EvC Forum: Evidence for the Biblical Record

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Evidence for the Biblical Record

ringo

Member (Idle past 438 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 317 of 348 (585450)
10-08-2010 11:23 AM

Reply to: Message 305 by Big_Al35
10-08-2010 8:23 AM

Big_Al35 writes:

Revelation predicts that a scorching ball would hit the earth in the future. We have records to show that objects have hit the earth and that another could possibly hit in 2029 or 2036.

quote:
Rev 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
Rev 8:9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Water turning to blood doesn't seem very plausible.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 305 by Big_Al35, posted 10-08-2010 8:23 AM		Big_Al35 has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 323 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 12:29 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 438 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 321 of 348 (585465)
10-08-2010 12:18 PM

Reply to: Message 319 by Big_Al35
10-08-2010 12:00 PM

Big_Al35 writes:

Are you questioning my understanding of comets/asteroids or the authors?

I would definitely question your understanding of literature. The authors of Genesis probably didn't believe in talking snakes and the authors of the Revelation probably didn't believe in comets. The point of the story is that it's an unusual event, a miraculous event, not a "plausible" one.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 319 by Big_Al35, posted 10-08-2010 12:00 PM		Big_Al35 has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 438 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 326 of 348 (585492)
10-08-2010 1:12 PM

Reply to: Message 323 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 12:29 PM

BarackZero writes:

ringo writes:

Water turning to blood doesn't seem very plausible.

The natural fabrication of a hard, solid material, from a gas and a liquid doesn't seem very plausible to me either. But plants do just that every second of every day.

Photosynthesis is more than plausible because we know how it works. Are you suggesting that someday we might learn how a comet/meteorite can turn water to blood? (Incidentally, that would be a nice confirmation of abiogenesis.)

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 323 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 12:29 PM		BarackZero has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 328 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 5:25 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 438 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 330 of 348 (585552)
10-08-2010 6:04 PM

Reply to: Message 328 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 5:25 PM

BarackZero writes:

So YOUR definition of "plausible" is when "we know how it works." Otherwise it's not "plausible."

No, plausibility doesn't even apply to what we already know. I said that photosynthesis is more than plausible because we have a pretty good understanding of the mechanism. Bigfoot is (barely) plausible because we know that there are lifeforms similar to him. A meteorite turning the ocean to blood is not plausible because we know quite a bit about meteorites and quite a bit about blood and nobody has suggested a mechaism for the transformation.

BarackZero writes:

Evidently the fusion of hydrogen atoms inside the sun isn't "plausible" to you, because nobody on earth knows now, nor will they ever know why two particular hydrogen atoms fuse today, while innumerable atoms around them do not fuse.

Again, nuclear fusion is something that does happen, so plausibility doesn't enter into it. We do know how fusion works even if we don't know why Joe Hydrogen and Becky Hydrogen choose to fuse with each other and no other.

Remember, we're not talking about the why of water turning to blood. We're only talking about the how.

BarackZero writes:

You select out those implausibilities you dislike and reject them for that reason.

No. As I said, I reject as implausible those scenarios that don't have a plausible mechanism. Suggest a mechanism for meteorites turning water to blood and I'll be the first to trumpet the evidence for the Biblical record.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 328 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 5:25 PM		BarackZero has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 438 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 340 of 348 (585905)
10-10-2010 10:39 AM

Reply to: Message 333 by BarackZero
10-09-2010 9:44 PM

BarackZero writes:

Plausibility is clearly a matter of perspective, a matter of how the subject "appears" to the observer in question.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 333 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 9:44 PM		BarackZero has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Tanypteryx
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/3