Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,623 Year: 4,880/9,624 Month: 228/427 Week: 38/103 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for the Biblical Record
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 884 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 316 of 348 (585446)
10-08-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Panda
10-08-2010 10:19 AM


Panda writes:
Understanding a "scorching ball" is very different from understanding comets and asteroids...
...unless you think that comets and asteroids are just hot balls of stuff that fall randomly from the sky?
Scorching ball is my term not the NIV term. The NIV uses words like huge mountain, all ablaze, being thrown into the sea. I simply used this term as an illustration. The fact that you have picked up a term that isn't even used shows that you haven't read the book. And now you're questioning the authors understanding of comets/asteroids? Bizarre!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Panda, posted 10-08-2010 10:19 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Panda, posted 10-08-2010 11:51 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 496 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 318 of 348 (585454)
10-08-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Big_Al35
10-08-2010 10:55 AM


Big_Al35 writes:
Scorching ball is my term not the NIV term. The NIV uses words like huge mountain, all ablaze, being thrown into the sea. I simply used this term as an illustration. The fact that you have picked up a term that isn't even used shows that you haven't read the book. And now you're questioning the authors understanding of comets/asteroids? Bizarre!
My understanding of the bible has no connection to the authors understanding of comets, etc. It doesn't matter how often I read the bible - their knowledge will never increase.
So, do you think that comets and asteroids are just "huge mountains, all ablaze, [that are] thrown into the sea"?
Or do you see that they did not have an understanding of what comets and asteroids are?
Edited by Panda, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Big_Al35, posted 10-08-2010 10:55 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Big_Al35, posted 10-08-2010 12:00 PM Panda has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 884 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 319 of 348 (585459)
10-08-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Panda
10-08-2010 11:51 AM


Panda writes:
So, do you think that comets and asteroids are just "huge mountains, all ablaze, [that are] thrown into the sea"?
Are you questioning my understanding of comets/asteroids or the authors?
If they didn't understand what comets and asteroids are does that mean that we do? Does that also mean that we understand the effects of such objects on us? Having never witnessed such an event I can't say that I do understand the impact of such an object so I find your line of argument irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Panda, posted 10-08-2010 11:51 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Huntard, posted 10-08-2010 12:06 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 321 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 12:18 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 322 by Panda, posted 10-08-2010 12:29 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2379 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 320 of 348 (585460)
10-08-2010 12:06 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'm guessing both.
If they didn't understand what comets and asteroids are does that mean that we do?
No, that we understand what comets and asteroids are means that we do.
Having never witnessed such an event I can't say that I do understand the impact of such an object so I find your line of argument irrelevant.
You see, that's why science works, it can tell you exactly what would happen if such a thing hit the earth. That's how you know it will be catastrophic.

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 496 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 322 of 348 (585470)
10-08-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Big_Al35
10-08-2010 12:00 PM


Big_Al35 writes:
If they didn't understand what comets and asteroids are does that mean that we do? Does that also mean that we understand the effects of such objects on us? Having never witnessed such an event I can't say that I do understand the impact of such an object so I find your line of argument irrelevant.
So, we appear to have gone back to square one.
You initially said:
quote:
The point here is that someone understood the concept of comets and asteroids 2000 years ago. The also understood that one could come crashing to earth. They further determined that such an event could wipe out a percentage of life here on earth. Considering that most of the advances in astronomy have been made within the last 300years, the fact that early humans had access to this information is staggering.
My reply was that they didn't understand the "concept of comets and asteroids 2000 years ago", due to their inaccurate description of what a meteorite is.
This means that their prediction is simply self-evident and pointless - we can all make those kinds of predictions.
"...the fact that early humans had access to this information" might be staggering if it was true - but it is clearly not.

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

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4938 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 323 of 348 (585471)
10-08-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by ringo
10-08-2010 11:23 AM


Ringo: Water turning to blood doesn't seem very plausible.
===================
BarackZero:
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. They convert carbon dioxide gas and water into wood, which can last thousands of years. I have seen such wood at the British Museum. It was fabricated into coffins for people of high stations in Egypt millenia ago.
The incredible consistency of solar energy to within less than 1% for millions of years doesn't seem very plausible to me, when human operated atomic power cores require extreme care and maintenance, while our sun enables our comfortable lives to continue.
If you could have asked Wolfgang Mozart or Ludwig von Beethoven if their music could be enjoyed seven miles in the sky, traveling at 650 miles per hour, as played by an orchestra one night forty years ago, they would have thought you insane. Such ideas would not have seemed very plausible, to put it mildly.
But you see, we do have things to learn.
Drop one drop of concentrated sodium hydroxide in phenolphthalein solution and you can turn it from clear to pink instantly. It's not magic at all. But even if it were, why is that so implausible for a Creator who can create a universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 11:23 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Huntard, posted 10-08-2010 12:36 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 325 by Granny Magda, posted 10-08-2010 12:46 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 1:12 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 335 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2010 11:17 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 344 by Coragyps, posted 10-11-2010 2:05 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2379 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 324 of 348 (585475)
10-08-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 12:29 PM


BarackZero writes:
The incredible consistency of solar energy to within less than 1% for millions of years doesn't seem very plausible to me, when human operated atomic power cores require extreme care and maintenance, while our sun enables our comfortable lives to continue.
The sun's a bit bigger than a human operated power plant, further the sun uses fusion, not fission, moreover, that's just what happens when you put a lot of hydrogen in one place.
But you see, we do have things to learn.
Evidently.
Drop one drop of concentrated sodium hydroxide in phenolphthalein solution and you can turn it from clear to pink instantly. It's not magic at all. But even if it were, why is that so implausible for a Creator who can create a universe?
Wait, how does that follow?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 12:29 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 325 of 348 (585482)
10-08-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 12:29 PM


Hi BarackZero,
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.
And your point is? This is a thread for "Evidence for the Biblical Record", not "Evidence That Wood Exists".
If the Bible accurately said that wood was made from carbon dioxide, I would be impressed. But it doesn't, so I'm not.
They convert carbon dioxide gas and water into wood, which can last thousands of years. I have seen such wood at the British Museum. It was fabricated into coffins for people of high stations in Egypt millenia ago.
Yes. And I have a chip of wood on the shelf next to me as I write this that is over 160 million years old. So what?
If you could have asked Wolfgang Mozart or Ludwig von Beethoven if their music could be enjoyed seven miles in the sky, traveling at 650 miles per hour, as played by an orchestra one night forty years ago, they would have thought you insane. Such ideas would not have seemed very plausible, to put it mildly.
And if the Bible correctly predicted that we might enjoy recorded music whilst flying in an aeroplane, I would be impressed. But it doesn't, so I'm not. Y'see how this works?
But you see, we do have things to learn.
Like, for example, what your point is.
Drop one drop of concentrated sodium hydroxide in phenolphthalein solution and you can turn it from clear to pink instantly.
And if the Bible said that one drop of sodium hydroxide... ah, you get the point.
It's not magic at all. But even if it were, why is that so implausible for a Creator who can create a universe?
I wouldn't be. But since no-one has presented any evidence for any such entity I remain unimpressed.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

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 327 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 5:15 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 496 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4938 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 327 of 348 (585540)
10-08-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Granny Magda
10-08-2010 12:46 PM


GrannyMagda:
And your point is? This is a thread for "Evidence for the Biblical Record", not "Evidence That Wood Exists".
BarackZero:
This isn't hard. You're just trying to confuse the point rather than see it.
Your Darwinist friend said thus and such "doesn't seem very plausible."
One person's opinion, or millions of people's opinions may not "seem very plausible." This does not make them either wrong, nor unscientific. Rather than accept this very logical statement, you turn to condescension, asking what my "point is". You know very well.
Granny:
If the Bible accurately said that wood was made from carbon dioxide, I would be impressed. But it doesn't, so I'm not.
BarackZero:
Science, and facts, are not determined by what impresses YOU.
There are countless facts that are well documented in the Holy Bible. That you find some excuse to reject them in toto is not surprising in the least, for you have an atheist ax to grind.
This is unscientific.
Granny with yet more condescension:
Yes. And I have a chip of wood on the shelf next to me as I write this that is over 160 million years old. So what?
Barack: It was made from gas and water. No big deal.
Why don't you take some gas, some water, and go outside and make some wood yourself. Please feel free to use flasks, beakers, and even some common reagents, including of course sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. Should be no problem for you.
Granny:
And if the Bible correctly predicted that we might enjoy recorded music whilst flying in an aeroplane, I would be impressed. But it doesn't, so I'm not. Y'see how this works?
Barack:
And if you were to acknowledge even one point made, I would be impressed.
See how this works? It's called a "dialogue," or would be called that if you were to participate, instead of being insistently argumentative and condescending.
goodbye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Granny Magda, posted 10-08-2010 12:46 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Granny Magda, posted 10-08-2010 6:19 PM BarackZero has replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4938 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 328 of 348 (585543)
10-08-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by ringo
10-08-2010 1:12 PM


ringo:
Photosynthesis is more than plausible because we know how it works.
///
Barack: So YOUR definition of "plausible" is when "we know how it works." Otherwise it's not "plausible."
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.
Plausibility is no scientific test. Not remotely so.
Not a few eminent physicists have said in different ways that the universe is not only very, very strange, which is to say, implausible, but moreover that it is implausible in ways which we cannot imagine.
You select out those implausibilities you dislike and reject them for that reason.
Most unscientific of you. Much that has been discovered was implausible before we learned more. I mean except in the present case of all the esteemed Nobel Laureates here of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 1:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by jar, posted 10-08-2010 5:34 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 330 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 6:04 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 332 by AZPaul3, posted 10-08-2010 6:33 PM BarackZero has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34059
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 329 of 348 (585544)
10-08-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 5:25 PM


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!

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 496 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024