Aron-Ra in the flesh

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?

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

Kattarina98 said:

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

Famous poster at AtBC?

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.

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.

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. ....

Wow.

Awesome, I love AronRa's stuff.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

... and there it is at 9.00 in. Opposite the Tertiary period title, a unicorn. I always suspected evolutionists were hiding something and there's the proof, at last. Only kidding. And doesn't Behe look the best he's ever looked on the front of GQ. Truly a man for all people. Thanks for posting the video- will check out his other youtube stuff. Fantastic.

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”.

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! :)

Matt G said:

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 is still a world class source with the salient points in one place.

Matt G said:

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....

I have long been in favorite of a talkorigins-ish wiki; however we tried "evowiki" in 2002 and it kind of died mostly because it was run by one kid in England without any institutional backup. The only thing that will actually work is for the wiki to be hosted & maintained by TalkOrigins Foundation and/or NCSE. If it's just some guy, then inevitably the guy goes away, or the site crashes without backups, or whatever.

Moderation etc. could easily be totally volunteer, and I think registration-required editing would remove most/all of the attempts to vandalize the site, since violators could be summarily banned and their edits reverted. Registration also ensures that writers get credit for their work, which they mostly don't on e.g. wikipedia.

I also agree that a huge problem with blogs and forums is the tendency for arguments to start, which soon result in name-calling and insults, which pretty much guarantees most people on the other side will be driven away. On a blog this is almost impossible to control unless you spend all your time manually moderating comments on threads, and I am just unwilling to do that. A very nice feature of talkorigins.org is the (relative) lack of that kind of stuff; it was the kind of thing you could safely email to a teacher or a student or a friend's parent without the danger of them coming across creationists and evolutionists telling each other where to stick X in Y.

An up-to-date talkorigins wiki would be a priceless gift, not only to long-time PT lurkers like me, but to the world at large. Please, please, please do it!

I think there are several obvious sections to beef up. "Transitional" fossils, of course, and maybe a look at changes in the genomes of closely related species. The chimp-human chromosome fusion event (shown at the Dover trail) is pretty powerful stuff, and Nature published a set of articles from the Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium in Nov., 2007 which I'm sure could be boiled down to something useful.

Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Who's with me?

Matt G said: Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Going to repeat what I already said. Talkorigins.org archives is an invaluable resource.

Creationism runs on lies. They can make up a lie in 30 seconds that takes a real scientist minutes or hours to refute with the truth. Who knows how long it would take an interested layperson?

We all agree it should be updated as we sit in our chairs in front of computer screens. But who and how will the cat be belled?

As to why it went static, who knows? My guess is the usual reasons, volunteer fatigue, money, and time. We all have other lives.

I at least, would be willing to kick in some few bucks, fact gathering, and/or writing. The article on new species arising in historical times is out of date and this is a common lie of the fundies.

The new Dembski bafflegab probably isn't covered.

I'm agnostic on the wiki talkorigins.org concept.

Wikipedia is great but too easily vandalized. The fundie xians constantly vandalize anything to do with science or xianity. They get away with it because they can stay crazy and evil longer than normal people can stay interested.

A highly modified wiki with just known sane people might work and some consistent competent compilers and editors. The wider the mind, the more rubbish that can get tossed into it. Wide open wikis can end up as trash heaps and the fundies always have lots of garbage to offload.

One of the strengths of talkorigins was it was succinct with references and links to anyone who wanted to know more.

The talkorigins.org feedback was amusing but seemed to take up too much time. I could see the owners getting tired when some creo claimed to have seen dragons and unicorns because they are mentioned in the bible.

Just my slacktivism 7 pennies worth. And in case the talkorigins people haven't figured it out: their contributions to civilization are greatly appreciated.

raven said: I at least, would be willing to kick in some few bucks, fact gathering, and/or writing. The article on new species arising in historical times is out of date and this is a common lie of the fundies.

raven said:

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”.

That was known 200 years ago when people started trying to make sense of it. It is an anthology written over millenia by a large number of authors for their own purposes. That is why it is internally highly inconsistent. There is no such thing as a biblical literalist. There can't be when it contradicts itself, often within a few pages. They all just pick and choose and then lie about it. Middle East archaeology also destroyed a lot of biblical inerrancy. Parts have historical roots but a lot doesn't. When Jericho was supposedly destroyed by god poofing down the walls, the archaeologists have found that there was no wall in the first place and the city was then unoccupied. Reading Ehrman, Helms, Mack, Friedman, Avalos and others is a real eye opener.

Robert Byers said: Although this is not about origin issues I must interrupt. Jericho is a great piece of evidence for biblical inerrancy. The walls were found just as they should be. laying across. Not crumbled like every other old city but showing a dramatic event was the origin of their falling. The desperate attempt to say its earthquakes or dates are wrong is just incompetent workmanship. The walss speak for themselves. Just as the bible said.

Robert,

Until you can explain to us how humans magically change their skin color instantly when migrating long distances, your credibility is pretty much shot here. No one is going to believe anything you say without documented evidence. Even then, you are going to have a very hard sell.

Of course your argument is completely worthless anyway. You aren't trying to claim that just because there is some circumstantial evidence for one of the stories in the bible that it all must be true are you? That would be a truly insane argument, even for you. Of course, if you were actually crazy enough to make such an argument, then I guess by your logic, even one instance where the bible was wrong would completely invalidate the entire thing, right?

Bryers lying some more: Jericho is a great piece of evidence for biblical inerrancy.

worldages archive: Although archaeologists claimed in the 1930s to have uncovered evidence that the walls of Jericho had fallen much as the Book of Joshua said they had, a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon was subsequently able to demonstrate, based on Mycenaean pottery shards found amid the ruins, that the destruction had occurred no later than 1300 B.C., seventy years or more before the conquest could have happened. Whatever caused the walls of Jericho to come tumbling down, it was not Joshua's army.

Robert,

Which version of the Bible is inerrant?

How do you know?

Rob

Bryant G. Wood is a biblical archaeologist and Research Director of the inerrantist Associates for Biblical Research.[1] He is known for his 1990 proposed redating of the destruction of Jericho to accord with the biblical chronology of c. 1400 BC. The proposal was later (1995) contradicted by new radiocarbon evidence, and Kathleen Kenyon's dating of c. 1550 BC remains the date accepted in scholarly publications.

Dating of the Jericho site is complicated. It is not possible, in all truth, to completely rule out a destruction of its walls for some of the date ranges that some scholars have attempted to put for the "conquest under Joshua", but this has largely been because the same scholars are wedded to the idea of such a conquest, and because their dating of it varies from early 15C BCE to about 1250 BCE.

Kenyon's work is the gold standard for the field, and still definitive. Her final word on it was "As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C." (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho. London, 1957, p 261.)

But Kenyon's and earlier work demonstrated that the walls of Jericho had been heavily damaged or destroyed and rebuilt on at least twenty occasions. The Jordan valley always was and is subject to earthquakes.

Hence on this evidence, literalists can say, if they like, that the conquest under Joshua was an actual event dating to the third quarter of the fourteenth century BCE, and they won't be in conflict with the archeology.

But this is to date the conquest - a moveable feast - by the destruction of Jericho, and to assume the connection. It is not to demonstrate that any "conquest under Joshua" ever took place. The written records are far less supportive.

Egyptian and Akkadian records start noticing the slow ingress of a people variously described as "Apiru" (Egyptian) or "Habiru" (Akkadian) into grazing country on the outskirts of arable land in Palestine from the 16C BCE. Apparently they came from lands further north and east. They were wandering herders, and a nuisance because they stole livestock. If these can be identified with the Hebrews, there is no sense of any sort of military conquest. They were simply taking advantage of local conditions - local kings were often uninterested in driving them away, unless they encroached too much.

What can be said is that in the records of none of the great powers to east, (Akkad) south (Egypt) or north (The Hittite Empire), was there any mention of a conquest, with cities falling and being taken over. And these powers were interested in Palestine. Palestinian rulers lived by cautiously playing the great powers off against one another, paying tribute when required, formally submitting when necessary. They were always keenly observed, and their affairs reported on. Yet there's no mention of a conquest, nor of an exodus.

Argument from silence is always weak in history, above all in the most ancient of history. Nevertheless, it seems very strange indeed that no mention at all of such events should be found. Stranger still that the only mention of people who could be identified with the Hebrews should present them as so much less heroic than their own history, which was orally transmitted until at least the eighth century.

Or is it strange? I am reminded of "The Song of Roland", in which we are informed that a mighty Christian army under Charlemagne fought the Moors and did great execution, but on its retreat its rearguard was cut off and died heroically. The returning Charlemagne wiped out the heathens, etcetera. Actually, it appears that what happened was that a minor, and rather unsuccessful raid on the Basques, who were fellow-Christians (but when did that ever hinder a Christian king with eyes for other people's goods?) was bushwhacked in its turn in a Pyreneean pass. This got blown out to ludicrous proportions by the bards, who made of it a heroic legend.

Well, a people need heroes. The Hebrews were a people, and they had some four or five centuries at least to make them some.

Speaking as one of the TO Archive volunteers, I to miss the Feedback dept. It was fun to see what bit of silliness on skates would come rolling in next.

Troy Britain said: Speaking as one of the TO Archive volunteers, I to miss the Feedback dept. It was fun to see what bit of silliness on skates would come rolling in next.

Was that an Aron-Ra video or one of John Kwok's Klingon Warlord fantasies?

chunkdz said: Was that an Aron-Ra video or one of John Kwok's Klingon Warlord fantasies?

Robert Byers said: Although this is not about origin issues I must interrupt. Jericho is a great piece of evidence for biblical inerrancy. The walls were found just as they should be. laying across. Not crumbled like every other old city but showing a dramatic event was the origin of their falling. The desperate attempt to say its earthquakes or dates are wrong is just incompetent workmanship. The walss speak for themselves. Just as the bible said.

Dave Luckett said: Dating of the Jericho site is complicated. It is not possible, in all truth, to completely rule out a destruction of its walls for some of the date ranges that some scholars have attempted to put for the "conquest under Joshua", but this has largely been because the same scholars are wedded to the idea of such a conquest, and because their dating of it varies from early 15C BCE to about 1250 BCE. Kenyon's work is the gold standard for the field, and still definitive. Her final word on it was "As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C." (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho. London, 1957, p 261.) But Kenyon's and earlier work demonstrated that the walls of Jericho had been heavily damaged or destroyed and rebuilt on at least twenty occasions. The Jordan valley always was and is subject to earthquakes. Hence on this evidence, literalists can say, if they like, that the conquest under Joshua was an actual event dating to the third quarter of the fourteenth century BCE, and they won't be in conflict with the archeology. But this is to date the conquest - a moveable feast - by the destruction of Jericho, and to assume the connection. It is not to demonstrate that any "conquest under Joshua" ever took place. The written records are far less supportive. Egyptian and Akkadian records start noticing the slow ingress of a people variously described as "Apiru" (Egyptian) or "Habiru" (Akkadian) into grazing country on the outskirts of arable land in Palestine from the 16C BCE. Apparently they came from lands further north and east. They were wandering herders, and a nuisance because they stole livestock. If these can be identified with the Hebrews, there is no sense of any sort of military conquest. They were simply taking advantage of local conditions - local kings were often uninterested in driving them away, unless they encroached too much. What can be said is that in the records of none of the great powers to east, (Akkad) south (Egypt) or north (The Hittite Empire), was there any mention of a conquest, with cities falling and being taken over. And these powers were interested in Palestine. Palestinian rulers lived by cautiously playing the great powers off against one another, paying tribute when required, formally submitting when necessary. They were always keenly observed, and their affairs reported on. Yet there's no mention of a conquest, nor of an exodus. Argument from silence is always weak in history, above all in the most ancient of history. Nevertheless, it seems very strange indeed that no mention at all of such events should be found. Stranger still that the only mention of people who could be identified with the Hebrews should present them as so much less heroic than their own history, which was orally transmitted until at least the eighth century. Or is it strange? I am reminded of "The Song of Roland", in which we are informed that a mighty Christian army under Charlemagne fought the Moors and did great execution, but on its retreat its rearguard was cut off and died heroically. The returning Charlemagne wiped out the heathens, etcetera. Actually, it appears that what happened was that a minor, and rather unsuccessful raid on the Basques, who were fellow-Christians (but when did that ever hinder a Christian king with eyes for other people's goods?) was bushwhacked in its turn in a Pyreneean pass. This got blown out to ludicrous proportions by the bards, who made of it a heroic legend. Well, a people need heroes. The Hebrews were a people, and they had some four or five centuries at least to make them some.

Moses said:

Robert Byers said: Although this is not about origin issues I must interrupt. Jericho is a great piece of evidence for biblical inerrancy. The walls were found just as they should be. laying across. Not crumbled like every other old city but showing a dramatic event was the origin of their falling. The desperate attempt to say its earthquakes or dates are wrong is just incompetent workmanship. The walss speak for themselves. Just as the bible said.

No, the walls don't speak for the Biblical story. Jericho fell over 150 years before Joshua. It had been a thriving city, but after conquest it was mostly abandoned and only a small settlement in the ruins was there during the time of Joshua. What the bible does is steal someone else's event/history and makes it it's own. Like the stolen "flood." Like the two separate creation stories blended together in Genesis. Anyway, that's as far as I'll go because anyone gullible enough to believe the bible is "inerrant," despite it's 1,400 different variations organized in numerous error families, isn't worth arguing with. One of the things I ran into when I was still a Christian, in a very large church, is that even the modern bibles are different. And the Catholic bible is nothing like any of my seven Protestant bibles. And my seven Protestant bibles don't all agree with each other with some translations that are so different that you cannot, in any reasonable manner, get the same meaning as is put forth in the other translation. So if the bibles themselves don't agree. How can someone like you claim inerrancy? Your text doesn't agree with itself as translated by many scholarly groups. All of whom are/were far more educated in Greek, Latin and Aramaic than you.

What the bible does is steal someone else’s event/history and makes it it’s own. Like the stolen “flood.” Like the two separate creation stories blended together in Genesis.

Byers reveals himself not only to be an ignoramus and a liar, but a raging bigot to boot.

I'm happy enough for him to expose his overwheening dementia here for all to see, but his crude misogeny and xenophobia is too much to stomach. BCE and CE ("before common era" and "common era" respectively) are and have been for decades the normal shorthand in scholarly historical work, and are accepted everywhere. As for his aspersions on Dame Kathleen Kenyon, one of the most respected of archeologists, never was ignorant malice so incompetently expressed, yet never was it so blatant.

Christian, indeed! If I didn't know some actual real Christians, Byers would be enough to start me on a career of burning down churches.

Bible believing Christians see Jericho as a great case for biblical inerrancy

Your wrong

Robert Byers said: First the term BCE is immoral and illegal.

One should not post when in a red mist of outrage. Of course I meant "misogyny".

Robert wrote:

"Just as the walls of evolution shall also come crashing down. Heads up."

Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo!.

No, no, I mean Jericho, Jericho, Jericho.

Better watch out Robert, if the wallls of evolution do any falling, it will be on your head.

Robert Byers said: Your wrong. 150 years being deduced from a pile of rubble is a desperate attempt of those hostile to the accuracy of scripture. The facts are clear. The bible is a witness and gives account that the walls of this city fell without human help just as the Hebrews were invading. the ruins show fallen flat walls. Unlike most other ancient cities whose walls are smashed by man or fire or time. In fact they try to say the walls fell from earthquakes because its so unique. God did it in fact. Jericho is so clearly evidence of biblical accuracy that its fantastic. Any attempt to switch around dates must be dismissed as surely such details can't be found from pottery sherds or anything else. Bible believing Christians see Jericho as a great case for biblical inerrancy and the bad guys desperately grasping at sherds(I mean straws).

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: First the term BCE is immoral and illegal.

"Immoral" is just an opinion. Please provide a proper citation for "BCE" being illegal.

Dale Husband said:

Robert Byers said: Your wrong. 150 years being deduced from a pile of rubble is a desperate attempt of those hostile to the accuracy of scripture. The facts are clear. The bible is a witness and gives account that the walls of this city fell without human help just as the Hebrews were invading. the ruins show fallen flat walls. Unlike most other ancient cities whose walls are smashed by man or fire or time. In fact they try to say the walls fell from earthquakes because its so unique. God did it in fact. Jericho is so clearly evidence of biblical accuracy that its fantastic. Any attempt to switch around dates must be dismissed as surely such details can't be found from pottery sherds or anything else. Bible believing Christians see Jericho as a great case for biblical inerrancy and the bad guys desperately grasping at sherds(I mean straws).

You are such a joke! Have you actually been to Jericho to verify the claims about the city in ancient times? If not, then your word (and the Bible's) is no better than anyone else's.

For everyone.
Its off topic for origins but framework matters.
Its the whole purpose of weights and measures to bring unity to aid in inderstanding things.
We have long history/precedent, of using BC/AD and a short but important history of respecting and submitting to the peoples will on affairs of their home.
To change BC to BCE, laying aside motivations, is a clear attempt to revoke history, life and scholarship, and plain respect for a peoples identity and desires and decisionmaking.
There is no moral or legal or any other authority of any elements in the land to quitly or loudly overthrow our defining our civilization by the birth etc of Jesus Christ.
if they don't like then they should go to a land where this is not done.
Finally since the numbers don't change then in effect it still is for the whole world the birth of Christ that focuses time measurement for affairs of men.
The only way to truly remedy this is to make someone else's birthday the point of focus. Why not offer up Darwin's birthday?
Now if you suggest mine perhaps I can be persuaded.
Merry Byers to everyone .

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. Which is it moron? Either historical science cannot make predictions about past events as you claimed and you are lying again, or you were wrong when you claimed that this could not be done and now you must admit that evolution as an historical science is valid. You can't have it both ways dude. At least try to keep your lies consistent.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: First the term BCE is immoral and illegal.

"Immoral" is just an opinion. Please provide a proper citation for "BCE" being illegal.

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. These elements are striving to replace, quietly, our time measurement , with anti-Christian and anti-nationalist and anti-democratic motives, and make it the WAY they want. Its not just a important immoral thing but it is for all intents a illegal thing. Many things not on the books are treated as if they are illegal things.

Robert Byers said: First the term BCE is immoral and illegal.

Its BC. This is our historic measure and small circles in certain areas have no authority to change it as if the people in a nation don't matter. Also i see it as a clear attack upon christian foundations in the western world. BC has precedence and BCE is a invader. Please respect the moral and legal rights of man. Those who want BCE should get their countries.

its so wonderfully clear that the ruins of Jericho confirm a great event in the bible. remember the unique nature of these fallen walls. Always ancient city walls are crumbled and crushed. Yet here they lie largely flat. In fact earthquakes are invoked to explain it. Dating these things by pottery is silly. This woman was incompetent to even try to set month and day to the fallen walls. its fair to accuse that she wanted to steer away from biblical accuracy. The bible tells what happened and the ruins confirm it. other data is a poor substitute for the obvious fallen walls speaking.

Robert Byers said:

Moses said:

Robert Byers said: Although this is not about origin issues I must interrupt. Jericho is a great piece of evidence for biblical inerrancy. The walls were found just as they should be. laying across. Not crumbled like every other old city but showing a dramatic event was the origin of their falling. The desperate attempt to say its earthquakes or dates are wrong is just incompetent workmanship. The walss speak for themselves. Just as the bible said.

No, the walls don't speak for the Biblical story. Jericho fell over 150 years before Joshua. It had been a thriving city, but after conquest it was mostly abandoned and only a small settlement in the ruins was there during the time of Joshua. What the bible does is steal someone else's event/history and makes it it's own. Like the stolen "flood." Like the two separate creation stories blended together in Genesis. Anyway, that's as far as I'll go because anyone gullible enough to believe the bible is "inerrant," despite it's 1,400 different variations organized in numerous error families, isn't worth arguing with. One of the things I ran into when I was still a Christian, in a very large church, is that even the modern bibles are different. And the Catholic bible is nothing like any of my seven Protestant bibles. And my seven Protestant bibles don't all agree with each other with some translations that are so different that you cannot, in any reasonable manner, get the same meaning as is put forth in the other translation. So if the bibles themselves don't agree. How can someone like you claim inerrancy? Your text doesn't agree with itself as translated by many scholarly groups. All of whom are/were far more educated in Greek, Latin and Aramaic than you.

Your wrong. 150 years being deduced from a pile of rubble is a desperate attempt of those hostile to the accuracy of scripture. The facts are clear. The bible is a witness and gives account that the walls of this city fell without human help just as the Hebrews were invading. the ruins show fallen flat walls. Unlike most other ancient cities whose walls are smashed by man or fire or time. In fact they try to say the walls fell from earthquakes because its so unique. God did it in fact. Jericho is so clearly evidence of biblical accuracy that its fantastic. Any attempt to switch around dates must be dismissed as surely such details can't be found from pottery sherds or anything else. Bible believing Christians see Jericho as a great case for biblical inerrancy and the bad guys desperately grasping at sherds(I mean straws).

Robert Byers said: Dating these things by pottery is silly. This woman was incompetent to even try to set month and day to the fallen walls.

Robert Byers said: 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.

Its not just a important immoral thing but it is for all intents a illegal thing. Many things not on the books are treated as if they are illegal things.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: First the term BCE is immoral and illegal.

"Immoral" is just an opinion. Please provide a proper citation for "BCE" being illegal.

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. These elements are striving to replace, quietly, our time measurement , with anti-Christian and anti-nationalist and anti-democratic motives, and make it the WAY they want. Its not just a important immoral thing but it is for all intents a illegal thing. Many things not on the books are treated as if they are illegal things.

You've watched Gilbert & Sullivan's _The Mikado_ too many times. Since you asserted that using the term "BCE" is illegal, I want a cite from a legal code that supports your assertion. And to repeat, a judgment that the usage is immoral is just your opinion and carries no weight. Please cite an actual law about "BCE" or withdraw your claim.

sylvilagus said:

Robert Byers said: Dating these things by pottery is silly. This woman was incompetent to even try to set month and day to the fallen walls.

Why is it silly? How do you know this? What evidence do you have that this dating technique is inadequate? Please, I sincerely need to know the truth of this... where can I find the scientific evidence to support this? Or are just making it all up as the others are saying ;)

I used to enjoy science discussion on usenet back in the 90s. I blame Ed Conrad and his lump of coal for driving the scientists away, and ruining it all.

Robert, you are a bigoted idiot: illegal is not the same as immoral. Illegal means against the law, and there is no country that legally prohibits the use of BCE in place of BC.

The only reason why you say that it's silly to date by pottery shards is because you are physically incapable of providing any shred of evidence to support any of your bigoted babbling and ranting.

Robert wrote:

"Its in this case a poor attempt to hide the fantastic evidence of Jericho’s walls falling as the bible said. (Probably broke a lot of pottery)."

But Robert, that is historical science. You know we can't make predictions based on historical science, you said so yourself. Therefore, no one could have predicted that the walls would be found or what they would look like. Therefore, you are just making stuff up again. Please go away and stay there.

Robert Byers said:

sylvilagus said:

Robert Byers said: Dating these things by pottery is silly. This woman was incompetent to even try to set month and day to the fallen walls.

Why is it silly? How do you know this? What evidence do you have that this dating technique is inadequate? Please, I sincerely need to know the truth of this... where can I find the scientific evidence to support this? Or are just making it all up as the others are saying ;)

The word illegal is the right concept if not of coarse actually on the books as illegal. In robbing a people of their identity and history and freedom by this BCE term it really is illegal. It feels right as a word. Pottery is clearly a silly idea to date things down to mere centuries/years. its a dumb concept from the 19th century. They would have to show pottery couldn't change in a sudden fit over the weekend but only ever indicate over poor cross referencing of pottery sherds. Its in this case a poor attempt to hide the fantastic evidence of Jericho's walls falling as the bible said. (Probably broke a lot of pottery)

"Holy crap, this weasel loves this ball!"

Sylvilagus, Byers is a YEC because he's a Biblical literalist, or so he says. Anyone who can believe that Genesis is a literally factual account of the beginning of the Universe, the Earth and life simply doesn't know or care what evidence is, ipso facto, but there is worse. Genesis is but one aspect of an entire world-view. For Byers' public persona, the one that posts here, (and I am still not convinced that he actually believes the nonsense he writes) external reality is at best negotiable, and in any aspect that clashes with his obsessions, entirely deniable.

Radiographic dating? Pottery dating? B.C. or BCE? Speed of light? Stratigraphy? Erosion or sedimentation rates? Co-incidence of genetics, DNA and morphology? Perfect hierarchical nesting? Biogeography? Paleontology? Tectonics? Speed of continental drift? Extinctions, plural? You name it. Any inconvenient fact, any contrary piece of evidence whatsoever - he denies it all. It simply doesn't exist, in Byers' universe. He has banished all of it from his sight.

To achieve that state of perfect oblivion, supreme ignorance, total self-satisfaction, utter complacency, requires a hermetically sealed mind. There's no way in. For the Byers persona, (which, for convenience, I shall henceforth call "Byers") truth consists of whatever he says it is, evidence is anything he considers authoritative, including his own opinion, and proof consists of reiteration.

Oh, you can work away at the obvious inconsistencies, attempting to pry open a crack. But that requires Byers to recognise inconsistency, which is to say, to be open to some aspect of reality. He isn't. Internal consistency is merely another aspect of reality that he denies. Place two mutually inconsistent statements that he has made before him, and he will simply ignore them, or to put it another way, will believe both alternately, as the nonce requires.

For anyone who actually values rationality, this mindset is impossible to comprehend; and this is its secret, dreadful strength. It isn't rational, and therefore is not susceptible to rational enquiry.

There's no point arguing with Byers. He can't be engaged. Laugh at him, if you can. Personally, I find that difficult. Byers is a freak show, and in all freak shows there are aspects of mocking the afflicted, a sick horror and, yes, fear. How many of him are out there? How many cockroaches scuttle about under the floorboards of this civilisation?

We don't know. We can only hope not many. They are severally and mutually opposed, of course. They would as cheerfully turn on each other as they would destroy the Enlightenment itself. But that would be small comfort, if it ever happened.

I can only urge ignoring Byers. I have been, lately. I shall do so, henceforth.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: First the term BCE is immoral and illegal.

"Immoral" is just an opinion. Please provide a proper citation for "BCE" being illegal.

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. These elements are striving to replace, quietly, our time measurement , with anti-Christian and anti-nationalist and anti-democratic motives, and make it the WAY they want. Its not just a important immoral thing but it is for all intents a illegal thing. Many things not on the books are treated as if they are illegal things.

You've watched Gilbert & Sullivan's _The Mikado_ too many times. Since you asserted that using the term "BCE" is illegal, I want a cite from a legal code that supports your assertion. And to repeat, a judgment that the usage is immoral is just your opinion and carries no weight. Please cite an actual law about "BCE" or withdraw your claim.

Its not on the books but as I said its illegal because its immoral. i put it right that its such a great robbery of a peoples identity and history that for all intents it is illegal. It seems to me the right word.

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.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: First the term BCE is immoral and illegal.

"Immoral" is just an opinion. Please provide a proper citation for "BCE" being illegal.

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. These elements are striving to replace, quietly, our time measurement , with anti-Christian and anti-nationalist and anti-democratic motives, and make it the WAY they want. Its not just a important immoral thing but it is for all intents a illegal thing. Many things not on the books are treated as if they are illegal things.

Oops. Meant to say "immoral" in the first paragraph above. Sorry about that.

Dave Luckett said: Sylvilagus, Byers is a YEC because he's a Biblical literalist, or so he says. Anyone who can believe that Genesis is a literally factual account of the beginning of the Universe, the Earth and life simply doesn't know or care what evidence is, ipso facto, but there is worse. Genesis is but one aspect of an entire world-view. For Byers' public persona, the one that posts here, (and I am still not convinced that he actually believes the nonsense he writes) external reality is at best negotiable, and in any aspect that clashes with his obsessions, entirely deniable. Radiographic dating? Pottery dating? B.C. or BCE? Speed of light? Stratigraphy? Erosion or sedimentation rates? Co-incidence of genetics, DNA and morphology? Perfect hierarchical nesting? Biogeography? Paleontology? Tectonics? Speed of continental drift? Extinctions, plural? You name it. Any inconvenient fact, any contrary piece of evidence whatsoever - he denies it all. It simply doesn't exist, in Byers' universe. He has banished all of it from his sight. To achieve that state of perfect oblivion, supreme ignorance, total self-satisfaction, utter complacency, requires a hermetically sealed mind. There's no way in. For the Byers persona, (which, for convenience, I shall henceforth call "Byers") truth consists of whatever he says it is, evidence is anything he considers authoritative, including his own opinion, and proof consists of reiteration. Oh, you can work away at the obvious inconsistencies, attempting to pry open a crack. But that requires Byers to recognise inconsistency, which is to say, to be open to some aspect of reality. He isn't. Internal consistency is merely another aspect of reality that he denies. Place two mutually inconsistent statements that he has made before him, and he will simply ignore them, or to put it another way, will believe both alternately, as the nonce requires. For anyone who actually values rationality, this mindset is impossible to comprehend; and this is its secret, dreadful strength. It isn't rational, and therefore is not susceptible to rational enquiry. There's no point arguing with Byers. He can't be engaged. Laugh at him, if you can. Personally, I find that difficult. Byers is a freak show, and in all freak shows there are aspects of mocking the afflicted, a sick horror and, yes, fear. How many of him are out there? How many cockroaches scuttle about under the floorboards of this civilisation? We don't know. We can only hope not many. They are severally and mutually opposed, of course. They would as cheerfully turn on each other as they would destroy the Enlightenment itself. But that would be small comfort, if it ever happened. I can only urge ignoring Byers. I have been, lately. I shall do so, henceforth.

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.

is (Byers) really a twelve year old or really mentally unstable, or maybe both?

ben said:

is (Byers) really a twelve year old or really mentally unstable, or maybe both?

I think he seems a lot like Larry Farfarman after a few (more) sharp blows to the head.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: First the term BCE is immoral and illegal.

"Immoral" is just an opinion. Please provide a proper citation for "BCE" being illegal.

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. These elements are striving to replace, quietly, our time measurement , with anti-Christian and anti-nationalist and anti-democratic motives, and make it the WAY they want. Its not just a important immoral thing but it is for all intents a illegal thing. Many things not on the books are treated as if they are illegal things.

You've watched Gilbert & Sullivan's _The Mikado_ too many times. Since you asserted that using the term "BCE" is illegal, I want a cite from a legal code that supports your assertion. And to repeat, a judgment that the usage is immoral is just your opinion and carries no weight. Please cite an actual law about "BCE" or withdraw your claim.

Its not on the books but as I said its illegal because its immoral. i put it right that its such a great robbery of a peoples identity and history that for all intents it is illegal. It seems to me the right word.

Robert....I really hate to break this to you, but you have just put your finger on a major reason why most people don't like theocracy as type of government. In a theocracy, sin (e.g. immorality) *is* illegal. Fortunately for you, neither Canada nor the USA is a theocracy. The reason this is fortunate is because the odds are quite great that the theocrats wouldn't be *your* theocrats and you would get the short end of the stick. I suggest that you take a very close look at Iran, and then be very careful what you wish for, lest you get it. In the mean time, since there are no laws on the books that you know of that make the use of BCE illegal, I'd like to see you withdraw your claim that the usage is illegal (since we both know that it isn't).

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.