|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2006 : 13:29:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Obviously, Dave, you missed the point again. The point had nothing to do with Lincoln perfuming miracles, but rather how we determine what we know about Lincoln, or any other persons of history for that matter. As the point was made we don't "scientifically", using formulas and bunsen burners, to come to our conclusions for the bio of Lincoln, but rather we come to our conclusions through historical evidences.
That's exactly correct: historical evidence is not scientific evidence.quote:
Of which, as I have demonstrated, the historical record for the death, burial, and resurrection of JC is provided in more then an abundance that would convince any skeptic who choose to look at the evidence in the same way they would look at evidence for any other historical figures such as Plato, could come to only one conclusion. Historically speaking, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, validating who he said he was.
And apparently your sources consider the idea that Homer was a single, real person to be correct, when many other historians do not. Why should I trust your sources on the reliability of the Bible when they think that Homer was real, or that solar eclipses can't occur during new moons, or when they say ridiculous things about there being a lack of fabrication 2,000 years ago? Your sources on the reliability of the Bible are not, themselves, reliable. That is the point that you are missing.quote:
So based on nothing, but your handwave, you reject the historians of the time, as well as over 500 eyewitnesses in favor of your own opinion? Is this your normal "scientific" approach to uncovering history, Dave?
It's a "handwave" to point out the fallibility of the arguments being made? Where is the non-Biblical evidence that there were 500 eyewitnesses? And several of the historians of the time considered Jesus to be a "sorcerer," so they're unreliable to begin with.quote:
Not only did I give you Jewish sources, that were hostile to Jesus' claims of divinity, as confirming the death of Jesus Christ on the Roman cross, his burial, and that the fact that he appeared to many eyewitnesses after the burial, but I gave you Roman sources as well. None of which could refute the death, burial, and appearance of Christ, after the crucifixion, as nothing but a historical event.
I'd go back and address Kil's post, if I were you.quote:
Don't know, Dave. After I am done turning over every stone in the middle east, and am sure I have recorded every grasshopper found, I will send you my conclusions. Besides, what is your point? I never said grasshoppers are why I accept Genesis, but rather it was the historically documented fact of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which, ultimately, is why I accept the writings.
If the writings are true - as you claim - then there should be evidence of four-legged grasshoppers. There should also be evidence of a world-wide flood. There should also be evidence that the planet is less than 10,000 years old. There should also be contemporary Roman records of Jesus' exploits, but there aren't.
If you'd like to wait to have this discussion again after you find scientific (instead of historical) evidence for Jesus' divinity, that's fine by me.quote:
Irrelevant, as I gave you three independent sources that all corroborated each other. I gave you Jewish historians. I gave you Roman governors and historians and there are the 500 eyewitness, as well as the 11 disciples, all of which corroborated the death and burial and none ever refuted the resurrection, though many certainly would have like to had they been able to.
No, it was entirely relevant. Your cited legal scholar should have taught you how witness credibility works. Witnesses who believe in magic aren't credible to me, so it doesn't matter if they corroborate each other or not, they simply aren't reliable.
You're the one, Bill, complaining about the assumptions of scientists. Well, I don't assume that magic exists. If you've got hard evidence that your "500 eyewitnesses" and Jewish historians and the disciples and governors were correct in their assumptions that people are capable of working miracles, then please lay it out. Otherwise, you're just asking me to have faith, which has no place in a scientific discussion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 14:03:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You kill me, bro. You want to debate Noah's ark with me but will reject anything that I submit that has to do with God or Jesus Christ. Dude, God is the foundation of the flood and Noah's ark account. It would be no different then for me to want to debate all the diversity we see in the biological world with you and I refuse you the ability to appeal to random mutations influenced by natural selection in this debate. It's like cutting off the legs of a gold medal sprinter before challenging him to race.
I see. This translates into you having no rebuttal to either Marty Leipzig or myself, at all.
You blindly believe this most unlikely of anecdotes with exactly no factual evidence supporting that belief. You won't call me on my claim, a claim against a fictional event believed as fact by a large percentage of Christians around the world, simply because you know that I'll demand reference and you have none beyond the non-science of the Bible; the teller of the tale in the first place.
But what the hell; maybe I'm asking too much. Maybe I should cut it back a bit. Ok, how 'bout this:
Assuming that Noah loaded 'kinds' instead of species on the Ark, How many animals, approximately, did he carry? And which 'kind' did the tuatara fit into?
Maybe if we take this in tiny steps, we can get somewhere.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 14:08:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I don't care if the mountain was made out of cardboard. This was described as a "minor" eruption. 20,000 X's the power we dropped on Japan, and this is a minor eruption. Mountain tops gone, numerous geological layers laid done in nano-seconds according to macro time scales, the appearance of 27 generations of forest in the blink of an eye. All from tiny ol' Ms. St. Helen. Now imagine Mt. St. Helen's multiplied to the infinite degree as it would have been during the creation event. Or the power of a global flood to reshape entire landscapes. Your limestone (really God's limestone) would melt like butter
And here I was under the impression that you frowned on "just-so" stories, Bill. Guess I was wrong.quote:
Sure. Genesis says it was. Jesus Christ gave authority to Genesis. Jesus Christ claimed to be the creator. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, validating that he was who he said he was. Historical speaking, if we can't trust that Christ did, indeed, rise from the dead, then, by George, what can we trust, historically speaking?
Not much, history being written by the winners. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 17:29:58 [Permalink]
|
Great post filthy very informative. One thing bothers me though. In the section where you're quoting Leipzig he says:
quote:
Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space.
Displacing the entire atmosphere upwards by 5 km would cause negligible loss of atmosphere. The reason is that the boundary point where the earth's atmosphere leaks into space is much, much higher than 5 km. The boundary point is actually around 800 km or so. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 17:48:58 [Permalink]
|
| Even the fairly arbitrary "line" drawn up for atmospheric sciences has "space" starting at 100 km, not at 12 km (3/2s of Everest's height). I already pointed out, Matt, that thunderstorms regularly top out at 16 km (with clouds, no less). In other words, I too think that that section of Leipzig's calculations should have been left out. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 19:32:46 [Permalink]
|
I agree with you, dv82matt. A deep, high ocean like that would only raise the atmosphere, not make it dissipate into space. Gravity at the higher altitude would be essentially unchanged from that at sea level. (Does anyone feel lighter when flying in a jet plane?) In fact, the mass of all that Deluge water would actually slightly increase the earth's hold on the atmosphere, as the planet as a whole would be more massive. (Also, the moon's orbit would become somewhat closer to the earth, and it would circle the planet at a slightly higher velocity.) No way would a more massive earth lose its atmosphere more quickly than a less massive planet!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 19:57:44 [Permalink]
|
| As I said on page 1, Halfmooner, the increase in gravity from the mass of the water would be about 0.1%, while the decrease in gravity due to the extra 5.155 km would be about 0.16%, so there would be a net decrease in gravitational force acting on the atmosphere of 0.06%, but that's really tiny. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 20:31:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
He obviously doesn't think these things through. He accepts them at face value and ignores even the most obvious errors when they are pointed out. Perhaps deep down he knows that these pillars of his faith would crumble upon the slightest inspection, so he deliberately keeps his eyes shut.
(bill) So inspect them and bring forth your criticism so we can discuss.
OK. Just one for now to keep it focused: Mt. St. Helens and erosion.
How do you equate the the erosion of loose ash to the erosion of solid rock? Loose beach sand is easily eroded by a pailfull of water, but that it will have no effect on solid rock. The same goes for water and volcanic ash. Therefore, MSH is not an analogy for the erosion of the Grand Canyon. Your response?
(bill) Well MSH was not the pillar of my faith that I was referring to, but rather I was talking about the historically demonstrated fact of the resurrection of Christ. That would be the pillar of my faith. However, as I said earlier, I don't care if the mountain was made of cardboard. MSH has been refereed to as a minor eruption. Yet it was also stated that the power released at MSH was that equal to 20,000 of the atomic bombs that we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I went on to state that if a minor eruption is equal to that of 20,000 Hiroshima's then just imagine what an infinite amount of MSHs could/would generate which would be a representation of what we might expect to see at the time of creation. Or if this minor eruption can change the entire landscape of MSH then just imagine the energy that would be unleashed on the landscape through a global flood. I don't think we can even imagine those forces. This limestone would be molded, carved and shaped like silly putty under the effect of such forces. Your mistake is trying to compare the global flood to a pail of water...
I never said this was a pillar of your faith. YOU posted it as evidence that supports the Bible. I, and others, recognized it as nonsense and told you so. And from reading your responses...you agree! You said it wasn't important, that what was important was the energy released and the effects it had on the landscape. You've taken evidence (invalid though it may be) and replaced it with an assertion (and I bet you didn't even realize it). You assert, without evidence, that the flood would be so intense that solid rock "would be molded, carved and shaped like silly putty under the effect of such forces." I'll tell you one thing, I'd hate to be out in a boat under those conditions. (And that's another thing. Your assertions are not internally consistent. You can't have a flood blasting the entire surface of the earth without destroying the ark.)
The rest of the geological stuff you posted is just as bad. These things were refuted long ago. I could down the list, but what's the point. It's not convincing to anyone who knows the subject.
Now the historicity of Jesus stuff I find fascinating. But I think I'll take a  approach because it's just not my area (though I am reading up when I can).
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
| Edited by - leoofno on 05/16/2006 20:32:58 |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 20:40:04 [Permalink]
|
This "replying to posts and arguing your point" stuff takes up too much time. Just a few paragraphs can take me an hour or so, and even then I'm usually not happy with it, I just post it to get it over with.
How do you regulars manage to do this day-in and day-out? |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 20:40:15 [Permalink]
|
It basically boils down to this. Bill scott believes everything in the bible because the bible says god can do anything. The only evidence outside the bible that matters to him necesarily deals with the reliability of that document. For him, it really is as simple as "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."
You cannot argue with such a mindset. For him to even consider evolution might be correct would require him to conclude the bible and his faith in god is entirely wrong.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 00:58:07 [Permalink]
|
I'm not entirely comfortable with the atmosphere part of it, either. Not any more, anyway.
But wouldn't there be some loss, albeit it from the thinned-out top of it? 10 cubits above the top of Everest is a long way up. And result in a somewhat thinner atmosphere when the water receded? Not being all that familiar with the atmospheric sciences (I watch the weather prognosticator whose desk is closest to the window), I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the loss would be noticeable if not disastrous. The thunder head would have to go up the height of Everest (27,000 ft., if memory serves) plus it's 'normal' 16 km.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 01:21:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
[/b]
(Wild applause leading to a standing ovation and fist fights in the cheap seats.)
And that is why the fundies hate the Flood. Thank you, Doctor Leipzig, for a most enlightening presentation.
Ok, now, what brave soul with lion's heart and maths of steel will be the first to confront the Leipzig Theorem? (Title: mine) 
[/quote]
Gentlemen, there are other societies that spoke of a flood, the Babylonians, and others.
Did you stop to examine the earth? The fact the earth is covered with 75% water? Just in the area of ocean between Russia and Alaska, there is 1,000,000 square miles of ocean. I know, you guys are hard to impress. I just don't think you tend to notice how much undrinkable water there is on the planet.
We humans have what? 3% for fresh water to drink. Now how is that possible. If 97% of the water is undrinkable, how did water evolve to be fresh water? |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 01:48:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
If 97% of the water is undrinkable, how did water evolve to be fresh water?
It would seem verlch thinks the definition of "evolution" is "any process in which god takes no part."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 02:07:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
[/b]
(Wild applause leading to a standing ovation and fist fights in the cheap seats.)
And that is why the fundies hate the Flood. Thank you, Doctor Leipzig, for a most enlightening presentation.
Ok, now, what brave soul with lion's heart and maths of steel will be the first to confront the Leipzig Theorem? (Title: mine)
quote:
Gentlemen, there are other societies that spoke of a flood, the Babylonians, and others.
Did you stop to examine the earth? The fact the earth is covered with 75% water? Just in the area of ocean between Russia and Alaska, there is 1,000,000 square miles of ocean. I know, you guys are hard to impress. I just don't think you tend to notice how much undrinkable water there is on the planet.
We humans have what? 3% for fresh water to drink. Now how is that possible. If 97% of the water is undrinkable, how did water evolve to be fresh water?
All that water and yet, there is still land. Mercy sakes! who'da thunk it?
Now add more water to the altitude of 10 cubits above the summit of Everest, then explain where that water went after the Flood. It doesn't seem to be around today....
As for fresh water, did you ever hear of 'evaporation' and 'condensation?'
Floods happen, all over the world. There's one going on in New England even as we speak. So of course other cultures have stories of them, and the tales get better with each telling.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/17/2006 02:19:33 |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 03:26:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
[/b]
(Wild applause leading to a standing ovation and fist fights in the cheap seats.)
And that is why the fundies hate the Flood. Thank you, Doctor Leipzig, for a most enlightening presentation.
Ok, now, what brave soul with lion's heart and maths of steel will be the first to confront the Leipzig Theorem? (Title: mine)
quote:
Gentlemen, there are other societies that spoke of a flood, the Babylonians, and others.
Did you stop to examine the earth? The fact the earth is covered with 75% water? Just in the area of ocean between Russia and Alaska, there is 1,000,000 square miles of ocean. I know, you guys are hard to impress. I just don't think you tend to notice how much undrinkable water there is on the planet.
We humans have what? 3% for fresh water to drink. Now how is that possible. If 97% of the water is undrinkable, how did water evolve to be fresh water?
All that water and yet, there is still land. Mercy sakes! who'da thunk it?
Now add more water to the altitude of 10 cubits above the summit of Everest, then explain where that water went after the Flood. It doesn't seem to be around today....
As for fresh water, did you ever hear of 'evaporation' and 'condensation?'
Floods happen, all over the world. There's one going on in New England even as we speak. So of course other cultures have stories of them, and the tales get better with each telling.
In my estimate God can put 200 billion stars in one galaxy, and as long as I've been around, 30 years, it hasn't' fallen apart yet.
Seems to work pretty good.
With that type of understanding, and the ability to produce a star that is larger than Mars orbit, or even Jupiter's orbit, I think he might know a thing or two about places to leave water.
How much fresh water is in the great lakes alone.?
Last time I checked there was oceans of water under the crust of the earth. I would suggest you might look there for some of it.
http://www.biblediscoveries.com/flood1.html
Again, it takes more faith to believe in evolution. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
