Evidence for the Biblical Record

Hi BZ, No. Ringo (I presume this is who you're referring to) was referring to water turning to blood, and not as part of a natural process, but in reference to the clearly supernatural events described in Revelation. Comets do not turn water to blood; the fact that plants produce wood does not appear to be immediately relevant to this issue.If I have missed the connection here, please feel free to point it out. No, the lack of any sane suggestion of how a comet might turn water to blood makes Big Al's argument unscientific. If You or Big Al could come up with a sensible explanation of how a "scorching ball" might turn water to blood and how this supports the Biblical record, then we might have something worth debating.Let's be clear; Big Al has been making the claim that Revelation mentions comets and that this is evidence for the veracity of the Bible. This claim is false; it is ludicrously vague and, as Ringo points out, it mentions nonsensical effects, like water turning to blood. This does not sound much like a comet or meteorite.If you think that Rev 8:8-9 (or any other part of Revelation) accurately describes a comet or meteorite, please explain to me;a) How a comet/meteorite can turn water to blood, or;
b) What the hell the ability of plants to make wood has to do with comets turning water to blood, or;
c) How any of this supports the Biblical record. Do you seriously think that this is one of them? That Revelation describes a comet so accurately that we could not reasonably doubt its veracity? It is quite a claim. You have done nothing to substantiate it.If you think that the Bible contains facts, I agree with you. Some of it is fact.If you are arguing that some of those facts accurately reflect scientific knowledge anachronistic to the period in which the texts were written, I have to disagree. As you can see above, I do not reject the Bible as completely untrue. Just mostly untrue. Like your accusations of bad faith. I am still rather puzzled by your insistence on talking about how impressive wood is. Yes, it's very impressive, and no, I cannot make it myself. But then there are lots of things I can't do, so this comes as no surprise.Are you arguing that my inability to create wood is somehow evidence that wood is created? That seems somewhat perverse.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This is not what Ringo said.What she said was:

quote:

---

Photosynthesis is more than plausible because we know how it works.

---

Knowing how something works is one vector to plausibility.Ringo did not explore, let alone negate, any other vectors to plausibility.This situation came about because of two items:1. Your poor reading comprehension skills2. Your poor critical thinking skillsIf you could improve on these areas then please go back and re-read the OP and the rest of the thread. Then maybe you could answer jar's question above.

AZPaul3, I cited portions of the individuals remarks.
You responded in typical leftist fashion, by attacking my ability to read and think.Ad hominem attacks are the sine qua non of leftists everywhere.
Leftists always, always pretend to be enlightened, intellectual, smart, scientific, and all things moral, good, and brilliant.Likewise, leftists ascribe the exact opposite of themselves to everyone who does not march in leftist lockstep.This is the definition of "plausible" at http://www.dictionary.com:having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.Nowhere does the word "proof" appear.
Plausibility is clearly a matter of perspective, a matter of how the subject "appears" to the observer in question.Over time, or geography, or other dynamics, "plausibility" changes. It is relative. What anyone may THINK is "plausible" is subject to their knowledge and other factors at that time, which of course may change.That you and so many of your pals here must engage relentlessly in jejune ad hominem attacks speaks volumes about your true scientific and intellectual acumen. It is not a positive message either.

The irony is strong in this one...Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

In reality what is formed is glucose, 2 isomeric forms, a-D-Glucose and b-D-Glucose. Both are later condensed, through other reactions, to form Starch & Cellulose respectively. The basic reason we cannot form wood is that there are other substances besides cellulose that are contained in wood. Forming cellulose from water & Carbon Dioxide would be no problem whereas forming, say, maple wood, would.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

GrannyMagda:Hi BZ,Your Darwinist friend said thus and such "doesn't seem very plausible."No. Ringo (I presume this is who you're referring to) was referring to water turning to blood, and not as part of a natural process, but in reference to the clearly supernatural events described in Revelation. Comets do not turn water to blood; the fact that plants produce wood does not appear to be immediately relevant to this issue.If I have missed the connection here, please feel free to point it out.BarackZero points it out:1. Context is everything. Context is very often tossed out the door by leftists with an ax to grind. What seems plausible to one individual may not seem plausible to others. Plausibility is clearly relative, not only to the person, but to a particular person's background and training, which of course change dramatically over the years.2. To the extent that Darwinists trivialize so many things, and take so very much for granted, I thought it would be appropriate to cite an example which any individual on earth, in any culture, could immediately relate to. Everyone everywhere almost without exception knows what wood is, indeed takes wood for granted.
Not so fast. It is amazing stuff, a solid constructed from water and gas. Whereas scientific enlightenment can amaze and delight the better it is understood, Darwinists have the nasty habit of taking precisely the opposite position, trivializing and dismissing the beauties all around us. Carl Sagan said that spectroscopy was something that STILL amazed him. Had an interloper said that here, he would have been dismissed with: "Well, it's all science, so no big deal. WE understand it. YOU do not."The unfairness of all dialogues within EvC refutes the very theme at the top right of your screen: "Understanding through Discussion".My remarks have been interpreted as so incredibly ignorant that one of your co-Darwinists has accused me of being a teenager in high school, unworthy of even wiping "Al Gore's ass."Does that sound like "Understanding" to you?
Did you ever challenge one of your Darwinist friends for their intolerance or hatefulness?Granny:
No, the lack of any sane suggestion of how a comet might turn water to blood makes Big Al's argument unscientific. If You or Big Al could come up with a sensible explanation of how a "scorching ball" might turn water to blood and how this supports the Biblical record, then we might have something worth debating.Barack: First, I pointed out the simplicity of subtle chemical changes which might mimic such an observation. I did not promote or defend any contention that a comet did anything. You infer things I neither said nor even implied. This happens all the time. Your side calls it "debate."Second, do you call the relentless attacks by Darwinists "something worth debating"? Your pal mocking me as a teenager, unworthy of "wiping Al Gore's ass"? Is that your style of "debate"?
It is anything but.Granny:As you can see above, I do not reject the Bible as completely untrue. Just mostly untrue. Like your accusations of bad faith.Barack :Then you see it as "good faith" as a fellow Darwinist calls me a teenager unworthy of "wiping Al Gore's ass"?I say again, I do not. It would be one thing if his behavior were rare, and were condemned by most or even a few of you.
That such behavior by Darwinists is almost ubiquitous at any such forum as this, and that such behavior is almost never condemned by the Darwinian masses is disgusting, reprehensible, cowardly, and anti-scientific.Edited by BarackZero, : No reason given.

Panda:The irony is strong in this one...Point out where I accused anyone else of being an ignorant teenager, as your fellow leftist accused me.Point out where I accused anyone else of something so demeaning, so vulgar, as being unworthy of "wiping Al Gore's ass"."Understanding through Discussion" - yeah, right.Good one, Panda.

The topic is about possible evidence for the Biblical record.We know that many events such as the Biblical Flood or the Exodus or the Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua are not factual but rather folk tales.Do you have any evidence for the Biblical record?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Why do I need to? That is not what was ironic. Why do I need to? That is not what was ironic.I highlighted the part of your text that was ironic.
Was that too advanced for you (much like formatting quotes is)? The effect of your sarcasm is proportional to your understanding: zero.{abe}Reading Jar's post above has reminded me that BarackZero's inability to read and understand is off-topic.
Let's see if we can get this thread back on topic.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I said that a comet/meteorite turning sea water to blood doesn't seem plausible. I meant that it wouldn't seem plausible to any 21st century observer with a modicum of knowledge about sea water and blood. If it's plausible to you, kindly show us the mechanism that you think is plausible.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

HI BZ,First, you should really make the effort to use the quote functions here. They make your post much easier to read. Right now, your posts are a strain on the eye. It's really very simple and it will be a big help to you in making your points as effectively as possible.Type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

---

Right. This is trivially obvious. This is why we must resort to evidence. Big Al's comet scenario does not agree with any information about comets that I know of. Do you have any evidence concerning the likelihood of a comet turning water to blood? If not, then the argument that Revelation describes a comet is without backing. Please stop it with the childish insults. You complain about being treated like a child. there is a clear riposte to these accusations; don't behave like one. Throwing around silly and irrelevant nonsense about "leftists" and "Darwinists" is not relevant to the topic nor is it mature and intelligent debating practise. So you are saying that wood is very impressive stuff. I agree. So what?I still don't see what this has to do with comets and Revelation. If your only point is that wood is amazing, therefore we should expect other features of the universe to be amazing as well then fine. I agree.What I do not see is why the amazing properties of wood make it reasonable to suggest that a story which mentions the seas turning to blood is a good match for a comet. There is no connection.Do you have any evidence that comets or meteorites cause water to turn to blood? No. That one thing is astonishing does not imply that any astonishing proposition must be true. That wood is amazing does not imply that comets ought to be able to turn water to blood. Again, this is just needless and unfounded abuse. In my experience, science enthusiasts never lose their sense of wonder at the amazing properties of the universe, as your Sagan quote demonstrates. Good grief. If you want to be taken seriously or treated as an adult, then stop whining like a stroppy teenager and argue your point. I am not responsible for Omni's words or anyone else's, so quit wasting time. You are familiar with the idea that different people are... well... different people, right? You know that I'm not Omni and that he is not me? Right?Well then, stop badgering me over what other people have said to you. It is irrelevant to my posts. "EvC members are big meanies!" won't butter any parsnips, nor will it provide evidence for the Biblical record. So you don't have any evidence for the veracity of the Biblical record? Just kvetching. Oh well, can't say I'm surprised.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I agree with you, he should never have said that. You are clearly worthy of wiping Al Gore's ass.Way to go.....when I Google "worthy of wiping Al Gore's ass" guess what comes up first out of about 34,200,000 results? You're famous! So what does all your whining about everyone being mean to you have to do with evidence for the biblical record?

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Ad hominem is not fallacious nor inappropriate when:

quote:

---

questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

---

See WikiAnd since you have shown obvious deficits in both reading comprehension and critical thinking during this discussion then your questionable personal conduct, character and motives are not just fair game but legitimate points of discussion. First, I am not a leftist except in your mind. But then everyone who doesn't agree with your fantacies you label as a "leftist" as if this is a bad thing. This goes, again, to your lack of critical thinking skills.Second, this cannot be said to be pretense when, compared to you ultra right-wing nutjobs, it is, in fact, true. I especially identify with the "brilliant" part. Precisely.From what we know, there is no reason, no credibility, to believe some sky rock could turn water into blood. It is not plausible.And since we know how photosynthesis works, there is sufficient reason, credibility, in the natural fabrication of a hard, solid material, from a gas and a liquid. This is more than just plausible, it is fact.This is what Ringo was attempting to convey to your deficient intellect.That you have neither the knowledge nor the intellectual capacity to understand the differences between photosynthesis and sky rocks is a legitimate observation to be made in context of this discussion. They are not jejune when the deficiencies cited are legitimately displayed, and are integral, to the poor conduct of your discussion. Quite negative to be sure, and well deserved.

Solar energy reaching the Earth is a bit over 1% greater every January than in the following July. Where do your figures come from?

And then there was March, 1989.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!