Aron-Ra in the flesh

| 117 Comments

Back when I was a little baby creationism debater, back in the day when the world wide web was young, there were several gladiators who, every day on the talk.origins newsgroup, sallied forth and took on all comers. These were names like PZ Myers, Wes Elsberry, John Wilkins…that’s right, these guys, now famous, all were originally newsgroup junkies. Eventually I got to meet them all in person. But another gladiator there was, by the name of Aron-Ra, who wielded his challenge to great effect. I never got to meet him…but now there is YouTube.

Everyone liked the immune system cross of Behe during the Kitzmiller case, but Aron-Ra has got the point so well he gets all the way down to the 3rd- and 4th-level emergency backup-backup excuse arguments Behe brings out to attempt to explain why his statements about the failure of the peer-reviewed literature were not refuted. And all in just a few minutes.

HT PZ.

117 Comments

A long-merited mention of AronRa! About a year ago, I found his YouTube channel when I googled for some information about paleontology and got hooked immediately. He is a lonesome cowboy in Texas, in a blog TV show he once described how his neighbours tried to exorcise his son for being an atheist. It could have been funny if it hadn’t been so sad.

Did they succeed?

By the way, I’m famous in no sensible definition of the term.

John Wilkins said:

Did they succeed?

The kid was chased up a tree by friendly neighbours who first thrust a crucifix in his face and then threw stones at him - I guess they succeeded in strengthening his scepticism.

John Wilkins said:

By the way, I’m famous in no sensible definition of the term.

Famous poster at AtBC?

Kattarina98 said:

John Wilkins said:

By the way, I’m famous in no sensible definition of the term.

Famous poster at AtBC?

That’s a species of fame, isn’t it? Anyone? Wilkins?

Please - it’s one of the kinds of fame.

;^D

Ian H Spedding FCD said:

Kattarina98 said:

John Wilkins said:

By the way, I’m famous in no sensible definition of the term.

Famous poster at AtBC?

That’s a species of fame, isn’t it? Anyone? Wilkins?

I’m not sure where to post this, so I’m just putting it into the most recent thread. One of the funniest articles I’ve ever seen in the newspaper appeared in today’s Religion section. According to an AP report, the chuckleheads over at Conservapedia have decided that the Bible is not conservative enough, so they’re in the process of revising it to “create a Bible suitable for contemporary conservative sensibilities”.

Apparently, not only does reality have a liberal bent (as I think Stephen Colbert said), but the Bible does as well. I wonder how the biblical literalists (who seem to be primarily conservative) can rationalize this altering of the inspired Gospel?

Two answers. One, they can’t. Two, you’re talking about minds that can rationalise anything, including things that can’t be rationalised.

It’s a form of omnipotence, really.

GvLGeologist FCD -

I’ve mentioned the Conservapedia Bible Project several times in other threads.

They aren’t doing a new translation, simply taking an already extant English translation and changing the language to make it more “conservative”.

The kid was chased up a tree by friendly neighbours who first thrust a crucifix in his face and then threw stones at him.

What is wrong with Texas? I would have called the cops on them in a heartbeat.

Another poster, an atheist in Texas has a similar problem. His neighbors carefully collect road kills and put them in his mail box. And a teacher in Lakeland was fired for “suspected atheism”.

I’d like to think such things wouldn’t happen here on the WC. But it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to push your luck.

raven said: Another poster, an atheist in Texas has a similar problem. His neighbors carefully collect road kills and put them in his mail box.

That would be against postal regulations…and the Postal Inspectors have (or, at least, you to have) the highest conviction rate of any Federal law enforcement agency.

Argghhh! That’s ‘or, atlest, used to have’. Too early in the morning…

raven said:

The kid was chased up a tree by friendly neighbours who first thrust a crucifix in his face and then threw stones at him.

What is wrong with Texas? I would have called the cops on them in a heartbeat. ….

Have a good look at AronRa. He can take care of bullies all by himself.

Awesome, I love AronRa’s stuff.

Anyone who hasn’t seen it should check out his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series.

Harold, Sorry I missed your comments. Nonetheless, if (as I understand) literalists will argue that the bible is literally true because it is inspired by God, didn’t they argue that the English translation was literally correct as well? It doesn’t seem to me that the language (according to what I understand is their interpretation) can be changed.

harold said: GvLGeologist FCD -

I’ve mentioned the Conservapedia Bible Project several times in other threads.

They aren’t doing a new translation, simply taking an already extant English translation and changing the language to make it more “conservative”.

Some fundamentalists do actually argue that the KJV is inerrantly inspired (strange as that claim seems even to most fundamentalists).

However their scope of the Conservapedia bible project is much wider than just changing a translation. What they are doing is editing the text without being able to read Greek or without being able to read the critical apparatus in an edition of the Bible as far as I can tell.

The AP article focused on the text “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,’ which Schalfley wants to excise because, he says, it is too liberal. Since when is forgiveness a liberal virtue? But what is really disturbing is that the passage is usually taken to refer to the Jews. So wanting to excise it is most likely motivated by anti-Semitism (there is certianly no text-critical reason).

And Aron-Ran is probably the best skeptic on You-Tube. One commenter suggested he was also the one he would most like to see in a cage match with Ray Comfort.

Actually, all the commentary I have seen recently on “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” is that the “they” is the Romans.

It’s plain that the gospels were largely written to appeal to Gentiles, with a strong subtext of separating Christianity from its Jewish roots. This was almost certainly a reaction to the (failed) Jewish revolt of 70 CE, which produced a strong reaction against Judaism across the rest of the Empire.

So, in that passage Jesus is said to be asking forgiveness for the people who could not have understood his Messiahship, but (it is said) this is not meant to excuse those who could have - ie, the Jewish religious authorities who had demanded his crucifiction and allegedly acknowledged that the blame would fall upon themselves and their children (Matthew 27:26). The latter text is far more palatable to an outright racist, of course. It’s been the centrepiece of Christian antisemitism for millennia.

Schafly actually wants to cut the actual words of Jesus out of the Gospel, does he? Why no mobs with torches and pitchforks for him, then?

Rev XXII:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

Schlafly needs some good christian to point he’s due for the chop, followed by eternity (a long time) in a hot place.

Robert quoted:

“Rev XXII:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.”

Gee, I wonder how they are going to “translate” that part.

What they are doing is editing the text without being able to read Greek or without being able to read the critical apparatus in an edition of the Bible as far as I can tell.

As David M. said on Pharyngula, “Andy Schlafly is descending into madness at 0.1 Timecubes/month”.

Even the lunatic fringes have lunatic fringes.

Dave LOuckett.

It gets argued both ways, but I doubt Schalfly has anything against the Romans.

Hmmm … I guess you didn’t notice that I was there as well? Or maybe you just remembered the famous people?     :-)

Incidentally, the talk.origins server still lives in my office and last Monday we had a short (5 hours) power shutdown and the server (“Darwin”) didn’t reboot. Our fearless leader, DIG, had to come in and get things going again.

The newsgroup was inactive for almost 12 hours and the amazing thing is that I didn’t get any email complaints at all!!

Maybe we ought to try an experiment where we shut it down for 24 hours and see if anyone other than John Wilkins actually notices? Problem is, John may go off the deep end if we try it and that’s probably too high a price to pay. After all, he’s very famous.     :-)

Speaking of TalkOrigins, what ever happened to the archive? Still under attack? I mean, it’s still there of course and 3/4ths of every anti-evolution spiel I come across is just a few clicks away from rebuttal, but it’d be awesome to see it updated again.

John Wilkins said: By the way, I’m famous in no sensible definition of the term.

If it’s any consolation, I’m so jealous.

Maybe we ought to try an experiment where we shut it down for 24 hours and see if anyone other than John Wilkins actually notices?

We’re talking about the talkorigins.org site, right? Hah, now I know who to yell at next time it’s absent for a while. Thanks, Larry! :)

(Man, I missed that darned site when it was ill a while ago.. Oh, and the indexcc deserves a visible spot on the main page, IMHO)

I second the question that Wheels asked. The What’s New page doesn’t even work anymore.

Wheels said:

Speaking of TalkOrigins, what ever happened to the archive? Still under attack? I mean, it’s still there of course and 3/4ths of every anti-evolution spiel I come across is just a few clicks away from rebuttal, but it’d be awesome to see it updated again.

One of the nice things about being “evolutionists” is that we get to update our literature and not feel dirty. I third this suggestion. Perhaps a Wikipedia-style effort.…

It’s kinda nice to see Aronra (and many others of course) take on the creationist camp through youtube.

It seems that most of the youtube creationists give up fairly quickly after being on the receiving end of an Aronra video. It’s a rather brutal, yet entertaining thing to watch.

The more I read about literary analysis of the bible the more ludicrous it seems that it’s inerrant and written by the supposed “authors”. It’d be like reading Canterbury Tales and suddenly finding a passage from The Martian Chronicles in the middle of it and still thinking it’s Chaucer.

stevaroni said:

DS said:

Robert,

Were you there? Come on dude, in another post you claimed that historical sciences could not be used to make predictions about past events. Now you are claiming that this is exactly what archaeology did at Jericho.

The ultimate irony, one which will undoubtedly be lost on Robert, is that the area around Jericho is a really significant site for archeologists - but it’s got nothing to do with the Bible.

Jericho is important because it is one of the oldest continuously occupied settlement on the planet, first settled about 9000 BC. The springs there drew in early nomads who formed one of the worlds first stable agricultural communities.

Their layers after layers of buried settlements prove invaluable evidence as to how early farming societies developed in the middle east for about eight millenia before people developed the written word. Get that, Robert? Jericho is important to creationist archeology - because it records continuous settlement for five thousand years before Biblical creation.

Or, um, didn’t your creationist literature that fawned so much about crushed bronze-age pottery get around to mentioning that part?

This is a old claim that is just not true. In fact I always suspected that in the old days Jerichos found walls was so serious a problem to those hostile to biblical accuracy that they tried to run over this excellent piece of evidence with stiff about endless layers showing 9 thousand years. I smell a rat. Anyways layers are primitive things showing no more then presumptions behind the origins and dates of layers. Solid horizontal walls make a solid case. Jericho should be a bigger subject in science shows etc since it deals with a lot of well known subjects. The silence is loud.

eric said:

Robert Byers: Since all legal concepts come from moral concepts and since a peoples measurement of time, which is so important to their identity and life, and a peoples general freedom to decide such important thing, then it is practically a illegal thing.

Why are you illegally and immorally taking away Jesus’ identity and freedom? He didn’t use the BC/AD system, so why do you?

In fact, combining a term invented 800 years after his birth (AD) with one invented 1400 years after his birth (BC) is so capricious, so historically arbritary, it probably makes him cry.

As an aside, I’d like to know what moral concept is responsible for “no right turn on red.” Because I really hate that rule.

Well I say a people have the moral and legal right to their own weights and measures. BC etc is historic, reflective of christian faith, identity, national identity, and the measure on our great and small documents covering all of our lives. For a small unelected nobodies to try to sneak and steal away our terms is why freedom and democracy and rights of man has been and is today something to struggle for.

The moral concept behind “no right turn on red” is as follows. Since its a moral value to keep people alive and unhurt then regulation of traffic is a moral duty. In cases therefore not allowing people to make some turns preserves some bodies. all laws and regulations are directly or indirectly based on moral values. Something is wrong firsat and then illegal. Not the other way around.

Robert wrote:

“This is a old claim that is just not true. In fact I always suspected that in the old days Jerichos found walls was so serious a problem to those hostile to biblical accuracy that they tried to run over this excellent piece of evidence with stiff about endless layers showing 9 thousand years. I smell a rat. Anyways layers are primitive things showing no more then presumptions behind the origins and dates of layers. Solid horizontal walls make a solid case. Jericho should be a bigger subject in science shows etc since it deals with a lot of well known subjects. The silence is loud.”

So then, you admit that you were lying when you claimed that historical science could not make predictions about past events. Thanks for setting that straight. Now, did these walls fall in 1300 BCE or 1500 BCE? See Robert, I also smell a rat.

Robert Byers, you can not use “illegal” to refer to something that is legal simply because you find it offensive.

Using “illegal” to describe your own personal distaste for BCE/CE in place of BC/AD demonstrate how small-minded and bigoted of an idiot you are.

Besides, I noticed you still can not show us any legislature prohibiting the use of BCE/CE. Such is to be expected of an idiot who thinks that the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the teaching of science in science classrooms because it conflicts with your own literal personal interpretation of the Bible.

DS said:

So then, you admit that you were lying when you claimed that historical science could not make predictions about past events. Thanks for setting that straight.

Dave, do realize that there is a pronounced difference between someone admitting that he/she was lying, and someone too stupid to remember not to contradict himself.

Now, did these walls fall in 1300 BCE or 1500 BCE? See Robert, I also smell a rat.

If rodents could talk, they’d sue you for such a libelous comparison.

Robert Byers said: No. I used the term illegal with the intent to emphasize its immorality is so great it is practically and indeed illegal to use the date BCE. I know its not on the books and expected everyone to know that obvious fact. Still it is illegal because its a great immoral agenda. I would of said in the world that slavery is illegal even if it was legal on the books everywhere . Its a punchy way of saying how illegitamate something is. The legal point you complain is selective criticism and admits the power of moral right of what i said on the issue of weights and measures for a free people. All this at Christmastime

“Illegal” is not an emphatic way of saying “immoral”. “Illegal” is “against the law”. If there is no law, there is no question about legality.

I get the point that you *don’t* *like* the use of “BCE”, but your likes and dislikes have no more influence than those of anyone else. Your statement that using “BCE” is somehow illegal in spite of knowing there is nothing on the books about it is just your opinion and carries no weight with anyone else. That is true at Winter Solstice, Hannukah, Saturnalia or any other time.

It has now been established that you do, in fact, understand that there is nothing illegal about using “BCE/CE”. It is now time for you to graciously withdraw your initial claim. Then, perhaps, we can move on to substantive issues where you are also wrong but have refused to admit it.

W. H. Heydt said:

It has now been established that you do, in fact, understand that there is nothing illegal about using “BCE/CE”. It is now time for you to graciously withdraw your initial claim. Then, perhaps, we can move on to substantive issues where you are also wrong but have refused to admit it.

Robert Byers is the arrogant sort of idiot that it would be far easier to make stones weep tears of blood while screaming Shakespeare than to get him to retract an incorrect claim.

Robert Byers said:

Well I say a people have the moral and legal right to their own weights and measures.

Including BCE?

Stanton wrote:

“If rodents could talk, they’d sue you for such a libelous comparison.”

My apologies to rats everywhere. I really don’t want to get them pissed off, because since I just broke the law, I’m sure Robert will report me to the appropriate authorities and I’m going to be spending a lot of time in jail with Kent Hovind.

Holy crap, etc…

You have to understand, when bobby the boob byers talks about rights people have, he’s only talking about the right of people to do whatever he wants them to. In his delusions, only people who are members of his cult have any rights at all.

It’s so blatantly hypocritical and insane, but no amount of pointing that out will have any effect. Bobby’s incapable of imagining the possibility that he could ever be wrong about anything, no matter how clearly it’s been demonstrated or how many times. He’s sacrificed his brain as a burnt offering to his imaginary friend.

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said:

Well I say a people have the moral and legal right to their own weights and measures.

Including BCE?

Robert Byers said:

No. I used the term illegal with the intent to emphasize its immorality is so great it is practically and indeed illegal to use the date BCE.

But Robert, it ISN”T “indeed illegal”!!! That word means there is a law against it. You admit there isn’t a law against it in the next quote…

I know its not on the books and expected everyone to know that obvious fact. Still it is illegal because its a great immoral agenda.

This translates as “it isn’t illegal, but it is illegal”

I would of said in the world that slavery is illegal even if it was legal on the books everywhere . Its a punchy way of saying how illegitamate something is.

No. It is NOT a “punchy way of saying how illegitamate something is.” You can’t just use words however you want to. They have agreed upon meanings.

The legal point you complain is selective criticism

No. It’s simply asking you to use standard English. And then not try to weasel out when we point out your mistake. Just admit that you misused the word. It’s that simple.

Otherwise, you’re saying that black is white, red is yellow, good is bad. I can make any word mean what ever I want it to. I could even declare, by your logic, that “Robert Myers” is just a punchy way of saying “mentally challenged.”

In your world:

“The Bible is true” could actually mean “The Bible is false” because I use the word “true” as a punchy way to say “false.” Is this really the way you think language works?

Just admit you made a mistake. Jesus would want you to.

Stanton said:

W. H. Heydt said:

It has now been established that you do, in fact, understand that there is nothing illegal about using “BCE/CE”. It is now time for you to graciously withdraw your initial claim. Then, perhaps, we can move on to substantive issues where you are also wrong but have refused to admit it.

Robert Byers is the arrogant sort of idiot that it would be far easier to make stones weep tears of blood while screaming Shakespeare than to get him to retract an incorrect claim.

You are almost certainly correct in that assessment.

However, hammering home this simple error compounded with acute obstinance will help lurkers and fence-sitters to understand that, if Mr. Myers gets something like this so very wrong, he can’t be trusted when taken to task on actual issues of science.

Robert Byers said:

stevaroni said:

DS said:

Robert,

Were you there? Come on dude, in another post you claimed that historical sciences could not be used to make predictions about past events. Now you are claiming that this is exactly what archaeology did at Jericho.

The ultimate irony, one which will undoubtedly be lost on Robert, is that the area around Jericho is a really significant site for archeologists - but it’s got nothing to do with the Bible.

Jericho is important because it is one of the oldest continuously occupied settlement on the planet, first settled about 9000 BC. The springs there drew in early nomads who formed one of the worlds first stable agricultural communities.

Their layers after layers of buried settlements prove invaluable evidence as to how early farming societies developed in the middle east for about eight millenia before people developed the written word. Get that, Robert? Jericho is important to creationist archeology - because it records continuous settlement for five thousand years before Biblical creation.

Or, um, didn’t your creationist literature that fawned so much about crushed bronze-age pottery get around to mentioning that part?

This is a old claim that is just not true. In fact I always suspected that in the old days Jerichos found walls was so serious a problem to those hostile to biblical accuracy that they tried to run over this excellent piece of evidence with stiff about endless layers showing 9 thousand years. I smell a rat. Anyways layers are primitive things showing no more then presumptions behind the origins and dates of layers. Solid horizontal walls make a solid case. Jericho should be a bigger subject in science shows etc since it deals with a lot of well known subjects. The silence is loud.

Suspect whatever you want. Smell whatever you want. You are, nonetheless, simply wrong.

Jericho is some of best-documented ancient dirt on the planet. There are innumerable scholarly tomes on the subject, as a quick Google of the subject would have told you.

Archeologists call the Canaanite city destroyed in 1550 BCE “Jericho City IV”. They call it IV because there are clearly 3 other important layers below it.

In fact, the most significant of these layers is not Cananite Jericho, but the much older Jericho I and Jericho II (6800 BCE), including significant walls 23 foot tower, not the kind of trifling scraps one might likely misplace in the wrong layer.

If you go to Israel, and take a tour of Jericho, you actually see Jericho I and II, The main attraction is the Tel e-Sultan, ancient Jericho, 7000BCE.

If you stand in the Tel e-Sultan you’re standing in a spot where Biblical Jericho won’t be built for 40 more centuries.

Besides, what exactly does any of this mean anyway? Exactly what documentation do you have of the walls flopping, and exactly what do you think it infers? Walls fall down all the time.

Apparently, walls fell down here for about 11,00 years, otherwise all those ancient building would still be here.

As far as the Biblical description goes, “The people raised the war cry, the trumpets sounded. When the people heard the sound of the trumpet, they raised a mighty war cry and the wall collapsed then and there.”(Joshua 6:26),

Collapsed, not “And lo the walls did flop over”.

So Bring forth your data, Beyers. Point me to your references.

Byers:

I know its not on the books and expected everyone to know that obvious fact. Still it is illegal because its a great immoral agenda.

Sylvilagus:

This translates as “it isn’t illegal, but it is illegal”

Luckett:

Place two mutually inconsistent statements that (Byers) has made before, and he will simply ignore them, or to put it another way, will believe both alternately, as the nonce requires.

This is a perfect example of the effect. You are arguing with a mind like a billiard ball.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: No. I used the term illegal with the intent to emphasize its immorality is so great it is practically and indeed illegal to use the date BCE. I know its not on the books and expected everyone to know that obvious fact. Still it is illegal because its a great immoral agenda. I would of said in the world that slavery is illegal even if it was legal on the books everywhere . Its a punchy way of saying how illegitamate something is. The legal point you complain is selective criticism and admits the power of moral right of what i said on the issue of weights and measures for a free people. All this at Christmastime

“Illegal” is not an emphatic way of saying “immoral”. “Illegal” is “against the law”. If there is no law, there is no question about legality.

I get the point that you *don’t* *like* the use of “BCE”, but your likes and dislikes have no more influence than those of anyone else. Your statement that using “BCE” is somehow illegal in spite of knowing there is nothing on the books about it is just your opinion and carries no weight with anyone else. That is true at Winter Solstice, Hannukah, Saturnalia or any other time.

It has now been established that you do, in fact, understand that there is nothing illegal about using “BCE/CE”. It is now time for you to graciously withdraw your initial claim. Then, perhaps, we can move on to substantive issues where you are also wrong but have refused to admit it.

I’m not withdrawing anything. i stand by my comment that its immoral and illegal to use B.C.E. Of coarse such a thing is not on the books by its very nature. Yet its still illegal by any concept of legality based on moral rights of mankind. I said this. yet i think you focus on this point because you know I’m right about the moral right of any people to use and maintain their measurements that are so important to their identity, heritage, religion, and freedom. This is the conversation here and not the meaning of the word illegal. As i said at any point in history I would insist its illegal ,save for God’s allowance in scripture, to have slavery. Even if its on the books. I used the word for its moral effect of confirming its moral foundation. All injustice is illegal in fact of natural rights. Thats what i meant. I expected, truly, all to know its not on the books. I stand by it as I used it in the context i did.

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said:

Well I say a people have the moral and legal right to their own weights and measures.

Including BCE?

Yes. Yet the use of this is a rejection of the people and spoiled its legitamacy by its aggression.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said:

stevaroni said:

DS said:

Robert,

Were you there? Come on dude, in another post you claimed that historical sciences could not be used to make predictions about past events. Now you are claiming that this is exactly what archaeology did at Jericho.

The ultimate irony, one which will undoubtedly be lost on Robert, is that the area around Jericho is a really significant site for archeologists - but it’s got nothing to do with the Bible.

Jericho is important because it is one of the oldest continuously occupied settlement on the planet, first settled about 9000 BC. The springs there drew in early nomads who formed one of the worlds first stable agricultural communities.

Their layers after layers of buried settlements prove invaluable evidence as to how early farming societies developed in the middle east for about eight millenia before people developed the written word. Get that, Robert? Jericho is important to creationist archeology - because it records continuous settlement for five thousand years before Biblical creation.

Or, um, didn’t your creationist literature that fawned so much about crushed bronze-age pottery get around to mentioning that part?

This is a old claim that is just not true. In fact I always suspected that in the old days Jerichos found walls was so serious a problem to those hostile to biblical accuracy that they tried to run over this excellent piece of evidence with stiff about endless layers showing 9 thousand years. I smell a rat. Anyways layers are primitive things showing no more then presumptions behind the origins and dates of layers. Solid horizontal walls make a solid case. Jericho should be a bigger subject in science shows etc since it deals with a lot of well known subjects. The silence is loud.

Suspect whatever you want. Smell whatever you want. You are, nonetheless, simply wrong.

Jericho is some of best-documented ancient dirt on the planet. There are innumerable scholarly tomes on the subject, as a quick Google of the subject would have told you.

Archeologists call the Canaanite city destroyed in 1550 BCE “Jericho City IV”. They call it IV because there are clearly 3 other important layers below it.

In fact, the most significant of these layers is not Cananite Jericho, but the much older Jericho I and Jericho II (6800 BCE), including significant walls 23 foot tower, not the kind of trifling scraps one might likely misplace in the wrong layer.

If you go to Israel, and take a tour of Jericho, you actually see Jericho I and II, The main attraction is the Tel e-Sultan, ancient Jericho, 7000BCE.

If you stand in the Tel e-Sultan you’re standing in a spot where Biblical Jericho won’t be built for 40 more centuries.

Besides, what exactly does any of this mean anyway? Exactly what documentation do you have of the walls flopping, and exactly what do you think it infers? Walls fall down all the time.

Apparently, walls fell down here for about 11,00 years, otherwise all those ancient building would still be here.

As far as the Biblical description goes, “The people raised the war cry, the trumpets sounded. When the people heard the sound of the trumpet, they raised a mighty war cry and the wall collapsed then and there.”(Joshua 6:26),

Collapsed, not “And lo the walls did flop over”.

So Bring forth your data, Beyers. Point me to your references.

No references on a forum like this. i know, and you must trust me, in things I have read on it that the walls are so intact that the idea of earthquakes was invoked for the destruction. As opposed to human effects or mere crumbling from age.

These other Jerichos are silly attempts to undercut the excellent evidence of the city supporting the biblical witness. The walls are dramatic and true. These layers are interpretations and can be seen as just rapid development. i also suspect anti- bible biases as I said.

So, Bobby, to recap, you lied, you got caught lying, everyone here including you is fully aware that you lied, but you will keep repeating that lie until your rotting stinking carcass is dragged away. You LIVE to lie.

And yet you, a blatant, shameless liar, expect to be taken seriously when you accuse every scientist on the planet of being involved in some vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids, while adamantly refusing to even pretend to present the slightest speck of evidence in support of any of your claims.

Bobby, isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

Bobby wrote:

“No references on a forum like this. i know, and you must trust me, in things I have read on it …”

Bobby, you must trust me, there is a vast amount of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. I don’t have to provide any of it, you must trust me. It is all true. I have read lots of stuff. Trust me, you have to believe it. Oh, and you can’t preach creationist crap in public schools either, trust me.

Now Bobby - pay close attention here - if you refuse to trust me on these issues, why should anyone trust you? I will take your lack of response as agreement, trust me.

Robert Byers said:

I’m not withdrawing anything. i stand by my comment that its immoral and illegal to use B.C.E. Of coarse such a thing is not on the books by its very nature. Yet its still illegal by any concept of legality based on moral rights of mankind. I said this. yet i think you focus on this point because you know I’m right about the moral right of any people to use and maintain their measurements that are so important to their identity, heritage, religion, and freedom. This is the conversation here and not the meaning of the word illegal. As i said at any point in history I would insist its illegal ,save for God’s allowance in scripture, to have slavery. Even if its on the books. I used the word for its moral effect of confirming its moral foundation. All injustice is illegal in fact of natural rights. Thats what i meant. I expected, truly, all to know its not on the books. I stand by it as I used it in the context i did.

Translation of Robert above: “I misused a word. Perhaps I never really knew what the word meant. To avoid embarrassment I will keep insisting that what I said was valid, even if that means claiming I can change the meaning of words to suit whatever purpose I have. When given an opportunity to simply admit my error, I choose to lie. Lie repeatedly. Because I can never admit I am wrong about anything. My ego is more important than honesty, open-mindedness, or even the commandments of my God”

Robert- I know you claim to be a Christian, but your attitude here, especially your intellectual dishonesty, and outright lies are truly shameful. You are dishonoring yourself, Jesus, and Christianity by your behavior. Please try to set a better example of Christian behavior for those who might be reading you.

Also, why have you not responded to any of my posts to you?

No references on a forum like this. i know, and you must trust me,

The difference between science and creationism in a nutshell.

You ask scientists a direct question and you’ll get a direct answer.

You ask “Where is the evidence?” and they’ll point you to the museum where you can go and see it with your own eyes”.

You ask “How do you know?” and they’ll patiently explain how you can do basic experiments that even a child can pull off so that you can see it work for yourself.

You ask “What does it mean?” and they’ll show you how to take the measurements and do the math for yourself.

You’ll get more detail than you ever possibly wanted because scientists are gooks who think this is all neat and they’ll explain the minutia all day long.

Creationism is about secrets. It’s “don’t ask, don’t tell”. It’s Joseph Smith and the magic glasses. Don’t you worry your little head about all those pesky details, we’ve got it all handled. Now, move along.

You ask creationists a direct question, you get “Just trust me” at it’s finest.

in things I have read on it that the walls are so intact that the idea of earthquakes was invoked for the destruction. As opposed to human effects or mere crumbling from age.

Oh.

To belabor the obvious, Byers, I think it’s safe to surmise that being smitten by the hand of God is not a subtle event.

(Joshua 6:26) When the people heard the sound of the trumpet, they raised a mighty war cry and the wall collapsed then and there.

“Collapsed”, not “And lo the walls did gently flop over, lying down gently like a fair maiden retiring to her chamber”.

Get it Byers? Fall down. Go Boom.

So, once again, Byers, Bring forth your data, Point me to your references.

(By the way, after all this duplicity, Robert, you’re getting close to deserving a nickname. Now, let’s see, what’s a good word for a duplicitous person that rhymes with “Byer”…)

Robert,

It is illegal, immoral and fattening for you to post on PT. (According to my own private definitions of those words, which I refuse to describe or discuss with you). From now on, all of your posts will be moved to the bathroom wall. (At least they should be). Trust me, your posts are completely nonsensical and not even worth the paper they are not printed on.

If you do continue to post here, I can make up meanings for lots of other words as well. Why don’t you go spitoon yourself. See, I can even make up words. I can even claim that I made these statements in 1550 BCE. How do you like them picadillos, ampersand?

stevaroni said:

You’ll get more detail than you ever possibly wanted because scientists are gooks who think this is all neat and they’ll explain the minutia all day long.

Oops. I think I’ve been bitten by the spellchecker.

I actually meant to say “Because scientists are Geeks” who think this is all neat and they’ll explain the minutia all day long.

My apologies if I’ve offended anyone.

Intimately, the post is in reality the freshest topic on this registry related issue. I concur with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your forthcoming updates. Saying thanks will not just be enough, for the wonderful clarity in your writing. I will immediately grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates.

Very nice post, I was expecting something like this from you. keep up the good work. livejasmin

I discovered this superb post while researching some tech stuff, and I enjoyed reading this post, I have a similar blog at http://www.sinever.com/blogs please check it out.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on December 5, 2009 3:14 AM.

No Longer Sleeping in Seattle was the previous entry in this blog.

Hunter: not young earther. Agnostic-age earther? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter