Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 212 (117018)
06-21-2004 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Steve
06-21-2004 12:25 AM


Re: Myth?
Relax Steve. One step at a time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 12:25 AM Steve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 9:20 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 212 (117061)
06-21-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by almeyda
06-21-2004 3:33 AM


Extra corroboration
No one obviously read this:
ICR | The Institute for Creation Research\
or this:
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
This message has been edited by steve, 06-21-2004 08:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by almeyda, posted 06-21-2004 3:33 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by AdminNosy, posted 06-21-2004 12:23 PM Steve has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 184 of 212 (117116)
06-21-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Steve
06-21-2004 9:20 AM


Bare links
Bare links simply don't cut it. Thanks.
(added by edit}
By the way, Steve, as a bit of advice. You will find that several people here are more familiar with AIG and ICR than you probably are. There is not likely to be anything new there.
I recommend that you read what you are linking to and try to decide if it really does answer the questions being dicussed. If you stick with a topic of discussion and dig into the details you are going to be disappointed in the amount of back up you will get from those sites.
They are not intended to handle the very detailed, searching criticism that they are subject to be many people here. They are simply intended to mislead the less informed into thinking that there actually are answers to the issues raised here. Good luck.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 06-21-2004 01:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 9:20 AM Steve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 3:19 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 212 (117184)
06-21-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by AdminNosy
06-21-2004 12:23 PM


Re: Bare links
I guess that's why not one single person has refutted anything that I have linked to.
So the 500 plus flood stories in cultures spread out over the entire world is no considered independent corroboration.
I feel sorry for you all, claiming to be critical when you just swallow the same bitterness that the mass media keeps dishing out.
Be investigators. Don't just accept what your high school science teacher told you. Realy investigate these things.
Tell me what is incorrect about the links I posted. Oh, nevermind, your own administrator thinks that there are no real answers, so none of this matters, right?
You've gotta be kidding me. That's what I get for trying to have an intelligent conversation with people who support porn.
May God remove the blinding hand of the devil from your eyes. In Jesus Name. Amen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by AdminNosy, posted 06-21-2004 12:23 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 12:44 AM Steve has not replied
 Message 191 by JonF, posted 06-22-2004 10:19 AM Steve has replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 212 (117310)
06-21-2004 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
02-11-2002 10:27 AM


Faith is what you all have. You may not have faith in God, but you have faith in what you believe. You have faith that the scientists that say what you believe is true, why, because it makes logical sense to you and it fits with you're already formed schemata, but what you don't think about is you're puting just as much faith in so-called scientific evidence that you don't even take the time to realize that YOU WEREN'T THERE!
Whatever you say is the reason for life, its creation, condition and so forth is based on faith in something that was told to you, whether through books or a person.
Because you can't experience everything. Hello, that's what faith is, trusting in what you can't see.
Now I would like to start a new thread on independent historical corroboration for the big bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 10:27 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by almeyda, posted 06-22-2004 12:27 AM Steve has not replied
 Message 189 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 12:48 AM Steve has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 212 (117375)
06-22-2004 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Steve
06-21-2004 9:02 PM


Steve, The people here are just as ardent in their beliefs as you. Moreover creationists are laughed at here by many. You must take a more intellectually approach to them. Making a new topic with your own words is a better idea than posting bare links.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 9:02 PM Steve has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 188 of 212 (117384)
06-22-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Steve
06-21-2004 3:19 PM


Re: Bare links
Steve writes:
I guess that's why not one single person has refutted anything that I have linked to.
We are trying simply trying to avoid battle of the links. You have something to say, spit it out in your own words.
So the 500 plus flood stories in cultures spread out over the entire world is no considered independent corroboration.
Nope. For one thing, flood is a regularly occuring natural disaster all around the world. Despite its regular occurances, whenever it happens it is still a really big deal. So, it is no surprise that a myth about global flood found its way into many cultures.
The question you should be asking is how the hell did the ancients, with their limited technology and knowledge, really know that the flood was really global and not just local?
I feel sorry for you all, claiming to be critical when you just swallow the same bitterness that the mass media keeps dishing out.
Uh... ok. Is that the best you could do?
Be investigators. Don't just accept what your high school science teacher told you. Realy investigate these things.
So, you're a telepath now. You could read our minds and know that we haven't really investigated these things. No wonder people like you are not really taken seriously.
Tell me what is incorrect about the links I posted. Oh, nevermind, your own administrator thinks that there are no real answers, so none of this matters, right?
If you have the time to find those websites and really read what they had to say, why not have the time to put it in your own words here? Let me be honest with you. I hate clicking on links. Worse, I hate clicking on bare links. If you really know about these things the way you claim to know, why not put them here in your own words?
You've gotta be kidding me. That's what I get for trying to have an intelligent conversation with people who support porn.
I'm just wondering. What was the highest level of education have you completed? Please do not take this question as an insult. There is a minor mystery and I just want it resolved.
May God remove the blinding hand of the devil from your eyes. In Jesus Name. Amen
I'm curious as to what kind of scientific data and evidence do you have to show us that there is a devil's hand blinding us from the truth? Is there some kind of infrared or ultraviolet detection involved?

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 3:19 PM Steve has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 189 of 212 (117385)
06-22-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Steve
06-21-2004 9:02 PM


steve writes:
Now I would like to start a new thread on independent historical corroboration for the big bang.
Again, I'm curious to what your last level of education was? When we touch on a topic such as the big bang theory and its supporting evidence, we will be covering concepts that even college physics major graduates have trouble understanding.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 9:02 PM Steve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Steve, posted 06-22-2004 10:45 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 190 of 212 (117462)
06-22-2004 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Steve
06-21-2004 12:23 AM


Re: Myth?
What is the scientific evidence, the data, that says it takes millions of years for rock to turn into sediment?
You can start with Evolution, Scientific Creation, Uniformitarian Geology, and Flood Geology and its references. Mostly talks about limestone, but that's enough to refute the notion of catastropic deposition of all sedimentary rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 12:23 AM Steve has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 191 of 212 (117466)
06-22-2004 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Steve
06-21-2004 3:19 PM


Re: Bare links
I guess that's why not one single person has refutted anything that I have linked to.
It's easy to throw out links, and make tens of claims, but refuting them takes time and effort. Nonetheless, over the years they've all been refuted, and it wouldn't take much effort on your part to find those refutations. Start at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
If you want to discuss something, write it up and we'll discuss it.
Overall, your links are both just lists of unsupported claims, distortions and -- yes -- outright lies.
E.g.:
quote:
It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds.
This is a distortion because there was no formal training in geology in those days, and therefore nobody had the formal training to be a "professional scientific geologist" (such a Lyell; see Sir Charles Lyell). Of course, lack of formal training or professional accreditation should not be taken as evidence that a person does not know what he/she is talking about. After all, the author of that passage is Henry Morris, a hydraulic engineer and not a "professional scientific geologist"! If we believe that passage, we must accept that the author of the article is not competent to write the article!!
But he also lies, in leaving out such well known and highly qualified geologists such as Hugh Miller, who wrote in 1857:
quote:
No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the older geologic systems, -- Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary.
And Adam SedgwickWoodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge and President of the Geological Society of London and, for many years, a major proponent of the diluvial (Noah's flood) theory of deposition, who addressed the Geological Society thusly in 1831:
quote:
Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. ... We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood ...
More, and discussion, at A Flood Geologist Recants
Your other link, ICR | The Institute for Creation Research\, is refuted at Sea-floor Spreading and the Age of the Earth, and catastrophic plate tectonics as discussed here at great length in Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (for TC and Sylas) and Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading. The basic problems with CPT is that there's really no evidence for it, it requires assuming wildly unrealistic values for the physical properties of molten rock, and it would release enought heat to destroy life on Earth several times over. Lots of references in the links above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 3:19 PM Steve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Steve, posted 06-22-2004 10:51 AM JonF has replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 212 (117474)
06-22-2004 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by coffee_addict
06-22-2004 12:48 AM


Independent historical corroboration for the big bang would be written records by eye witnesses or oral traditions. None exist.
Do you get it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 12:48 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by contracycle, posted 06-22-2004 10:57 AM Steve has not replied
 Message 197 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 4:35 PM Steve has replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 212 (117476)
06-22-2004 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by JonF
06-22-2004 10:19 AM


Re: Bare links
Finally, now we're getting somewhere fellas.
That's what I like to see, some real point by point data.
Quotes don't help though, I want specifics. Thanks for the links I will check them out.
And stop crying about "bare" links. The proof and evidence is there, it's your perspective that is blinded.
Anyway, just to let you all know, I'll put stuff in my own words, but don't be surprised if it's not scientific.
The weather man says when the sun will rise, is that scientific, no of course not, but we all know what he means.
So get of your horse and get ready for some ley terms. Peace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by JonF, posted 06-22-2004 10:19 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by JonF, posted 06-22-2004 1:44 PM Steve has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 212 (117478)
06-22-2004 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Steve
06-22-2004 10:45 AM


quote:
Independent historical corroboration for the big bang would be written records by eye witnesses or oral traditions. None exist.
Do you get it?
Well, no. Oral traditions are terrible sources of evidence, for one thing. Studies of eye witnesses show they are remarkably unreliable.
Steve, do you require that "evidence" be gathered by the human eyeball and nothing else?
We have better teqchniques for finding and identifying supporting evidence than "someone said so"; SCIENCE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Steve, posted 06-22-2004 10:45 AM Steve has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 195 of 212 (117533)
06-22-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Steve
06-22-2004 10:51 AM


Re: Bare links
nd stop crying about "bare" links.
Bare links are forbidden by the forum guidelines to which you agreed when you signed up. You don't like it, go somewhere else.
The proof and evidence is there, it's your perspective that is blinded.
Remains to be seen. I bet I know a lot more about the creationist's "evidence" than you do. ICR and AIG sure don't have evidence, all they have is their own prejudices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Steve, posted 06-22-2004 10:51 AM Steve has not replied

  
epoch9
Inactive Junior Member


Message 196 of 212 (117556)
06-22-2004 4:00 PM


it would seem that steve is so focused on proving his point that he is blind to all other points no matter how well thought out or supported. i have read his links(all of them) and i find that i must agree with the others on this one.

when knowledge is outlawed...only outlaws will have knowledge

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024