PHILOSOPHY IS KING

From: http://www.apollonius.net/velikovsky.htmlIn the following conclusion of this condensed version of Dr. Velikovsky's WORLDS IN COLLISION, I am going to take the liberty of substituting the word NIBIRU for the word VENUS in the text. Dr. Velikovsky erroneously concluded that the cause of this cosmic catastrophe was a one-time event marking THE BIRTH OF VENUS, when Jupiter ejected a large "comet" that after swinging by the Earth several times, eventually stabilized as the new Planet Venus. This "outrageous" theory that Venus formed at a very recent time, not in connection with the formation of the Solar System as a whole, is what led astronomers and other scientists like the late Carl Sagan of Cornell University to attack Dr. Velikovsky so vociferously in what became known as "The Velikovsky Affair". Ultimately, Carl Sagan and his supporters may have been right about the origin of the Planet Venus, but not a single one of them ever put forth any alternative explanation to account for all of the evidence that Dr. Velikovsky had amassed. To them, all these ancient reports were fictional fables not worthy of scientific consideration. That was Carl Sagan's dismal failure, and that is the dismal failure of the entire scientific establishment.Rob Solrion, 6 January 2001
Copyright 2001, All Rights ReservedMy point in posting this small excerpt is to evidence the fact that ancient reports, traditions, stories, are in fact evidence when they are collected and viewed in support of a claim. This becomes corroborating evidence, confirming the claim because it would be impossible for all the sources to be in conspiracy.This also evidences my claim made also in other topics that the scientific worldview cannot be affected by certain evidence, not because the evidence is not evidence, but because they arbitrarily toss any realm that exists in contradiction to theirs.This is why the traditions of the Apostles deaths are completely valid. These traditions have zero evidence contradicting them AND when reviewed in the context of ALL the evidence it becomes compelling.

.....they have zero evidence FOR them also!!!! I don't see how you can say that they must be accepted if there is no evidence for or against them, we have to rely on tradition. I'm not saying they didn't die martyrs deaths and I'm not saying they did. What I'm saying is that the evidence for carries as much weight as the evidence against ie zilch.

Nope.The evidence of the tradition is pro/for......so how can you say there isn't any pro/for ?

.....you can't call "tradition" evidence! Its more like hearsay.

Trixie quote:
______________________________________________________________________
.....you can't call "tradition" evidence! Its more like hearsay.
______________________________________________________________________Which is a TYPE of evidence.Sources and other evidence determine which traditions are to be believed and which are not.The wholesale dismissal of traditions as evidence by whoever indicates allegiance to subjective and defective pathways to truth.

Trixie quote:
______________________________________________________________________
.....you can't call "tradition" evidence! Its more like hearsay.
______________________________________________________________________Which is a TYPE of evidence.Sources and other evidence determine which traditions are to be believed and which are not.The wholesale dismissal of traditions as evidence by whoever indicates allegiance to subjective and defective pathways to truth.

You say There are no sources and other evidence, just the tradition itself - that's the point I'm trying to make. Additionally, there are so many conflicting traditions about the death of various apostles without any supporting evidence that you'd be hard pressed to determine which tradition to take as the definitive one.If you think hearsay is evidence, try telling that to a judge. Stories change in the telling, bits are misunderstood, bits are embellished, bits are mistranslated, whatever, and to determine the actual story can be well nigh impossible. Can you give me one solid bit of evidence that the apostles ALL died martyrs deaths alone and could have avoided said death by recanting? Not tradition, not hearsay, not "In the opinion of Dr Scott", just one solid, verifiable piece of evidence which is irrefutable.

Trixie:Like I've said before many times. You so called open minded science types are so brainwashed by the scientific worldview that legitimate evidence cannot impact you.Everyone knows recantation saves the accused from death. I even evidenced that from Apostolic Fathers/Goodspeed and Paulk denied the Earth was round. I even evidenced it from a modern day frame. Scientific worldview types have no problem recognizing unseen celestial bodies/quantum mechanics, but using the same criteria, that is deducing existence by the effects on something seen, these same people suddenly refuse to make the application - I wonder why ?The only thing evident from that debate and others is the refusal of scientific worldview types to even acknowledge any evidence that intrudes into the realm of contradicting/evidencing against their worldview. This is dishonesty and a debate killer.

No, Willow, this is called asking you to support your assertions!

This is called ignoring all the evidence posted by simply denying all the evidence posted.I even gave an example (recantation) which you have ignored.Trixie, you are not supposed to help your opponent evidence their claims.

Lost cause Trixie. WT and I went around and around on this. His argument is that no negative evidence to the traditions that say martyrdom, is positive evidence.{hi WT, not really getting involved here again. }

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com

You are misrepresenting the facts.The truth is that you failed to provide adequate evidence - and ignored evidence to the contrary.You quote cranks like Velikovsky, Milton and the various "Pyramid prophecy" types and expect us to beleive them - while calling the experts liars.That's why you lose time and time again. Just quoting someone who says something you happen to like proves nothing - especially when they are not credible sources. Even more so when it appears that you have misrepresented even their views as shown in your retreat from your "Resurrection" thread.In short you judge everything on your own strong prejudices and get upset when people don't come to the same conclusions you do.

Not exactly Asgara.No negative evidence to a tradition means in this realm that there is no evidence against the tradition.We have a tradition.And no evidence to the contrary exists.Whats this mean ?It means there is no contrary evidence.No contrary evidence is a good sign and evidence that the tradition might be true.When you got 10 or 11 traditions involving 10 or 11 different men and all the traditions have as a common denominator a few basic claims, then this is what historians call unverified historic FACT.Take this evidence and view it with all the rest then it becomes a compelling case for the original claim.Certainly men as famous as the Apostles/disciples and not one bit of contrary evidence to the traditions of the circumstances of their deaths ? This totality of a paucity of contrary evidence is impossible to assign to some conspiracy. What we have are opponents who understand the claim but refuse to acknowledge it because the game is over once they do.

Paulk quote:
______________________________________________________________________
You are misrepresenting the facts.
______________________________________________________________________I agree with the generic complaint represented here.Facts are being misrepresented AND ignored/denied.

And you're the one misrepresenting and ignoring facts..Or perhaps you would like to reference the post where I denied that the Earth was round - or anything close to equivalent.