Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2013, 12:28 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
Quote:Ok, you need to be explained what the argument from silence fallacy is, and what it isn't.

The biggest problem with the argument from silence is that when used by theistic fools they cannot comprehend what the word "evidence" means.

Evidence does not mean proof. Taking Kitchen's mantra to the extreme would mean that no one could ever publish any paper because there would be no way to determine if ALL the evidence on a particular subject were known. By definition, one cannot know what one does not know. This is why science is always re-evaluating itself in the light of new evidence.

The fact that there is no evidence for any massive migration in the Late Bronze Age from Egypt to Canaan is, in fact, evidence that such a migration did not happen. It is not proof that it did not happen - and the word is rarely used by archaeologists...at least not well-trained ones...because the possibility remains that the next shovel in the ground may turn up a Late Bronze Age "Hebrew" cemetery in Sinai and if such a discovery is made it would re-write the history books. Pending that discovery, the absence of any evidence FOR the exodus is evidence that it did not happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Minimalist's post
04-10-2013, 03:38 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(04-10-2013 12:28 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Ok, you need to be explained what the argument from silence fallacy is, and what it isn't.

The biggest problem with the argument from silence is that when used by theistic fools they cannot comprehend what the word "evidence" means.

Evidence does not mean proof. Taking Kitchen's mantra to the extreme would mean that no one could ever publish any paper because there would be no way to determine if ALL the evidence on a particular subject were known. By definition, one cannot know what one does not know. This is why science is always re-evaluating itself in the light of new evidence.

The fact that there is no evidence for any massive migration in the Late Bronze Age from Egypt to Canaan is, in fact, evidence that such a migration did not happen. It is not proof that it did not happen - and the word is rarely used by archaeologists...at least not well-trained ones...because the possibility remains that the next shovel in the ground may turn up a Late Bronze Age "Hebrew" cemetery in Sinai and if such a discovery is made it would re-write the history books. Pending that discovery, the absence of any evidence FOR the exodus is evidence that it did not happen.

Or, more tersely, the absence of evidence that should be there is evidence of absence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-10-2013, 06:50 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(04-10-2013 12:28 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Ok, you need to be explained what the argument from silence fallacy is, and what it isn't.

The biggest problem with the argument from silence is that when used by theistic fools they cannot comprehend what the word "evidence" means.

Evidence does not mean proof. Taking Kitchen's mantra to the extreme would mean that no one could ever publish any paper because there would be no way to determine if ALL the evidence on a particular subject were known. By definition, one cannot know what one does not know. This is why science is always re-evaluating itself in the light of new evidence.

The fact that there is no evidence for any massive migration in the Late Bronze Age from Egypt to Canaan is, in fact, evidence that such a migration did not happen. It is not proof that it did not happen - and the word is rarely used by archaeologists...at least not well-trained ones...because the possibility remains that the next shovel in the ground may turn up a Late Bronze Age "Hebrew" cemetery in Sinai and if such a discovery is made it would re-write the history books. Pending that discovery, the absence of any evidence FOR the exodus is evidence that it did not happen.
Why would you be looking for evidence of a migration if you did not have some indication that it might have happened. That indication however slight is evidence in the sense that you are using the word. Certain facts which indicate that the event happened which you would like to confirm by finding additional archaeological evidence. I deny that there is no archaeological evidence. I provided some in previous posts which you happily ignored.

There is strong evidence found at Jabal al-Lawz.
Notice this from Wikipedia
Claims have been made by some writers such as Bob Cornuke, Ron Wyatt and Lennart Moller that this is the real biblical Mount Sinai. Archeological evidence of this includes the remains of an altar, 12 pillars with Hebrew inscriptions and several wells at the site of an encampment at the base of the mountain.[3][4]

See that word "evidence" . That is the word I use in the same sense that you do. I never said proof.

But for the sake of the argument, let us suppose that there is no archaeological evidence. What does this prove? It proves nothing. Your statement that a lack of archaeological evidence is evidence that something did not happen is utterly absurd. Very little of Archaeology is done in a vacuum. It is all done referencing historical texts of one kind of another. But let us suppose that a completely new discovery was made about a civilisation or event which never had been written about and the only thing known about it was some vague tale from the goat herders in a nearby village. From this great discovery a huge amount was learned about peoples and events.

Does this mean that before the discovery the lack of evidence was evidence that it did not happen. That is ridiculous. The tale of the tribesmen is evidence, however slight, that it happened. It is the myth which caused you to look for the archaeological evidence in the first place. So you already had some small piece of evidence before you even started digging. Otherwise why would you go to the trouble of bending your back to start digging?

The reason that thousands of man hours have been spent looking for archaeological evidence of the Exodus is because there is already VERY strong evidence of other kinds which indicate that it happened.

The nation of Israel was not just a little tribal village. It was a great nation. How could the whole nation have believed in the Exodus if it did not happen? It is on the scale of convincing the entire American nation that the War of Independence actually happened if it did not in fact it did not happen.

So how many people here say "The War of Independence did not happen because there is no archaeological evidence for it" ? Nobody. That would be absurd. Everybody knows it happened. The idea of looking for archaeological evidence to prove it does not even occur to people. We might look for archaeology to add in some interesting details. But if we could not find some buried guns or something it would still not even begin to occur to us to question that it happened. Why not? Because it is written in our records, histories and chronicles of these events. Even relatively small events like the British raid on Danbury in April of 1777 are not doubted because of the records of history, not because of the evidence of archaeology.

What people do not understand is that the Book of Chronicles is an official history book of the nation of Israel. A chronicle is a historical account of facts and events ranged in chronological order, as in a time line. To suggest that the entire nation would accept the Book of Chronicles as an accurate record of events of the nation if indeed a large sweeping event which it records like the Exodus are a complete fabrication is a conspiracy theory almost beyond parallel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 06:59 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
Quote:Why would you be looking for evidence of a migration if you did not have some indication that it might have happened.


Huh


The bible makes claims about this migration. Eager young Israeli archaeologists set out to find the evidence. They found NOTHING. It did not happen.

Jabal al-Lawz is the latest xtian wet dream. The latest in a long stream of such wet dreams because you can assign an event that did not happen anywhere the fuck you want. Let me give you a little hint. Anything that Wyatt's name is attached to should be ignored. The man was a fraud. Cornulke is no better and Moller is a professor of environmental medicine.

Give it up with these shitheads already.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
04-10-2013, 07:11 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(04-10-2013 07:17 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 04:39 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The Israelites did not make or dispose of anything which is why I pointed out the miraculous preservation of their clothes and footware throughout the 40 year period.

Yer a fucking poopyhead. Tongue

I have one over-arching theological complaint - god.

Theists want to proclaim that god can do anything, it follows to reason - as much as anything can, in theology - that "evidence for god" is both ludicrous and unnecessary. Book says "I Am that I am," not god is, therefore I am. In terms of theology, this reduces to -

I am the evidence for god.

The only reason I can figure that theists refer to these supposed "concrete examples" is that they are weak in their faith. They need other people to share in their delusions.

And yes, I mean delusion. The gospel that does not shame me is acceptance of the fact that neither you - nor anyone - can love my Gwynnies like I love my Gwynnies.

There's faith. Fuck death. I walk through the valley without fear in the shadow of life - which would eat me. Big Grin
Just because you have never witnessed a miracle does not mean that miracles do not happen. The spectacular miracle at Fatima is recorded history. Tens of thousands of witnesses and even skeptics testified to the Miracle of the Sun.
So too, millions of Israelites testified and witnessed to the incredible miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea. Accounts of witnesses are accepted in a court of law as evidence for a crime; so do logs and records and other documentary evidence. But you REFUSE to admit the accounts of those who have witnessed and recorded in logs and chronicles these incredible miracles. Can't you see your double standard here.

This is the attitude of doubting Thomas who said "Unless I can put my finger in the hole in his side, I WILL NOT BELIEVE" whereas Christ upbraided them for their lack of belief because they had not believed the testimony of the witnesses.

Your problem is not the lack of evidence. Your problem is your REFUSAL to believe. Like doubting Thomas you have resolved in your mind "I WILL NOT BELIEVE"

As St Thomas Aquinas one of the great thinkers in the last 1000 years said
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” - St Thomas Aquinas

I might rearrange that a little to illustrate a point.
"To one who has faith, no evidence is necessary. To one without faith, no evidence is adequate". - Excubitor

To witness a miracle is proof that it happened. To hear the testimony of the witness and read the records of the event is evidence that it happened.
I believe by faith with evidence.
whereas you say
"I do not believe despite the evidence"

Who then is demonstrating common sense? Who then is approved before Christ at the judgement?

On the day of judgement when you stand before the living God to be judged you will have your proof. The option to choose whether to believe or not believe will be completely removed on that day, and on that day your knee will bow before the living God and his Christ.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 07:21 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(04-10-2013 10:08 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 04:39 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Saying that something did not happen because there is no archaeological evidence for it is an argument from silence. It proves nothing and disproves nothing.

Ok, you need to be explained what the argument from silence fallacy is, and what it isn't.

Example...

You open the door of a room which is in complete darkness and you call out "Hey, is anybody in here? " . If you conclude that there is nobody in the room because you didn't get an answer, you are making an argument from silence. And it is a fallacy because somebody can be in the room but chose not to answer.

On the other hand if you turn on the light in the room and look around and not see anybody and then conclude there is nobody in the room then that is not an argument from silence, that is a fucking argument from evidence and that is not a fallacy.

In the case of exodus , not finding any evidence of it is perhaps not 100% conclusive proof that it didn't happen , but the default position is: if there is no evidence that it happened - it fuckin' didn't happen.

But, if you point to the bible as a proof that it did happen, that IS a fallacy.
And it's called argument from authority .

And that shit doesn't fly here.
The analogy is ridiculous. More likely the analogy is.
Your friend tells you that you can find a person in a certain room in a certain house.
So you go to the house and open the door of a room which is in complete darkness and you call out "Hey, is anybody in here? " . The fact that nobody answers and even when you switch on the light you cannot see anybody there and the room is empty of furniture you therefore conclude that the person was never in the room because there is no evidence that he was ever in the room.

Of course this is an absurd conclusion to come to. The lack of physical evidence of his presence remaining in the room is inconsequential compared to the testimony of your friend that he was there at some time in the past.

So we see from this demonstration that the lack of physical evidence proves absolutely nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 07:44 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(04-10-2013 06:50 PM)excubitor Wrote:  There is strong evidence found at Jabal al-Lawz.
Notice this from Wikipedia
Claims have been made by some writers such as Bob Cornuke, Ron Wyatt and Lennart Moller that this is the real biblical Mount Sinai. Archeological evidence of this includes the remains of an altar, 12 pillars with Hebrew inscriptions and several wells at the site of an encampment at the base of the mountain.[3][4]

See that word "evidence" . That is the word I use in the same sense that you do. I never said proof.

The reason that thousands of man hours have been spent looking for archaeological evidence of the Exodus is because there is already VERY strong evidence of other kinds which indicate that it happened.

The nation of Israel was not just a little tribal village. It was a great nation. How could the whole nation have believed in the Exodus if it did not happen?

Because the priests cooked up a national story, to unify the nation post Exile, and the ENTIRE nation, was mostly illiterate. Millions of people believe in Islam. Is he saying THAT makes Islam correct ? Tongue

Every scholar knows there were, at various times, communities of Jews in many places in Egypt, (such as Elaphantine). An altar with Hebrew inscriptions is no evidence of any "Exodus". Ron Wyatt was no archaeologist. He a dabbling amateur, who refused to provide evidence when asked. A charlatan of the first order.

VERY strong evidence... really. I wonder if he ever plans to tell us what the VERY strong evidence actually is ? What a joke.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 07:51 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(04-10-2013 09:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 04:39 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The Israelites did not make or dispose of anything which is why I pointed out the miraculous preservation of their clothes and footware throughout the 40 year period. They had no need to make anything because nothing wore out and because nothing wore out they had no need to make anything.

Anything? Not one person ever forgot anything? Not one person ever broke anything? Not one person ever left behind anything?
There is no evidence that the Israelites left anything behind in the wilderness. There is no evidence that if they had left anything behind in the wilderness that it should still be there after over 3000 years

(04-10-2013 09:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Thousands upon thousands of people were born during those 40 years, no? Where did their clothes and goods come from?
Deaths must have equaled births and clothes were handed down as children grew.

(04-10-2013 09:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 04:39 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The Israelites were commanded to defecate outside the camp and to bury their excrement.

Ah! I guess excrement doesn't count as part of anything.
You know that millions of people camped in the same vicinity for months and burying all the concomitant shit would, in fact, constitute evidence? You realize this would entail several litres of waste per person per day?
There is no evidence that excrement buried in sand 3500 years ago should remain today to be excavated.


(04-10-2013 09:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 04:39 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Whether or not bones should survive all of these thousands of years is debateable and depends on the soil chemistry.

I think you'll find bodies buried in sand tend to last pretty well. Natural mummification would occur in a large percentage of cases.
That is not evidence, that is just your opinion.


(04-10-2013 09:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Except by everything they were wearing and carrying and were buried with. Or did they strip the bodies before burying them? And the numbers, mind. There's be hundreds of thousands of them.

If we actually found one of the millions of corpses apparently scattered as widely as possible (hint: that we haven't suggests they are not, in fact, there) then it would be identifiable through DNA, through cultural artifacts (unless, as mentioned, they were buried nude - not typical Israelite practice!), through the GI tract contents (magic food!), through the conditions of the burial.
Please provide evidence that DNA testing could identify an Ancient Israelite.
Please provide evidence that the contents of the alimentary canal of an ancient Israelite should remain for our inspection 3500 years later.
Please provide evidence that the Israelites did not leave Egypt with spare clothes or cloth enough to bury the dead in or did not make some other attire from the wool or skins of their flock for burying the dead. Please provide evidence that Israelites did not bury the dead naked or with smaller loin cloths.

(04-10-2013 09:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 04:39 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The other issue is that nobody really knows where they were wandering or even where Mt. Sinai is. I agree with Ron Wyatt and dispute the traditional site. I even pointed out the amazing set of facts which add powerful evidence to the site discovered by Ron Wyatt. These amazing facts and evidences were completely ignored by you but and the rest here who just continue to parrot the line "There is no archaelogical evidence and therefore it did not happen" So if indeed the real Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia then the archaeological have been looking in the wrong place for evidence of the peoples sojourning in the wilderness. Perhaps they might find the evidence they seem so desperate not to find if they look for it in Saudi Arabia.

In other words:
[Image: its-magic-i-aint-gotta-explain-shit2.jpg]
You want to write off every miracle by disparaging it as magic? Well write off magic first. The existence of the supernatural forces of magic and sorcery is heavily documented. The existence of the paranormal is just too prevalent in our histories and in our culture and very psyche for it to be utterly discounted and disregarded.

Nevertheless magic and miracles are similar in that they are both supernatural forces. However miracles are the direct work of God in answer to prayer, whereas magic is a kind of bidding to evil spirits made through incantations. Compared to the miracles of God magic is very limited in power. Seances are magic. There is not a single group of people which does not have one person who witnessed paranormal activity at a seance. I have heard and read dozens of accounts of paranormal activity at seances. http://paranormal.about.com/od/lifeafter...100508.htm

I urge anybody who has participated in a seance or is thinking of participating in a seance to avoid it at all costs. This is a seriously risky undertaking. The occult and witchcraft is very dangerous and brings the soul into contact with terrible evil and danger.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 08:02 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(04-10-2013 07:51 PM)excubitor Wrote:  There is no evidence that the Israelites left anything behind in the wilderness. There is no evidence that if they had left anything behind in the wilderness that it should still be there after over 3000 years

Right. There is no evidence they were ever IN the wilderness.

(04-10-2013 07:51 PM)excubitor Wrote:  Deaths must have equaled births and clothes were handed down as children grew.


Then why does the Bible say there were artisans that made fine vestments. They just magically got their skills ?

(04-10-2013 07:51 PM)excubitor Wrote:  There is no evidence that excrement buried in sand 3500 years ago should remain today to be excavated.

And he knows that how ? There are coprolite findings in the desert from far further back. More lying charlatan at work. He has no education in Archaeology.

(04-10-2013 07:51 PM)excubitor Wrote:  Please provide evidence that DNA testing could identify an Ancient Israelite.
Please provide evidence that the contents of the alimentary canal of an ancient Israelite should remain for our inspection 3500 years later.

That is the normal examination of most mummified, (including just by dry desertifcation by sand) remains. He just has no clue what he's talking about.
He clearly knows nothing about the burden of proof.

(04-10-2013 07:51 PM)excubitor Wrote:  "participated in a seance or is thinking of participating in a seance to avoid it at all costs. This is a seriously risky undertaking. The occult and witchcraft is very dangerous and brings the soul into contact with terrible evil and danger.

Heh heh. Woo-woo doesn't get any better than that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
Quote:The spectacular miracle at Fatima is recorded history. Tens of thousands of witnesses and even skeptics testified to the Miracle of the Sun.


Um, look guys, I'm new here. Is this fucking guy for real?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: