Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 211 of 302 (255194)
10-27-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
10-27-2005 12:03 PM


Re: Focus on Topic
Other stuff about the man unrelated to the topic which is Robertson on natural disasters, leads the thread off topic, so please don't fault me for not following you there.
Well mine was about his handling of natural disasters, but I realize you are seeing a difference. This should have been your first response to my post, rather than discussing what you wanted to talk about in place of "following me there".
As I described befoe, that is what I meant by you haven't changed your methods. I ask a question and get what you want to tell me about something that might not be related.
I was hoping for an interesting response on this as you say you are open to prophecy and that does require some analytical ability.
Oh yes, on topic, one of Robertson's changes from definite to hazy on the second coming can be seen in the OP quote. Look at the bottom quotes from him. He is definitely less sure now based on his commentary than he was ten years ago.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 12:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 212 of 302 (255201)
10-27-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Silent H
10-27-2005 6:24 PM


Re: More inconsistency and ad hom from Holmes
I had asked if you identify yourself as being an American.
In a situation that might have negative consequences. That was the situation.
We both agree that, in that situation, absolute truthfulness may not be best. Seriously, Holmes, what's your problem? Why do you have to distort my position when we already agree? Just to have something to argue with? It's pathetic.
You go ahead and link and quote that that was not how it started.
Love to. Here's my first answer to the question "Would you identify as an American?" from post 41:
Crashfrog writes:
Well, I don't have a choice about referring to myself as a US citizen. That's a factual statement about my legal citizenship.
Titles like "pro-democracy" and "Christian" are entirely voluntary, however, and it's because of the exact influence to which you refer that I would think long and hard about applying them to myself; I would realize that to do so means that, in some minds at least, I'm associating myself with the likes of Bush or Pat Robertson.
In other words, the labels I apply to myself have consequences, and I would consider those consequences before I used those labels. Moving on, to post 63, where I answer this question of yours:
Holmes writes:
That citizenship is voluntary. What's more that has nothing to do with identifying yourself as US. Do you feel american and would you say to others you are an american? If someone said you must support Bush and the Iraq War because you are an American, would you say they are mistaken because you can be American and not a Bush supporter?
Crashfrog writes:
I'd probably say that I was Canadian, in fact.
Thus, making it absolutely clear that, if identifying as an American would associate me with policies or actions that others would find so objectionable that there would be negative consequences, I would choose to identify differently. I go on to clarify in post 80:
crashfrog writes:
No, it doesn't make you pro-Bush to be pro-American. But here's the thing. Just as it's unreasonable for Jazzn to make an a priori expectation that outsiders to his religion have detailed knowledge about every little doctrinal split between himself and Robertson, I wouldn't expect a foreign citizen to understand the political split between Bush and myself. Thus, since I do not want to associate myself with the policies of Bush, I would not identify as an American.
Now, I then employed the other side of that reasoning in post 134:
crashfrog writes:
Some of his beliefs do reflect mine, simply because we share certain voluntary group identifiers. For instance, Robertson chooses to call himself an American, and so do I. Thus there's something about that group identity that appeals to both of us.
an instance where I did refer to myself as "American", because I was making an argument where I did, to a limited extent, want to associate myself with Pat Robertson. But you completely distorted my position in your very next post:
Holmes writes:
Earlier you said you considered yourself Canadian. Well I guess that was nothing.
and I corrected your distortion in the next post:
crashfrog writes:
I've never claimed to consider myself Canadian. I said that I might lie about it in certain circumstances.
i.e., circumstances where, because of the negative consequences of such an association, I would not want my audience to associate me with the policies of Bush or other American figures.
It's not hard to understand, Holmes. My reasoning has been clear throughout, for over 100 posts. All you've done is simply repeat your gross distortions.
I used the analogy of a military dept officer speaking for their department. While other members of the military may be part of the same heirarchy it is completely true that due to their structure the officer cannot be speaking for the other branches.
And, yet, that's not how the armed forces look at it. The conduct and speech of one soldier, no matter how far down the totem pole, reflects not only on himself, his unit, or his branch, but of the entire US armed services, and indeed, the United States itself. As I told you.
Your example is wrong. Flat-out wrong. It doesn't support the claim you brought it out to support. And to conceal that fact, you've leveled spurious charges of "logical fallacy."
No, Holmes. The fallacy is using a bad example, and then being so embarassed about it that you tried to turn the fault around onto me. Can't you take responsibility for anything?
To defend your position you extended the analogy by discussing a totally different issue, which was military officers engaged in political speech.
Totally different issue? Your example was of officers speaking. My rebuttal was of officers speaking. It's completely the same issue. Do you get it, yet?
Well I wish some of those anythings were accurately reading my posts, dealing with the evidence provided to you, and analyzing your own position.
Already done. It's easy, after all, when none of your posts have evidence, argument, or anything but your endless stream of personal attacks and ludicrous distortions. You're an embarassment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2005 6:24 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Silent H, posted 10-28-2005 4:52 AM crashfrog has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 302 (255217)
10-27-2005 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by jar
10-27-2005 12:06 PM


Re: Focus on Topic
jar writes:
Pat Robertson's position on Natural Disasters is a clear example of Blasphemy.
What, specifically, did he say which you regard as blasphemous?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 10-27-2005 12:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by jar, posted 10-27-2005 8:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 214 of 302 (255218)
10-27-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Buzsaw
10-27-2005 8:13 PM


Re: Focus on Topic
Attributing Natural Disasters to GOD is blasphemous.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 8:13 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 8:46 PM jar has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 302 (255224)
10-27-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by jar
10-27-2005 8:15 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
jar writes:
Attributing Natural Disasters to GOD is blasphemous.
Specifically what statement of Robertson quoted in the OP attributes them to God?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by jar, posted 10-27-2005 8:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 10-27-2005 8:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 216 of 302 (255225)
10-27-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Buzsaw
10-27-2005 8:46 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
Washington: The high-profile American preacher Pat Robertson says recent natural disasters around the globe point to the end of the world and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
Natural disasters are just that. Natural. They have nothing to do with GOD. They are NOT on a rise. They presage NOTHING.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 8:46 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 10:52 PM jar has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 302 (255238)
10-27-2005 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jar
10-27-2005 8:50 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
jar writes:
Natural disasters are just that. Natural. They have nothing to do with GOD. They are NOT on a rise. They presage NOTHING.
Specifically what in your OP quote quotes Robertson as attributing the disasters to God? I don't see it. He's saying in context of his other statements that Biblical prophecies prophesied that disastrous geological and weather events would occur in the latter days. We all know that there has been a spike in the graph of disastrous events of this nature since about the time the Israel/Jerusalem prophecies were fulfilled in the last half century. How is it blasphemy for Robertson to observe and speak on these prophecies relative to what is observed? Where has he attributed the disasters to being caused by God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 10-27-2005 8:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by jar, posted 10-27-2005 11:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 218 of 302 (255239)
10-27-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Buzsaw
10-27-2005 10:52 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
We all know that there has been a spike in the graph of disastrous events of this nature since about the time the Israel/Jerusalem prophecies were fulfilled in the last half century.
There is no indication that there has been an increase in natural disasters. Secondly, there is no evidence of any Biblical prophecies being fulfilled. Ever.
That is yet another nonsense assertion with no evidential support.
I realize that many people believe such nonsense, many believe in numerology or astrology but it is simply a perversion of Christianity. To say that there is some attribution, to say that natural disasters are related to the second coming, related to punishment on sinful man, to claim that there is a rise in frequency of natural disaster as a prelude for the Second Coming, is IMHO, no more than Blasphemy and perversion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 10:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2005 9:33 PM jar has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 219 of 302 (255266)
10-28-2005 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by crashfrog
10-27-2005 7:08 PM


leapoflogicfrog
We both agree that, in that situation, absolute truthfulness may not be best. Seriously, Holmes, what's your problem?
??? The initial situation did not have your life seriously threatened. I granted if that was the case or some serious negative situation were possible it might be reasonable. I figured the argument would end there. I have no idea why you have continued this argument.
Thus, making it absolutely clear that, if identifying as an American would associate me with policies or actions that others would find so objectionable that there would be negative consequences, I would choose to identify differently.
Thanks for proving my point. You are equivocating here. We did not start with serious or life threatening consequences. The first mention is whether you would believe people might associate you (mistakenly) with Bush or Robertson. The second mention is whether someone thought you must support Bush and the Iraq War because you are an American.
To my mind, identifying yourself as Canadian in those situations would be rather immature. That still holds.
If those situations included the possibility that your life would be threatened because you support Bush, or would result in some other SERIOUS consequence, then it would not be immature.
You got me to agree to whether it made sense in serious situations. The original premise was not. If you thought it did it was in your mind alone, as it clearly is not in the text. Indeed find me the negative consequences (you suggest you have found in your statement above) in my text below... here it is again...
That citizenship is voluntary. What's more that has nothing to do with identifying yourself as US. Do you feel american and would you say to others you are an american? If someone said you must support Bush and the Iraq War because you are an American, would you say they are mistaken because you can be American and not a Bush supporter?
That was a series of questions, none of which implied anything of serious consequence. If you did not understand that before, understand that now.
and I corrected your distortion in the next post:
It was a jab crash.
My reasoning has been clear throughout, for over 100 posts. All you've done is simply repeat your gross distortions.
What you clipped in your distorted review is when we discussed life threatening situations. I agreed that that would be serious enough of a CONSEQUENCE to merit lying. Now you've rolled it back to any consequence, which was what we were initially discussing (you have now proved that) and I stand by my opinion: that would be immature.
If you would say you are Canadian just to avoid someone mistaking you for an American because they might think you support Bush and that is all, that is the conseqeunce, then you are being immature.
The conduct and speech of one soldier, no matter how far down the totem pole, reflects not only on himself, his unit, or his branch, but of the entire US armed services, and indeed, the United States itself. As I told you.
That's right crash, you are so absolutely correct. How could I be so wrong? Absolutely no officer ever speaks or gives orders ever. They are all bound by a code of silence and noncommunication. Yeah that makes sense.
Oh wait, no they do actually talk. Holy shit. And they do give orders to their men and set policy within their depts. And as I said such orders and policies do not pertain to other departments nor reflect on other depts, despite being part of the US military,
See that was the analogy: HOW a subunit can say things WITHOUT pertaining to or reflecting on ANOTHER SUBUNIT in the SAME HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE.
That the analogy may not hold for other types of speech within the military makes absolutely zero difference. All I need is one actual example which is valid to show an ANALOGY.
Now unless you are going to claim that no communication or orders are made by anyone in the military, or that all orders and communications pertain to all memebrs of the military, it is time to surrender.
And to conceal that fact, you've leveled spurious charges of "logical fallacy."
It is as I said an extended analogy as well as a form of the undistributed middle. You can look them up. They are real fallacies.
I was discussing an analogy to Xians using the military to show a general rule that subunits may not actually speak for the whole of a larger structure they may be a part of. You extended the analogy to something else, political speech, in order to find something that did not work. But that is false, not only because I was simply using the analogy as a model, but because the general rule now created (if your extended analogy is to be believed) would result in no communication or every speech applying to everyone in the structure, which is a false conclusion.
It was inappropriate to do what you did.
Can't you take responsibility for anything?
Yes I continue trying to explain facts and logic to a person who wishes to call me names and avoid debate, which is not a very valuable pursuit.
Your example was of officers speaking. My rebuttal was of officers speaking. It's completely the same issue. Do you get it, yet?
Look at what you just said. That is the only connection between the two. Officers speaking. Therein lies your errors of both extending an analogy (extended off officers speaking), as well as a form of the undistributed middle (based on all political speech by an officer being considered reflective on the gov't).
And I will add once more, your rebuttal itself is flawed as political speech is banned not because it reflects on the MILITARY as a whole (which was my example), but the GOV'T as a whole. That is to say the military is not supposed to be supporting or denouncing politicians and political opinions, since they are a tool of the gov't. It is a conflict of powers.
It's easy, after all, when none of your posts have evidence, argument
Unless you have derailed, that is a patent lie. You know full well I posted links and quotes to you regarding Xianity and Pat Robertson. Oh how I wish we could talk about them instead of this sidetracking garbage where you try and argue about any little thing except what is really at issue.
Remember where this started? What is reasonable to be understood about Xianity and Pat Robertson. You insisted it was Jazzns duty to change his own definition to fit your confusion. That is you are arbiter of what a real Xian is, and that apparently is what you believe to be what Pat Robertson says, though in fact that is also a mistake as Pat Robertson openly states he does not speak for all Xians.
endless stream of personal attacks and ludicrous distortions.
Saying it does not make it so.
You're an embarassment.
Yes I must be quite embarassing for you. If you don't like spending most of your time with your pants around your ankles, use a better belt.
AbE: I forgot to mention that regarding the military analogy you were also equivocating on the term "reflect". There is a difference between a member's actions or words bringing others down with them and so being a bad "reflection", versus a member's actions words reflecting what others in that organization might do or say. That is no one has to believe that all military members torture, for Abu Ghraib to "reflect" badly on the military. Or as another example, a murder-suicide by avid RPGers may reflect badly on some aspects of the RPGing community, but clearly does not reflect the behavior and opinion of the entire RPGing community.
This message has been edited by holmes, 10-28-2005 05:07 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2005 7:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2005 8:03 AM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 302 (255289)
10-28-2005 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Silent H
10-28-2005 4:52 AM


Ad Holms-inem
I have no idea why you have continued this argument.
To battle one more of your endless, groundless ad hominems. Immature, you called me. Or did you forget?
If those situations included the possibility that your life would be threatened because you support Bush, or would result in some other SERIOUS consequence, then it would not be immature.
Oh? So now you're the arbiter of how serious a consequence it has to be before I'm allowed to make decisions about how I identify myself? I didn't realize that I needed your permission for so many things.
How on Earth did I live before you were there to hold my hand and make these decisions for me?
It was a jab crash.
quote:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
If you're having a little trouble with the forum guidelines, maybe you'd like to take a break?
It was inappropriate to do what you did.
Ah. And your admitted ad hominem, sarcasm, distortions, and outright falsehoods are the height of propriety?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Silent H, posted 10-28-2005 4:52 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Silent H, posted 10-28-2005 11:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 302 (255320)
10-28-2005 10:34 AM


Crash, holmes; holmes, crash. Stop it
You two have gone on past long enough. Long enough to even agree to drop it.
Drop it.
Questions? Comments? Follow the appropraite link below.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5810 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 222 of 302 (255333)
    10-28-2005 11:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
    10-28-2005 8:03 AM


    Re: Ad Holms-inem
    Nice subthread title. Ben can banish me if he wishes, but I wish to clarify some points. It is not intended as argument of any of the points, just clarifying what was meant where and to take some blame where I wholly admit it is due.
    Immature, you called me. Or did you forget?
    My question of why you continued to argue the point was not because I forgot that I had called you immature. Indeed I wholly admit to stating that you, or anyone, who chooses to lie because someone might mistake one's position for something else if one tells the truth, is doing something that is immature.
    I admit it was not necessarily constructive to debate. It in its own fashion is name calling (though not ad hominem as it was not used to refute your argument). I take the blame for that.
    However I want to point out that I have stated clearly at least twice that it was a mere opinion, and you could have a different one. It was also limited to a very specific circumstance which I thought we had agreed would not be the same if there was a threat of force. That was why I said I had no idea why it was continued, because I thought we had agreed threat of force was a mitigating factor.
    That does not change that threat of force was not within the opening examples, and which seemed to be what you were arguing now. Hence confusion.
    I didn't realize that I needed your permission for so many things.
    You don't. It was a mere opinion of mine, which you could take or leave. I said that in previous posts. And as an addition, a person is free to do what they want, including "negative" things, even if they know they are negative. Sometimes I do immature things, like stick in a jab when it is not going to advance debate.
    If you're having a little trouble with the forum guidelines, maybe you'd like to take a break?
    Let's be honest. A verbal jab is not a huge break from forum rules. And you have been doing the same so its not like you can really throw that accusation around and not break one of your own windows.
    I freely admit it doesn't help debate and it didn't help this debate.
    And your admitted ad hominem, sarcasm, distortions, and outright falsehoods are the height of propriety?
    I have used sarcasm, and I have called you names. I did not resort to ad hominem, nor distort, nor use outright flasehoods within any of my arguments.
    My failings were not the height of propriety, but that said, I was not discussing morality when I used the term inappropriate. I guess I used too vague of a term. I was simply trying to say you had commited a logical fallacy.
    I'm not going to get into an argument now (given Ben's admonishment) of whether you did commit one, just explaining that is what was meant, and not a moral judgement like "you shouldn't have done that".

    holmes
    "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2005 8:03 AM crashfrog has not replied

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 223 of 302 (255420)
    10-28-2005 9:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 218 by jar
    10-27-2005 11:06 PM


    Re: Bashing Robertson
    jar writes:
    There is no indication that there has been an increase in natural disasters. Secondly, there is no evidence of any Biblical prophecies being fulfilled. Ever.
    1. Jar, I usually don't copy and paste a mess of links like this, but you are being so doggedly bulligerent in denial of what's going on in the real world of disaster that I felt the need to put your argument to rest. Here are just a few of the scores of links either stating outright or implying the fact that natural disasters are spiking up in recent decades. Please understand also that most of the links out there available are based on old stats and don't even factor in the upspike in frequency of disasters since the turn of the millenium.
    links writes:
    Losses in the range of US$ 50 billion and 50 000 people killed: Munich Re's list of major natural .
    G Berz - Natural Hazards, 1984 - springerlink.com
    ... Re from all over the world confirms that 1990 maintained the trend of previous years:
    loss burdens from natural disasters are increasing dramatically; from the ...
    Cited by 1 - Web Search
    Disaster Management System for Southwestern Indiana
    PE Nasim Uddin, D Engi - Natural Hazards Review, 2002 - dx.doi.org
    ... Even lacking consistent and complete data, clearly damage and fatalities from natural
    disasters are increasing, both in the United States and in the rest of ...
    Cited by 3 - Web Search - link.aip.org - csa.com - csa.com
    Hydrological forecasting.
    JC Rodda, HJE Rodda - Dealing with natural disasters: Achievements and new . , 1999 - royalsoc.ac.uk
    ... There is also growing concern that the frequency and magnitude of natural disasters
    are increasing because of the onset of climate change. ...
    Cited by 2 - View as HTML - Web Search
    society that it divides.
    UNER Coordinator - who.int
    ... natural disasters. We live in a world where the risks of natural disasters are
    increasing through global warming. Many at risk populations ...
    View as HTML - Web Search - who.int
    Environmental Statistics: Current and Future
    AH El-Shaarawi, J Teugels - International Statistical Review, 2005 - projecteuclid.org
    ... Recent WMO press release (WMO, 2003) suggests that the frequency and severity of
    natural disasters are increasing worldwide, in particular for hydro ...
    Web Search - projecteuclid.org
    Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Spatial Databases and the Internet: A Framework for .
    S Herold, M Sawada, B Wellar - geomatics.uottawa.ca
    ... 1.2 Disaster management from an information technology perspective Although natural
    disasters are increasing in frequency as global population rises, so are ...
    View as HTML - Web Search
    THE MASS MEDIA AND DISASTER AWARENESS IN PUERTO RICO
    M PEREZ-LUGO - Organization & Environment, 2001 - oae.sagepub.com
    ... cations in contemporary disaster management because the evidence suggests that human
    and economic losses related to natural disasters are increasing around the ...
    Web Search - oae.sagepub.com - ingentaconnect.com
    TOWARDS A FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF LOSSES: SIMULATION OF A FLOOD SCENARIO
    L Brouwers, S KTH, H Verhagen, S KTH - dsv.su.se
    ... KTH, Sweden * ABSTRACT Natural disasters are increasing, possibly due to
    climate changes and changes in land use. Economic losses ...
    View as HTML - Web Search
    Adapting traditionalshelter fordisaster mitigationand reconstruction: experiences withcommunity- .
    T Schilderman - Building Research & Information, 2004 - dx.doi.org
    ... Blaikie et al. (1994, p. 34) found that natural disasters are increasing
    steadily and have tripled in number between 1970 and 1990. ...
    Web Search - taylorandfrancis.metapress.com - ingentaconnect.com
    Risk Management in Water and Climate-the Role of Insurance and Other Financial Services
    H Hoff, L Bouwer, G Berz, W Kron, T Loster - germanwatch-ev.de
    ... Frequency and severity of natural disasters are increasing worldwide, in particular
    for hydro-meteorological extremes, posing a serious threat to the ...
    View as HTML - Web Search - wac.ihe.nl - waterandclimate.org
    2. Jar, to blatantly insist that there is no evidence of any Biblical prophecies being fulfilled ever is nonsense.
    To say there's no evidence at all shows clearly your ignorance of the subect you're debating here. You, the moderator, need moderated. If I were to go on a science forum insisting there's no evidence of the existence of electrons, it would be no worse than your absurd claim here and I would be shut down in a heartbeat. It would show my ignorance. Over the years I and others have documented evidence of fulfilled prophecies which remain unrefuted, yet you keep on making these false claims that there's no evidence whatsoever of any.
    Edited to add: "evidence of" to the last sentence.
    This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-28-2005 09:49 PM

    The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 218 by jar, posted 10-27-2005 11:06 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2005 9:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied
     Message 225 by jar, posted 10-28-2005 9:58 PM Buzsaw has replied
     Message 226 by nator, posted 10-29-2005 6:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1457 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 224 of 302 (255423)
    10-28-2005 9:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 223 by Buzsaw
    10-28-2005 9:33 PM


    Re: Bashing Robertson
    Over the years I and others have documented fulfilled prophecies which remain unrefuted, yet you keep on making these false claims that there's no evidence whatsoever of any.
    Not to go all Rashomon, here, but the way I remember it is, you've never been able to present a "Biblical prophecy" that wasn't:
    Self-fulfilling
    "Prophecied" after fulfillment
    Retrodacted to fit a "fulfillment" clearly not specified in the original text
    Moreover, you've never had an argument against unfulfilled Biblical prophecy that wasn't circular - i.e. "no prophecy in the Bible can be unfulfilled, because if it was, it's not a prophecy."
    Just about anybody can make reasonable predictions; and just about any situation can be spun to fit a sufficiently vague "prophecy." If you're right, and the Bible is accurately and supernaturally predicting the future, then you should be able to meet a pretty high bar of evidence, and you never, ever have.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 223 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2005 9:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

    jar
    Member (Idle past 384 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 225 of 302 (255425)
    10-28-2005 9:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 223 by Buzsaw
    10-28-2005 9:33 PM


    Re: Bashing Robertson
    To say there's no evidence at all shows clearly your ignorance of the subect you're debating here.
    Start a thread on it and let's see if this time you can come up with even ONE prophecy that's ever been fulfilled. It might be interesting.
    And as to your other stuff, not much there. Dollar losses are higher because more people live in exposed areas, not because there are more frequent or larger natural disasters. And believe me, compared to many in the past, the current crop since the (LOL) Millenium are pussycats. Compared to the eruptions over time, Krakatau, Yellowstone, Toba or impacts like the one 65 million years ago just a ways east of me, current natural disasters don't even make the playoffs.
    I know that there are people that believe in prophecy just like those that believe in astrology, taro cards and ouija boards. And they are all equally valid.
    This message has been edited by jar, 10-28-2005 08:59 PM

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 223 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2005 9:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 227 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2005 12:35 AM jar has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024