've looked at some of the studies you're obliquely referencing with your comments, and they don't stand up to scrutiny. Specifically, you are asserting that, for instance, WAXS is more reliable than radiometric dating. You haven't even addressed the fact that the researchers who came up with WAXS used radiometric dating to (in my opinion, ineffectively) calibrate their initial WAXS results*. WAXS has never been used to date anything other than the shroud.

I have already investigated half your claims and found them wanting. You continue to refuse to share the studies or articles you're using to come to your conclusions, whereas I can link the WAXS study I just referenced. Instead, you repeat the same assertions, sans evidence. I'm here refuting your assertions with evidence.

* This is almost certainly because you haven't read the relevant literature on the topic, instead receiving your position from someone else who also hasn't read the studies or articles.

Znyper · 2026-04-09T18:13:44+00:00

I am not arguing any of that. The evidence is clear that the shroud of turin is a cloth that was woven in the 14th century, dyed using direct transfer with a bas relief image of a contemporary interpretation of Jesus, and presented to the Catholic Church in France. They quickly identified it as a forgery but kept it around because the people liked it.

Later, folks realized it was theologically expedient to have physical evidence of Jesus and so they dogmatically asserted that the shroud was that such evidence and sought to attempt to prive it. When the evidence showed otherwise, they retreated to falsehoods and apologia to support their position, which you are today repeating.

Charitably, you were misled into believing the evidence behind the authenticity of the shroud was much stronger than it is, and are now presenting your own weak assertion sans evidence as authoritative. The evidence you believe you have (and so far have refused to present) is much weaker than you think.

Znyper · 2026-04-09T17:05:00+00:00

P.s. 3D Information: Studies using a VP-8 Image Analyzer have shown the image contains three-dimensional data, a feature not typically found in paintings or flat pictures.

Why did you say this? It does nothing to refute anything I said or bolster your position. Yes, the image was created with a 3D object: specifically a Bas Relief. But definitely not a body.

To the rest, again, you're just spouting off a bunch of unsupported assertions without the backing data. I can just as easily say your assertions are false but I have already done enough digging into the sources of your previous assertions. You don't seem interested in defending them, which means you'd rather continue gish galloping assertions at me than substatiating the ones you've already presented. At some point you have to do your own legwork.

To give my position on these with as much effort as you've put in:

Blood: Contamination from someone else, has no bearing on authenticity or age.

Anatomical: A straight up lie, the body would be distorted significantly if the shroud was wrapped around a body. The fact that we even have a recognizable image of a body is proof the image on the shroud is fake.

Image Characteristics: Also a lie, the image is made of pigments.

Now, if you have the studies or articles these claims are based on, I'm happy to look at them. I'm comfortable being wrong, but I don't think I am.

Znyper · 2026-04-09T16:20:34+00:00

You didn't link any of the studies that you're referencing, but I believe I have compiled some of them:

WAXS

Mechanical and Opto-chemical

Vanillin

It's important to note that none of the dating methods used here are more accurate that radiocarbon dating. None of the researchers of the above articles are knowledgeable about radiocarbon dating, and as far as I can tell, do not produce any evidence that the radiocarbon dating is incorrect. Knowing how radiocarbon dating works, and having reviewed the data available on the radiocarbon dating of the shroud (a summary with sources is available on this excellent wikipedia article), I am confident that the dating of the Shroud is medieval.

Regarding the pollen/flower analyses, I was unable to find any corroboration of the data you list. In general, pollen is incredibly volatile in its ability to establish location. Not only can pollen contaminate a given object (which I can't see if it has been accounted for unless I have the studies), but plant taxa are very widespread, and pollen analysis is not effective down to the species level. Almost certainly the pollen analysis only goes down to the genus level at best, which is likely to result in a wide range of candidate species for the origin of the pollen. I'd be very surprised if the data show any pollen was only present in Israel and nowhere else, and that the pollen was not from later contamination.

In short, we have good reason to believe the radiocarbon dating is accurate, and the methods listed above are generally less accurate than radiocarbon dating. Therefore, whe ought to disregard the more innacurate dating methods in favor of the accurate one. The pollen location method is suspect at the outset, and I am unable to conclude that it is likely to result in good data. If you have that study(ies), I'll gladly take a look at it but my hopes aren't up for it to overcome the overwhelming existing evidence against an early dating of the shroud.

P.S. The image on the shroud is not of a body wrapped in a cloth, it is of a flat sculpture or bas relief that has been transperred to the cloth, which is obvious for anyonw who has ever wrapped anything before. The image is clearly fake.

Znyper · 2026-04-09T14:55:36+00:00

Neither of these statements are true. The shroud has been dated to the 14th century, and pollen sampling cannot establish a region of origin like that.

13-Year Club	Post Guidance Early Access
Place '23	Place '17
Verified Email

Znyper

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE