can you do this....

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14851

There are still people who believe in a flat Earth as well.
Many even believe the THEORY of evolution. Some people you simply cannot make see the truth.

Originally posted by Drimachus
There are still people who believe in a flat Earth as well.
Many even believe the THEORY of evolution. Some people you simply cannot make see the truth.

Again and again I see the ignorance of christian fundamentalists.

You use the word 'theory' as if it meant 'guesswork', It is not, hence the ignorance. Theory in science context (and evolution is a science, religion is not) is a scientific word meaning 'the best explanatione there is right now'.

Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)

"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity."

If you equalize 'theory' with 'guesswork' then you belong to the anti-science group, not wanting to understand science. Perhaps you are anti-science but then you should not use scientific words, words like 'theory', not knowing what it is.

Originally posted by Drimachus
The old city of Tyre (not the new one in a different location!) was laid siege to by Nebuchadnezzar. He failed to take the main fortress town which was, in effect, offshore. Years later Alexander the Great finished the job. He had his army literally scrape the rock bare and built a means of getting his siege engines to the fortified city. I've seen a photo ...[text shortened]... they are on the back of a whale. It's all in the history books - you only have to look it up.

Have you looked at Google Maps? There is still a city there! N. didn't take the city, and the city still stood after Alexander. Read your history.

and the city still stood after Alexander.

It certainly did not. Alexander won.

.


If you equalize 'theory' with 'guesswork' then you belong to the anti-science group, not wanting to understand science. Perhaps you are anti-science but then you should not use scientific words, words like 'theory', not knowing what it is.

I am not anti-science but a theory is a premise that needs to be tested. If, once tested, it proves to be true then it ceaes to be a theory.
An ancient scientist (I forget which one) put a bell jar over a piece of meat to prove his theory about spontanaeus life. Maggots appeared and he thought his theory was proved. Science moves on - in recent years scientists have moved on from the steady-state theory to the big bang theory. Neither of which satisfies the question of where it all started.
Science is great - but is not infallible.

Originally posted by Drimachus
It certainly did not. Alexander won.

Still not a true prophecy.

Why do you delete the Originally posted by FabianFnas part of the quoting? Why do you anonymize those you are commenting?

There is still a city there!

You didn't read my posting did you? The present Tyre is NOT where the original city stood. Do pay more attention to what you read.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Still not a true prophecy.

Why do you delete the Originally posted by FabianFnas part of the quoting? Why do you anonymize those you are commenting?

How do you define a prophecy then?

Sorry about the deletion of named posters - I was over-editing to save space not noticing it made trhe message semi-anonymous!

Originally posted by Drimachus
It certainly did not. Alexander won.

Yes, Alexander took the city. But the city remained nonetheless. If the city had been destroyed by Alexander, then there would have been no city for Antigonus to capture 18 years later. Further, contrary to your purported prophesy, it was not Nebuchadnezzar that took the city. Your purported prophecy is wrong on at least two counts.

Originally posted by Drimachus
How do you define a prophecy then?

"The English word "prophecy" (noun) in the sense of "function of a prophet" appeared in Europe from about 1225, from Old French profecie (12th century), and from Late Latin prophetia, Greek prophetia "gift of interpreting the will of the gods.

...

Maimonides in his work, The Guide for the Perplexed, outlines twelve modes of prophecy[3] from lesser to greater degree of clarity:

1. Inspired actions
2. Inspired words
3. Allegorical dream revelations
4. Auditory dream revelations
5. Audiovisual dream revelations/human speaker
6. Audiovisual dream revelations/angelic speaker
7. Audiovisual dream revelations/Divine speaker
8. Allegorical waking vision
9. Auditory waking revelation
10. Audiovisual waking revelation/human speaker
11. Audiovisual waking revelation/angelic speaker
12. Audiovisual waking revelation/Divine speaker (that refers implicitly to Moses)

...

Whitcomb in The Magician's Companion observes,

One point to remember is that the probability of an event changes as soon as a prophecy (or divination) exists. . . . The accuracy or outcome of any prophecy is altered by the desires and attachments of the seer and those who hear the prophecy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy

This echoes, more or less, my views on prophecy:

"A prophet is generally thought of as one who speaks of things before they come into being; as such, he must possess a fundamental knowledge that is really akin to full consciousness itself.

Consciousness in this case is not merely the momentary awareness of random passing experience, nor is it an automatically conditioned form of knowing that may be able to "predict" events within a set mechanical framework. Rather, consciousness - knowing altogether - is the fundamental ground of being, unrestricted by cultural considerations and the limitations of linear, historical patterns of thought.

Actions or statements that issue from this level of being may appear prophetic only within the context of a culture or mentality that has deviated or regressed from the open, timeless condition of being itself; in this respect, being and consciousness, if not synonymous, are mutually defining terms.

A prophet, then, does not look forward in time so much as express that which is timeless."
http://www.tortuga.com/college/transformative/chapter8_1.html

Originally posted by Drimachus
You didn't read my posting did you? The present Tyre is NOT where the original city stood. Do pay more attention to what you read.

Sure it is. Ancient Tyre consisted of both the island and part of the mainland. Seriously, you should research this stuff before you make these sorts of claims. Further, the part of the city on the island stood after Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Antigonus, and others. Look, you don't know what you're talking about, but I'll humor you. Cite me one source from a peer-reviewed archeological journal that supports your contention and we'll go from there.

Originally posted by bbarr
[ Look, you don't know what you're talking about, but I'll humor you. Cite me one source from a peer-reviewed archeological journal that supports your contention and we'll go from there.[/b]

A good start would be archaeologist Dr. Werner Keller's tome "The Bible as History Revised". It isn't me who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
[.


See Thread 96558 from page 5 and onwards, see our friend Henry23 be proven wrong in his same belief as yours, that every prophecy in the bible is right.[/b]

I've just read from page 5 of this thread I have to say that the patience of Henry23 has impressed me and in no way is he "refuted".

Originally posted by Drimachus
A good start would be archaeologist Dr. Werner Keller's tome "The Bible as History Revised". It isn't me who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Werner Keller was not a Ph.D, nor an archaeologist. He was a journalist. Further, this source is not peer-reviewed, but apology masquerading as archaeology (the reviews of this book by actual archaeologists agree that it is nonsense) . Finally, nothing I've found in the sections of Keller's book available online supports your contention that Tyre ceased to be after Alexander's conquest of it. Contrary to your purported prophesy, it was not Nebuchadnezzar that destroyed Tyre. Tyre continued on after Alexander, and was sacked a few times after Alexander's siege. Tyre remained even up until 1291, and that is if you bizarrely think that the 'Tyre' refers solely to the island, which is doesn't. Your view is bunk, as is your source. So, again, give me peer-reviewed archaeological evidence of your contention.