Here's Buz in
Message 103 of the
Forum name change thread:
Buzsaw writes:
Logic says that the probability of a sub-particle, sub-sub-sub........microscopic area of whatever progressing in complexity and volumn into all (and more) of what we can observe today void of any intelligent planning or design, is less than the probability of the Biblical record which is supported by significant corroborating evidences.
Okay, I'm not going to attempt to untangle the majority of that sentence, but I want to focus on the last part:
quote:
...the Biblical record which is supported by significant corroborating evidences.
Buz refers to this corroborating evidence a lot. But what exactly is it?
To my mind, corroborating evidence is a set of data that is both independently derived and that also substantially supports the validity of a certain factual claim.
Claims to Biblical accuracy have to meet both criteria, just like any other factual claim does. For one, you can't use the Bible to corraborate other claims in the Bible, just like I can't use my own diary to support my claim that I smoked herb with Abbie Hoffman at Woodstock. Me agreeing with myself doesn't prove anything.
Second, this evidence has to be substantial. Again, I could claim that I mooned President Bush Jr during his first inaugural address. A credit card receipt showing that I was in DC on the day in question might be independent evidence, and it would indicate that I was in the right place that the right time to be able to do it, but it would also be trivial, because it doesn't go to the substance of the claim.
So I'd like some specifics. What factual claims are being made about the Bible for which someone has independent evidence that isn't trivial?
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
™ Version 4.2