Climate change consensus

[jordanriver]

As always, on a higher intellectual plane.

Slavs??

[klaus54]

Slavs??

Should I make a formal declaration of atheism?

Idiots like you turned me away from Christianity.

You can't address any scientific data that contradicts YEC.

You're a fool.

Thanks!

K54

[jordanriver]

Should I make a formal declaration of atheism?

Idiots like you turned me away from Christianity.

You can't address any scientific data that contradicts YEC.

You're a fool.

Thanks!

K54

I am sorry.
Its true, I can not refute your old earth scientifically.


Look, like I told you already (HERE) I don't know how old creation is. TWICE IN THAT THREAD I said it (HERE) ...
How many times do I have to say it?

Back in September I replied to rogue06 that "I think the earth is old" in POST 348 in the 'Holding Their Feet to the Fire' thread, I cited in that post the magnetic striping mirror image on the seafloor moving as fast as fingernail growth.
...(I learned of that from a lecture by Robert Hazen, Teaching Company lecture 38 'The Plate Tectonics Revolution', from 'The Great Principles of Science', my VHS set, Prof Hazen cited Drummond Matthews and Frederick Vines September 7, 1963 Nature article 'Magnetic Reversals Over Ocean Ridges', ...except I think it was actually titled 'Magnetic Anomalies Over Oceanic Ridges') HERE IN PDF

and I looked this up to see where it was in the few books I have on that subject (...something about you're supposed to match up lectures with textbooks, ...necessary to help remember it or something...whatever, ok I try to do the homework)
and the seafloor magnetic striping was in my Chernicoff Geology page 335 ISBN 0395923514
CHERNIKOFF P 335 MARINE MAGNETIC ANOMALIES.jpg

and
ESSENTIALS OF GEOLOGY 8th Ed Lutgens, Tarbuck page 352 ISBN 0130081574
LUTGENS TARBUCK p352.jpg

THEN, I SAID IT AGAIN (in red letters even) last November, replying to phank in the 'Food For Thought' thread in POST 106 , in a mock geology lesson by Jesus and how absurd it would be for Salvation messages to have to include Earth Science, I cited seafloor spreading again, but this time the 'moving Hawaiian Islands away from hot spot' to make new volcanoes and to make older volcanoes go extinct (moving plate)
...(I learned about hot spots from Prof John Renton lecture 'An Introduction to Geology' another Great Courses/The Teaching Company set) (lecture 13)
...that hotspot cooperating with the moving plate is kind of like a 'volcano-making' assembly line, (my personal observation)

my books have good pictures explaining the mechanism, here's 3 of them:
EARTH PORTRAIT OF A PLANET Stephen Marshak page 96 ISBN 0393974235
MARSHAK Portrait of a Planet p96.jpg

and
EARTH SCIENCE Holt page 234 ISBN 0030519535
EARTH SCIENCE Holt page 234 ISBN 0030519535 Hawaian HotSpot.jpg

and
EARTH SCIENCE Glencoe page 272 ISBN 0028278526
EARTH SCIENCE Glencoe page 272 ISBN 0028278526.jpg
.

and AGAIN, just 3 weeks ago in the 'The Great Hell Debate' POST 80 thread, replying to whag, attempting to defend my Old Earth interpretation because of ice core samples demonstrating hundreds of thousands of years of history, older than a 6,000 year Genesis interpretation (and that I learned about from lecture 23 'Glaciers' 'Earth Revealed: Introductory Geology' PBS television course in the 1990s...

and further reading, textbook info on the ice cores.......:

2001 160,000 years:

Source: [B

EARTH PORTRAIT OF A PLANET Stephen Marshak page 387 ISBN 0393974235[/B] ]
"...Similarly, geologists have found that glacier ice preserves a valuable record of the past--ice cores drilled through the Greenland ice cap, for example, contain a continuous record of glacial accumulation back through 160,000 years. Further, geologists have found that the ratio of different oxygen isotopes in the water molecules making up the ice reflects the global temperature at the time the snow fell to create the ice, and thus provides another clue to past climate. These data help geologists to date ice-age events" source

© Copyright Original Source

and

1998 250,000 years:

Source: [B

CHERNICOFF GEOLOGY 2nd Ed Stanley Chernicoff page 494 ISBN 0395923514[/B] ]
"Ice Core Studies
In a parking lot on the University of New Hampshire campus sits a refrigerated van that holds a potential key to unlocking the mysteries of the Earth's ice-age climate. The van houses row upon row of 1-meter (3.3 -foot) long tubes of ice drilled from the center of Greenland's ice sheet--a richly detailed, frozen archive of the planet's last 250,000 years of climatic history. After decades of trial and error, glaciologists (scientists who study the snow and ice in glaciers) have accomplished a remarkable technological achievement--they can now extract cores of ice, several kilometers long, by boring through the Earth's surviving ice sheets down to the underlying bedrock. Examination of the physical and chemical properties of these ice cores reveals that they contain a continuous record of climate change for much (if not all) of the Earth's current ice age.
Much of the upper part of the United States' GISP (Greenland Ice Sheet Project) 2 core is marked by discernible layers consisting of now-icy remnants of each year's snowfall. Almost 80,000 annual layers have been identified...." source

© Copyright Original Source

and

2009 900,000 years:

Source: [B

PHYSICAL GEOLOGY 13th Edition Charles C. Plummer, Diane H. Carlson, Lisa Hammersley page 318 ISBN 9780073376714[/B] ]
"...Drilling into glaciers and retrievng ice cores allows scientists to sample the environment at the time of ancient snowfalls. A cylindrical core of ice is extracted from a hollow drill after it has penetrated a glacier. The layers in an ice core represent the different layers of snow that converted to glacier ice (box figure 1). Each layer, when analyzed, can reveal information about conditions of the atmosphere at the time the snow accumulated and turned into ice.
The most ambitious drilling project in Antarctica was completed in December 2004 by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA). Drilling retrieved ice core to a depth of 3,270 meters (10,728 feet), stopping five meters above the base of the ice sheet. EPICA scientists estimate that, when analyzed, the ice core will give us a record of the climate extending back an estimated 900,000 years. The next-largest core was drilled at Vostok (described in box 12.2) in Antarctica in the 1990s.
The Vostok core reached a depth of over 3 kilometers and yielded a climate and atmospheric history of the last 420,000 years...." source

© Copyright Original Source

PLUS,.....

PLUS, I already know about unconformities, specifically the ones called NONCONFORMITIES,

....In other words, ... NOT the Siccar Point angular unconformity, that's just sedimentary layers, a YEC would not be convinced that a gread flood couldn't wipe out layers of sediment. (be like, angry God is a barber, tilt you head cockeyed and shave a little off the top and slap some sediments on top) ....I know because that how I would have held on...
here's some pics of siccar point in case anybody lurking wonders what we're talking about:
CHERNICOFF GEOLOGY Page 216 ISBN 0395923514
CHERNICOFF GEOLOGY Stanley Chernicoff Page 216 ISBN 0395923514.jpg

another

EARTH PORTRAIT OF A PLANET Stephen Marshak p372 ISBN 0393974235
EARTH PORTRAIT OF A PLANET Stephen Marshak Page 372 ISBN 0393974235.jpg

BUT, plutons on the other hand, especially *eroded* plutons topped with newer layers of sediment, ok, thats a different story. Thats NONCONFORMITY and I would have to concede more than 6K (short of miracle)

Source: [B

ESSENTIALS OF GEOLOGY 8th Ed Lutgens, Tarbuck p392-393 ISBN 0130081574[/B] ]
"Nonconformity.
The third basic type of unconformity is a nonconformity. Here the break separates older metamorphic or intrusive igneous rocks from younger sedimentary strata (Figures 18.5 and 18.6). Just as angular unconformities and disconformities imply crustal movements, so too do nonconformities. Intrusive igneous masses and metamorphic rocks originate far below the surface. Thus, for a nonconformity to develop, there must be a period of uplift and the erosion of overlying rocks. Once exposed at the surface, the igneous or metamorphic rocks are subjected to weathering and erosion prior to subsidence and the renewal of sedimentation" source

© Copyright Original Source

ESSENTIALS OF GEOLOGY 8th Ed Lutgens, Tarbuck Pages 392-393 ISBN 0130081574.jpg

and another source same Grand Canyon nonconformity (I like pictures, easier for me to understand, I lack the formal education)

PHYSICAL GEOLOGY 13th Edition Charles C. Plummer, Diane H. Carlson, Lisa Hammersley Page 202 ISBN 9780073376714
PHYSICAL GEOLOGY 13th Edition Charles C. Plummer, Diane H. Carlson, Lisa Hammersley Page 202 ISB.jpg


ok what else causes me to lean OEC , karst topography lectures leading to cave dripstones, (lecture 25, Prof Renton), but I think this is enough.......

[Juvenal]

Cpaceba

As always, on a higher intellectual plane.

My Russian's pretty weak, but I'm fairly sure that means "thank you."

[jordanriver]

My Russian's pretty weak, but I'm fairly sure that means "thank you."

Da Konyeshna (yes of course)


but its not on any high intellectual plane.

its my ancestral slave language

[jordanriver]

sorry pancreasman, didn't mean to take your climate thread off topic.

[pancreasman]

sorry pancreasman, didn't mean to take your climate thread off topic.

Who cares?

[jordanriver]

Who cares?

although, in retrospect, now you can say you know what it feels like
to be peacefully minding your own business in domestic tranquility,
when brawlers from down the street somehow end up crashing through your plate glass window

[oxmixmudd]

At the risk of being a wiseacre, I feel like I could very easily turn the above into an argument in favor of alien encounters.

That would probably be because you miss the subtlety of the point I'm making.

There are arguments you can use to prove a proposition.

There are arguments you can use to disprove a proposition.


I am addressing the second type of argument, but your comment implies my point was to address the first. It was not.


The arguments I grow weary of are those which try to DISPROVE Christian claims based on scarcity of written, secular evidence. Or conversely, those which wish to PROVE Christianity is a myth based on the scarcity of the secular recorded evidence.

A) One can not DISPROVE a claim based on the scarcity of the evidence.
B) One can not PROVE a claim is a myth based on the scarcity of the evidence.

The point Mountain Man brings up about Vesuvius illustrates that point. Effectively, those that wish to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Christian claims try to do an end-run around A and B above by making two presumptions which allow the arguments to proceed:

1) Significant events will generate a significant written presence.
2) Significant events recorded by believers in the events are necessarily suspect.

Mountain Man's point is valid in that it shows 1 is patently false.

Likewise, I have pointed out a flaw in 2) - the presumption that it is reasonable to EXCLUDE the large body of written records created by Christians in that:

IF an event as significant as the resurrection occurred, most if not all the actual eyewitnesses would ALSO become believers in its implication. So it is unreasonable to arbitrarily exclude the records recorded by Christians themselves given that reality.




Jim

[klaus54]

I am sorry.
Its true, I can not refute your old earth scientifically.


Look, like I told you already (HERE) I don't know how old creation is. TWICE IN THAT THREAD I said it (HERE) ...
How many times do I have to say it?

Back in September I replied to rogue06 that "I think the earth is old" in POST 348 in the 'Holding Their Feet to the Fire' thread, I cited in that post the magnetic striping mirror image on the seafloor moving as fast as fingernail growth.
...(I learned of that from a lecture by Robert Hazen, Teaching Company lecture 38 'The Plate Tectonics Revolution', from 'The Great Principles of Science', my VHS set, Prof Hazen cited Drummond Matthews and Frederick Vines September 7, 1963 Nature article 'Magnetic Reversals Over Ocean Ridges', ...except I think it was actually titled 'Magnetic Anomalies Over Oceanic Ridges') HERE IN PDF

and I looked this up to see where it was in the few books I have on that subject (...something about you're supposed to match up lectures with textbooks, ...necessary to help remember it or something...whatever, ok I try to do the homework)
and the seafloor magnetic striping was in my Chernicoff Geology page 335 ISBN 0395923514
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3693[/ATTACH]

and
ESSENTIALS OF GEOLOGY 8th Ed Lutgens, Tarbuck page 352 ISBN 0130081574
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3694[/ATTACH]

THEN, I SAID IT AGAIN (in red letters even) last November, replying to phank in the 'Food For Thought' thread in POST 106 , in a mock geology lesson by Jesus and how absurd it would be for Salvation messages to have to include Earth Science, I cited seafloor spreading again, but this time the 'moving Hawaiian Islands away from hot spot' to make new volcanoes and to make older volcanoes go extinct (moving plate)
...(I learned about hot spots from Prof John Renton lecture 'An Introduction to Geology' another Great Courses/The Teaching Company set) (lecture 13)
...that hotspot cooperating with the moving plate is kind of like a 'volcano-making' assembly line, (my personal observation)

my books have good pictures explaining the mechanism, here's 3 of them:
EARTH PORTRAIT OF A PLANET Stephen Marshak page 96 ISBN 0393974235
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3695[/ATTACH]

and
EARTH SCIENCE Holt page 234 ISBN 0030519535
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3696[/ATTACH]

and
EARTH SCIENCE Glencoe page 272 ISBN 0028278526
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3697[/ATTACH]
.

and AGAIN, just 3 weeks ago in the 'The Great Hell Debate' POST 80 thread, replying to whag, attempting to defend my Old Earth interpretation because of ice core samples demonstrating hundreds of thousands of years of history, older than a 6,000 year Genesis interpretation (and that I learned about from lecture 23 'Glaciers' 'Earth Revealed: Introductory Geology' PBS television course in the 1990s...

and further reading, textbook info on the ice cores.......:

2001 160,000 years:

Source: [B

EARTH PORTRAIT OF A PLANET Stephen Marshak page 387 ISBN 0393974235[/B] ]
"...Similarly, geologists have found that glacier ice preserves a valuable record of the past--ice cores drilled through the Greenland ice cap, for example, contain a continuous record of glacial accumulation back through 160,000 years. Further, geologists have found that the ratio of different oxygen isotopes in the water molecules making up the ice reflects the global temperature at the time the snow fell to create the ice, and thus provides another clue to past climate. These data help geologists to date ice-age events" source

© Copyright Original Source

and

1998 250,000 years:

Source: [B

CHERNICOFF GEOLOGY 2nd Ed Stanley Chernicoff page 494 ISBN 0395923514[/B] ]
"Ice Core Studies
In a parking lot on the University of New Hampshire campus sits a refrigerated van that holds a potential key to unlocking the mysteries of the Earth's ice-age climate. The van houses row upon row of 1-meter (3.3 -foot) long tubes of ice drilled from the center of Greenland's ice sheet--a richly detailed, frozen archive of the planet's last 250,000 years of climatic history. After decades of trial and error, glaciologists (scientists who study the snow and ice in glaciers) have accomplished a remarkable technological achievement--they can now extract cores of ice, several kilometers long, by boring through the Earth's surviving ice sheets down to the underlying bedrock. Examination of the physical and chemical properties of these ice cores reveals that they contain a continuous record of climate change for much (if not all) of the Earth's current ice age.
Much of the upper part of the United States' GISP (Greenland Ice Sheet Project) 2 core is marked by discernible layers consisting of now-icy remnants of each year's snowfall. Almost 80,000 annual layers have been identified...." source

© Copyright Original Source

and

2009 900,000 years:

Source: [B

PHYSICAL GEOLOGY 13th Edition Charles C. Plummer, Diane H. Carlson, Lisa Hammersley page 318 ISBN 9780073376714[/B] ]
"...Drilling into glaciers and retrievng ice cores allows scientists to sample the environment at the time of ancient snowfalls. A cylindrical core of ice is extracted from a hollow drill after it has penetrated a glacier. The layers in an ice core represent the different layers of snow that converted to glacier ice (box figure 1). Each layer, when analyzed, can reveal information about conditions of the atmosphere at the time the snow accumulated and turned into ice.
The most ambitious drilling project in Antarctica was completed in December 2004 by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA). Drilling retrieved ice core to a depth of 3,270 meters (10,728 feet), stopping five meters above the base of the ice sheet. EPICA scientists estimate that, when analyzed, the ice core will give us a record of the climate extending back an estimated 900,000 years. The next-largest core was drilled at Vostok (described in box 12.2) in Antarctica in the 1990s.
The Vostok core reached a depth of over 3 kilometers and yielded a climate and atmospheric history of the last 420,000 years...." source

© Copyright Original Source

PLUS,.....

PLUS, I already know about unconformities, specifically the ones called NONCONFORMITIES,

....In other words, ... NOT the Siccar Point angular unconformity, that's just sedimentary layers, a YEC would not be convinced that a gread flood couldn't wipe out layers of sediment. (be like, angry God is a barber, tilt you head cockeyed and shave a little off the top and slap some sediments on top) ....I know because that how I would have held on...
here's some pics of siccar point in case anybody lurking wonders what we're talking about:
CHERNICOFF GEOLOGY Page 216 ISBN 0395923514
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3699[/ATTACH]

another

EARTH PORTRAIT OF A PLANET Stephen Marshak p372 ISBN 0393974235
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3700[/ATTACH]

BUT, plutons on the other hand, especially *eroded* plutons topped with newer layers of sediment, ok, thats a different story. Thats NONCONFORMITY and I would have to concede more than 6K (short of miracle)

Source: [B

ESSENTIALS OF GEOLOGY 8th Ed Lutgens, Tarbuck p392-393 ISBN 0130081574[/B] ]
"Nonconformity.
The third basic type of unconformity is a nonconformity. Here the break separates older metamorphic or intrusive igneous rocks from younger sedimentary strata (Figures 18.5 and 18.6). Just as angular unconformities and disconformities imply crustal movements, so too do nonconformities. Intrusive igneous masses and metamorphic rocks originate far below the surface. Thus, for a nonconformity to develop, there must be a period of uplift and the erosion of overlying rocks. Once exposed at the surface, the igneous or metamorphic rocks are subjected to weathering and erosion prior to subsidence and the renewal of sedimentation" source

© Copyright Original Source

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3701[/ATTACH]

and another source same Grand Canyon nonconformity (I like pictures, easier for me to understand, I lack the formal education)

PHYSICAL GEOLOGY 13th Edition Charles C. Plummer, Diane H. Carlson, Lisa Hammersley Page 202 ISBN 9780073376714
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3702[/ATTACH]


ok what else causes me to lean OEC , karst topography lectures leading to cave dripstones, (lecture 25, Prof Renton), but I think this is enough.......

At least this causes you to lean OEC.

I lean towards the Moon being made of rock rather than green cheese too.



K54

[Carrikature]

That would probably be because you miss the subtlety of the point I'm making.

I didn't miss it. I just don't think it works.

There are arguments you can use to prove a proposition.

There are arguments you can use to disprove a proposition.


I am addressing the second type of argument, but your comment implies my point was to address the first. It was not.


The arguments I grow weary of are those which try to DISPROVE Christian claims based on scarcity of written, secular evidence. Or conversely, those which wish to PROVE Christianity is a myth based on the scarcity of the secular recorded evidence.

A) One can not DISPROVE a claim based on the scarcity of the evidence.
B) One can not PROVE a claim is a myth based on the scarcity of the evidence.

The point Mountain Man brings up about Vesuvius illustrates that point. Effectively, those that wish to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Christian claims try to do an end-run around A and B above by making two presumptions which allow the arguments to proceed:

1) Significant events will generate a significant written presence.
2) Significant events recorded by believers in the events are necessarily suspect.

Mountain Man's point is valid in that it shows 1 is patently false.

I'll grant all of this as is, notwithstanding all the other conflict in this thread regarding MM's claim. The part I was responding to was here:

Likewise, I have pointed out a flaw in 2) - the presumption that it is reasonable to EXCLUDE the large body of written records created by Christians in that:

IF an event as significant as the resurrection occurred, most if not all the actual eyewitnesses would ALSO become believers in its implication. So it is unreasonable to exclude the records recorded by Christians themselves given that reality.

This 'flaw' doesn't work, though, and that's what I was responding to. Rewrite it the way I was suggesting:

IF an event as significant as an alien encounter occurred, most if not all the actual eyewitnesses would ALSO become believers in its implication. So it is unreasonable to exclude the records recorded by believers in aliens themselves given that reality.

Look at this critically. Would you actually accept that aliens exist simply because certain supposed eyewitnesses believed in it and wrote about it? Of course not. Nor do we accept the existence of bigfoot, or of any other fairytale creatures, based on written records of supposed eyewitnesses. The presumption that it is reasonable to exclude a 'large' body of written records is not flawed. The existence of written record by supposed eyewitnesses is not enough. We need something more, and it's to that point that lao tzu has called out MM's Vesuvius example. We have an erupted volcano and a city covered in ash that count as a pretty significant 'something more'. To compare this to Christian accounts is downright foolish.

I've put large in scare quotes in the above for a reason. The majority of the written records presuppose that Christ exists. Their existence cannot support a claim that he does. That leaves out most of the ECF works including most of the NT. It's hardly a large body of works under investigation by any stretch.

[oxmixmudd]

I didn't miss it. I just don't think it works.




I'll grant all of this as is, notwithstanding all the other conflict in this thread regarding MM's claim. The part I was responding to was here:




This 'flaw' doesn't work, though, and that's what I was responding to. Rewrite it the way I was suggesting:



Look at this critically. Would you actually accept that aliens exist simply because certain supposed eyewitnesses believed in it and wrote about it?

No - I would not. First of all, Alien encounters are NOT actually the type of event that warrants comparison to the recorded life of Christ. Though they are perhaps a more credible foil that the FSM. OTOH, neither would I try to prove to those that did believe in Alien Encounters that a valid reason to disbelieve these accounts was their lack of 'secular' substantiation. The accounts are of a sort that secular substantiation is impossible. And so I'd look to other elements to establish or refute the claims. And that would be my primary point. There is no valid reason to doubt Christ existed or that something substantial occurred which gave rise to the Christian religion.

In point of fact, it is my opinion that most who try to act as if the majority of what we have in scripture is pure myth do so from a position of active hostility to the religion, not honest inquiry. And the use of these kinds of arguments lend support to that opinion.

Of course not. Nor do we accept the existence of bigfoot, or of any other fairytale creatures, based on written records of supposed eyewitnesses.

Again, these are not compatible elements for comparison. You would do better to compare to Mohammed, or the Buddha. But then, we don't have the same kinds of personalities with personal scores to settle with Islam or Buddhism driving for the acceptance of weak arguments for their non-existence. For one thing, Islam is a far more hostile foe to pick a fight with. And Buddhism and other Asian religions find more favor on the intellectual left.

The presumption that it is reasonable to exclude a 'large' body of written records is not flawed. The existence of written record by supposed eyewitnesses is not enough. We need something more, and it's to that point that lao tzu has called out MM's Vesuvius example. We have an erupted volcano and a city covered in ash that count as a pretty significant 'something more'. To compare this to Christian accounts is downright foolish.

I (and I hope MM) was not saying that there is not other objective evidence OUTSIDE the written record that puts the Vesuvius eruption into a different class of verifiable historical fact than the resurrection. That would be silly. The point is that to argue that Christ did not exist BECAUSE of a paucity of SECULAR records is made silly BY COMPARING it to the written record of the Vesuvius eruption. IOW, the Vesuvius written record makes clear a paucity of secular records IS NOT SUFFICIENT CAUSE to dismiss the historicity of Christ.

What making logical arguments, one needs to be aware that many logical arguments CAN'T be reversed. A implies B does NOT mean B implies A. We can't turn the inability to dismiss the historicity of Christ due to a scarcity of secular records into the secular records that exist are sufficient to prove His historicity. And that is effectively what you keep trying to do.

I've put large in scare quotes in the above for a reason. The majority of the written records presuppose that Christ exists. Their existence cannot support a claim that he does. That leaves out most of the ECF works including most of the NT. It's hardly a large body of works under investigation by any stretch.

The records I speak to tell the story of Christ. They are written for the most part by those that believe in His claims and Resurrection. OF COURSE they presuppose He exists. My point is that IF you are going to rely on historical writings of any kind to validate extraordinary events, you have no choice but to use the first hand accounts of the believers. Because if an extraordinary event takes place, ALL first hand accounts will be generated by believers in the event! But they may not all be believers in all aspects of the event.

In the end, it is sill to try to claim Christ himself is a fiction. It is not silly to wonder about the resurrection of course. Or perhaps some of the stories surrounding His Birth. But there is more than sufficient historical reference to believe He existed and that His followers had real, physical reasons that drove their eruption into the world.

And back to my point, it is silly to think that simply a lack of secular writings on Him is sufficient cause to doubt His historicity. It simply ignores the literally mountains of evidence to the contrary in terms of how the history of the western world evolved for the 2000 years following His advent!


Jim

[klaus54]

Slavs??

Latvians were as much or more oppressed than you Slavs.

Ozols here...!

K54

[phank]

And back to my point, it is silly to think that simply a lack of secular writings on Him is sufficient cause to doubt His historicity. It simply ignores the literally mountains of evidence to the contrary in terms of how the history of the western world evolved for the 2000 years following His advent!


Jim

And then again, there is this mountain of argument:

http://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Je...ichard+carrier

But actually, you know, considering and answering these arguments is silly, because Carrier is "hostile", and can't be trusted. True Believers, who will fabricate and swallow anything at all, CAN be trusted, because, you know, they believe in what's True. Only preachers can be trusted to be objective about what they believe, we understand this.

And as for the "literal mountains of evidence"? Those are all included and given careful consideration. By careful consideration, I mean complete Bayesian analysis. And Bayesian analysis requires, among other things, that something widely believed to be true must be assigned a very high "prior". In non-mathematical terms, must be regarded as correct barring really compelling reasons otherwise.

But I am amused by the mountain of self-contradictory, threadbare rationalizations in support of what Cannot Be Questioned. Preach it, bro!

[oxmixmudd]

And then again, there is this mountain of argument:

http://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Je...ichard+carrier

But actually, you know, considering and answering these arguments is silly, because Carrier is "hostile", and can't be trusted. True Believers, who will fabricate and swallow anything at all, CAN be trusted, because, you know, they believe in what's True. Only preachers can be trusted to be objective about what they believe, we understand this.

And as for the "literal mountains of evidence"? Those are all included and given careful consideration. By careful consideration, I mean complete Bayesian analysis. And Bayesian analysis requires, among other things, that something widely believed to be true must be assigned a very high "prior". In non-mathematical terms, must be regarded as correct barring really compelling reasons otherwise.

But I am amused by the mountain of self-contradictory, threadbare rationalizations in support of what Cannot Be Questioned. Preach it, bro!

IF what I was saying had any relation to how you are characterizing it, you might have a point.

But it doesn't.

It is one thing to ask reasonable and reasoned questions. It is another thing to hate something so much you'll do almost anything to discredit it.

Discerning the difference in the grey areas in between is far from trivial, but you are far closer to the latter category than the former.




Jim