Jesus Invented By The Romans?

[breddell]

Interesting... but that doesn't change the statement on credibility that I asked. Fyi... google searches easily confirm what I am saying. This also confirms the need for quality references.

On a different note, have you all seen the video/concept of the 'kalam cosmological argument' - if so, what do you think of that?

 

[breddell]

Ah the old attack the person gig ... oh well if you don't like what she has to say or don't believe her qualifications please feel free to ask her that question personally .. I can even give you a contact point.

Message her here WildwoodClaire1 - YouTube .. she is very nice and will be happy to answer a theist question I am sure.

Guess you over looked this video.. watch it

So what is her background and what peer reviewed publications has she?

 

[stonehart]

So what is her background and what peer reviewed publications has she?

Well I just sent her a message, Clair is a lovely lady and I should get a nice answer in a short bit so hang in there.

 

[mike]

As someone whos always had a keen interest in geology etc (joined my first rockhounding club when i was 9)

The Otago Rock and Mineral Club

i still have some jasper opal i collected on my first field trip with them somewhere

I dont need to see her credentials, she knows her stuff

 

[stonehart]

As someone whos always had a keen interest in geology etc (joined my first rockhounding club when i was 9)

The Otago Rock and Mineral Club

i still have some jasper opal i collected on my first field trip with them somewhere

I dont need to see her credentials, she knows her stuff

Thanks for that Mike... really I don't see the problem here regardless of the persons credentials the information is valid.

 

[mike]

I read the blind faith in a bloodthirsty deity posts here and i cant help thinking

Or as the old TOS joke goes, "beam me up Mr Scott there's no intelligent life down here........"

 

[mike]

Thanks for that Mike... really I don't see the problem here regardless of the persons credentials the information is valid.

Yeah and the tactic is pretty transparent, thinking he sees a chink in the armour of one example, he focus's on that ignoring the myriad others that he cant refute.

Again a common tactic to defend a belief that if right should not need it

cherry picking christians - Bing

 

[breddell]

I am not cherry picking... I legitimately want to know what her background is and want to look at actual credible, i.e. excepted by the scientific community, work supporting the discussion. I dont think any scientist, taking a serious look at a topic will use youtube as a source.

The reason i want to know is that i talked to other geologists, who are not atheists, and they cant show any contradictions.


Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stagger Lee]

I came from an American Irish Catholic Family, served my first 8 yrs of schooling in a Catholic School. In about the 2nd grade, I asked my Dad "What came first, the dinosaurs or Adam and Eve?" My Dad laughed and said, "why don't you ask Father McVehigh tomorrow in class"
I got the nerve up to ask the good priest that very question in front of my class- he ignored my question with a wave of his hand.
Noah's Ark was another curious question that haunted me at an early age. Even for an elementary school kid, the story didn't make sense.
I do enjoy the Ancient Aliens theory- that the ark was actually a spaceship loaded with the DNA of the earth's creatures, to repopulate the planet after whatever type of calamity, be it a great flood. Perhaps the designers thought it best to not preserve the dinosaurs? Anyway, any ancient men privy to such info could never properly describe such a technology. My guess, it's better not to marry oneself to any one and only belief, or to trust those so sure of the "answers" - That ole Irish priest couldn't entertain what surely was a pure thought/question from the mouth of a babe.

 

[mike]

I am not cherry picking... I legitimately want to know what her background is and want to look at actual credible, i.e. excepted by the scientific community, work supporting the discussion. I dont think any scientist, taking a serious look at a topic will use youtube as a source.

The reason i want to know is that i talked to other geologists, who are not atheists, and they cant show any contradictions.


Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

For starters you say Youtube cant be used as a source, but give no reason why it cant
And yet you are happy to cite a story written thousands of years ago in a book as evidence

Then you present hearsay as evidence.

Essentially you put lots of noise but no signal on the table for us to consider.

conversely

Introduction
"Flood Geology" refers to the view of "young-earth" creationists (YECs) that most of the fossil record to a violent global flood which occurred only several thousand years ago, and lasted approximately one year. This position, disputed even by many Biblical scholars,* is contradicted by vast amounts of geologic and paleontological evidence. For these reasons virtually all geologists, including most Christian ones, rejected Flood Geology in the 1800's.

Conclusions
Many types of vertebrate and invertebrate trace fossils occur throughout much of the fossil record, indicating that largely calm and dry conditions prevalied at many places and many times, often for signficant periods of time. This stronly refutes young-earth creationism and "Flood Geology." Since every period of geologic time from late pre-Cambrian onward features abundant and diverse trace fossils there is simply no place to put the Flood. These copious traces, along with the parallel successions of body fossils, radiometric dates from several independent methods, along with countless other lines of evidence, thoroughly falsify young-earthism and confirm that the earth had a long and complex history

Fossil Tracks and Other Trace Fossils Refute Flood Geology

If the great flood had occured we would expect to see all the fossils mixed up, but we dont we see layers with the simple organisms at the bottom and the more complex ones at the top, this is consistant with evolution and the laying down of the fossil record over a long period of time.


Creationist "Flood Geology" Vs Common Sense

-Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science
by Edward T. Babinski

Flood geology bears all the signs of an idea that has not been properly thought through: its implications have never been carefully considered by its creationist exponents. For instance, conglomerate is a type of rock that looks kind of like a natural concrete. It has a matrix of sandstone or other fine-grained rock, but embedded in this are many rounded pebbles of various sizes, and even boulders... The Institute for Creation Research implies that Noah's Flood was responsible for all the great concentrations of conglomerates throughout the world. But they nowhere face up to the great problems that this idea creates. One major difficulty is that many large deposits of conglomerate lie on top of great thicknesses - often several miles - of fine-grained sedimentary rock. The great conglomerate sea cliffs near Marseilles, for instance, are hundreds of feet high and contain boulders more than a foot in diameter. What purely natural processes would enable the Flood to deposit a thickness of several miles of fine-grained sediments first, and then place the boulder-laden conglomerates on top? Have Flood geologists not heard the expression, to sink like a stone? Another problem for them is the clean, sharp lines often found at the boundaries between geologic layers. (The layers which face upward often have fossil limpets or barnacles attached to them. This shows that those layers had time to harden into rock and attract rock-clinging shellfish before the next stratum was laid down, which is hardly likely to happen in a flood that laid down a mile-thick layer of unconsolidated sediments in less than a year.)


Edward T. Babinski - Flood Geology: Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense

 

[mike]

Scientists Confront Creationism
From RationalWiki

Scientists confront creationism is a collection of essays pertaining to creation science, published in 1984 by Norton Paperbacks. This is one of the first books to directly attack the arguments offered by Creation Science, rather than just discussing the veracity of Evolution itself.
Contributors

• George O. Abell Ph.D. astronomy: on the age of the Earth and creationists' common mischaracterization of the reliability of radiometric dating.
• C. Loring Brace Ph.D. anthropology: dismisses the idea that humans are "new" (like 6,000 years new) to the planet by providing mounds of anthropological evidence of civilizations older than 6,000 years.
• Stephen G. Brush Ph.D. theoretical physics
• John R. Cole Ph.D. anthropology
• Joel L. Cracraft Ph.D. biology
• Russell F. Doolittle Ph.D. chemistry: on debunking the "probability" argument.
• Frederick Edwords: administrator of the American Humanist Association.
• Laurie R. Godfrey Ph.D. anthropology: specifically addresses the creationist claim that gaps in the fossil records undermine evolution.
• Stephen J. Gould Ph.D. professor of geology: does what Gould does best: eviscerate creationist lies.
• Thomas H. Jukes Ph.D.: biochemistry on the then-new molecular evidence for evolution.
• Alice B. Kehoe professor of anthropology and expert on the cultures of pre-Columbian North Americans.
• John W. Patterson M.S. mining engineering: explains and debunks the chronic bad habit of creationists using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution.
• David M. Raup Ph.D. paleontology: retired department head of the University of Chicago Department of Geophysical Sciences and curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, specifically debunks "Flood geology".
• Robert J. Schadewald: freelance science writer.
• Stephen D. Schafersman Ph.D geology: debunks the common creationist canard that "evolution is based on unproven preconceptions" that lead to confirmation bias and flawed conclusions.

There should be enough "science" in there

 

[breddell]

For starters you say Youtube cant be used as a source, but give no reason why it can't

Really? personal youtube videos as a source for credible scientific information, I have never seen legitimate research reference youtube.

The other source you provided is closer to what I expect. At least I can see peoples backgrounds and hopefully research backing up their opinions.

One note, although some books are good, they still aren't the prefferred source for research. Scientific journals are the best because they can be peer reviewed and vetted by the appropriate community. This process doesn't happen with a book, anybody can say what they want.

I will look at what you posted.

 

[mike]

I dont think any scientist, taking a serious look at a topic will use youtube as a source.

Really? personal youtube videos as a source for credible scientific information, I have never seen legitimate research reference youtube.

The other source you provided is closer to what I expect. At least I can see peoples backgrounds and hopefully research backing up their opinions.

One note, although some books are good, they still aren't the prefferred source for research. Scientific journals are the best because they can be peer reviewed and vetted by the appropriate community. This process doesn't happen with a book, anybody can say what they want.

I will look at what you posted.

Science channels explode onto YouTube
Google is investing in education and science, with five new YouTube channels dedicated to mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, physics – and spectacular demonstrations

Science channels explode onto YouTube | James Grime | Science | theguardian.com

YouTube Channels for Science
YouTube and Google continue to be the technical marvels of our time. Science content through YouTube channels are creative and compelling. Some amazing science teachers to intrigue, delight, and satisfy your curiosity. We highlight some of the best we have seen. Please let us know if we are missing a favorite of yours by reporting the link, at the top of each page.

YouTube Channels for Science

Following in the footsteps of the NewScientist channel, ScientificAmerican have branched out into YouTube vodcasting.

Scientific American – new YouTube channel | i-Biology

Science YouTube Channels

I can post a dozen more examples, but i think ive debunked your claim Youtube cant be used for serious science

I really cant find a compelling reason why an educational lecture on science is any different being watched on YouTube as opposed to attending the lecture itself

YouTube has also affected the realm of education. In 2007, the University of Berkeley started hosting course lectures on YouTube for anyone interested in viewing them. These posted lectures allow students in related classes to view the lecture even if they can't attend live, or for prospective students to preview course material before signing up. The availability of the lectures also makes it possible to review them for studying purposes, empowering students with additional avenues for study.

By all means refute the data in those vids (if you can), but to dismiss them because they are on YT is just lazy

 

[breddell]

You havent because i said personal videos. Obviously that means ones by joe blow, with fake names and no durect connection to actual sources if data. Nice try.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

You havent because i said personal videos. Obviously that means ones by joe blow, with fake names and no durect connection to actual sources if data. Nice try.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

I dont think any scientist, taking a serious look at a topic will use youtube as a source.

Clearly this is wrong


the University of Berkeley started hosting course lectures on YouTube for anyone interested in viewing them.

By all means refute the data in those vids (if you can), but to dismiss them because they are on YT is just lazy

By all means vet the individual clips for validity, but your base claim was that YT wasnt a valid source that any scientist would use.

As a format it shares the same advantages as any other valid source ie lectures books etc. There is no intrinsic reason why YT would be invalid

 

[mike]

Claim:

I dont think any scientist, taking a serious look at a topic will use youtube as a source.

Counter:
University - YouTube

 

[breddell]

You missed my point, I said that no scientist would produce peer reviewed research based off youtube videos. Surely schools and professors can use them to convey notes and lectures, but they aren't used in science journals.

Please find me a peer reviewed science journal that uses youtube as their source for scientific information.

 

[Randall]

You missed my point, I said that no scientist would produce peer reviewed research based off youtube videos. Surely schools and professors can use them to convey notes and lectures, but they aren't used in science journals. Please find me a peer reviewed science journal that uses youtube as their source for scientific information.

It makes no difference where the information comes from provided that it's reasonably accurate. Expecting scientific peer reviewed journal excerpts for information that is either self-evident or can be easily cross checked and understood by the average person is not reasonable. A reasonable counterpoint would be to provide verifiable information that demonstrates errors in the information provided.

 

[mike]

To be honest i dont have the time and inclination to dig up such a reference just to refute your opposition to YT as a format.
It has the exact same benefits and flaws as any other format.

But there is nothing in and of itself about YT that automatically makes it invalid as a format

 

[mike]

It makes no difference where the information comes from provided that it's reasonably accurate. Expecting scientific peer reviewed journal excerpts for information that is either self-evident or can be easily cross checked and understood by the average person is not reasonable. A reasonable counterpoint would be to provide verifiable information that demonstrates errors in the information provided.

exactly he hasnt refutted any of the data within the clip itself, or shown any evidence the author is wrong, instead jumps one level up and says its YT therefore its invalid as a source for credible data.
Ive given example after example where YT is a repository of credible data.
So thats that argument resolved, YT can and indeed does serve as a valid format for credible data.

He now needs to address what it is in particular in the clip hes talking about thats wrong.

Unable to attack the data, hes resorted to going after the author and format on which its presented.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the authors credentials, but having watched the clips in question i see nothing wrong with the data shes presented, thus i am prepared to accept on the balance of probability she knows her subject

Our friend here on the other hand seems to think a book in which no two versions are ever the same is a reliable source of data

1 Timothy 2:12 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:12 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

1 Timothy 2:12 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain in quietness and keep silence [in religious assemblies].
1 Timothy 2:12 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener.
1 Timothy 2:12 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace.
1 Timothy 2:12 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do.
1 Timothy 2:12 (DARBY) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;

1 Timothy 2:12 (DRA) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:12 (ERV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 I don’t allow a woman to teach a man or tell him what to do. She must listen quietly,
1 Timothy 2:12 (ESV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1 Timothy 2:12 (ESVUK) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1 Timothy 2:12 (EXB) | In Context | Whole Chapter

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or to ·have [assume; exercise] authority over ·a man [or her husband], but to ·listen quietly [be quiet],

That this misogynist message is essentially the same from version to version, the fact remains this "perfect" word of god is textually inconsistant in its various versions/translations.

conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2.
excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3.
exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
4.
entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
5.
accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.

I think a case can clearly be made there are no "perfect" copys

How do we know which copy is a correct translation and which one is an imperfect one ?
Pretty damn sloppy for a book written by a god, absolutely consistant for a book written by men