Vesta likely cold and dark enough for ice

Next big bottled water market! "asteroid" bottled water!

Joking aside...why don't they just poke a hole in Vesta and see what comes out? If it's chock full of ice/water like many asteroids it should be easy to see.

So if water ice exists in those regions, it may be buried beneath a relatively deep layer of dry regolith.

Could be, or it's just not that old.

baby planets whose growth was interrupted when Jupiter formed.

Or it came from earth, like most of the rest of the asteroids.

For those who were scratching their heads, Yellowdart believes that the asteroids were flung into their orbits during the flood. Yes, Noah's ark and all that. The myth borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Launched the asteroids into orbit beyond Mars. *cookoo clock noise here*
Its one of the crazier ideas I've seen around here, and thats really saying something.
Just for kicks and giggles, I did a few calculations as to how much energy it would require to launch Vesta into the asteroid belt from earth.

Here goes -

144,724,654,550,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules
or if you prefer:
35 trillion megatonnes of TNT
or
Enough energy to completely melt the whole earth... 8 times over (assuming a ball of cold iron slag at 20C, ignoring that much of it is molten anyway)

This is ignoring the rest of the mass in the asteroid belt.

What was the ark made of again? Adamantium?

If you can't educate pork, then yellowdart is a backward piglet at a science conference.

Enough energy to completely melt the whole earth... 8 times over

You ignore rapid cooling from supercritical water and rapid expansion. Yes, it's a ton of energy being released, but it's mostly kinetic, not heat.

http://creationsc...p6331341

This is ignoring the rest of the mass in the asteroid belt.

Mass of the asteroids only makes up a measly 1/2300th of the earth's mass, including Vesta. It's tiny despite how many there are. And why? Because they have plenty of water/ice lowering their density. They rarely if at all exceed the earth's crust in density. It'd be like dropping gravel into a full flowing fire hose.

If you can't educate pork, then yellowdart is a backward piglet at a science conference.

Ad homimens don't validate arguments.

To answer your question without taking a cheap shot at religion, it is more likely that H20 particles, if any are bonded to the material that makes up the asteroid and even then, they would have to be under the surface. That in mind, it wouldn't be like cracking open a geode. You would have to evaluate core samples much in the same way we do on Earth.

Blowing a hole in it would certainly look cool though :)

Xbw,

I appreciate the response. Isn't the GRaND just looking for water in the first place though by scanning for hydrogen? Wouldn't poking a hole in the dry surface help it out anyway? You'd be able to see inside the borehole so to speak, I'd think.

Most asteroids won't have water/ice on the surface at this point, either way. There are a few like Themis and Cybele though that still show signs of water/ice and even organic compounds on their surface still.

For Vesta it may be more like deep fried ice cream.

Enceladus is a great example of salty water/ice being sprayed into saturn's e ring from associated tidal pumping.

It is a method similar to this http://www.nasa.g...act.html

The one I linked is for a lunar mission but the method is pretty much the same. That is the best way to get samples from beneath the surface as far as I can tell. Short of landing and taking them ourselves. :)

So where did the energy come from Yellowdart? Batteries? As I pointed out, the entire geothermal energy of the earth would be insufficient to launch even a fraction of what you claim. Even the ridiculous article you linked to doesn't claim what you do. Even it there was, half the energy would also have been returned to the earth, equal and opposite reaction and all that. There's no way out of it that wouldn't completely anhilate the surface of the earth, fishes and gopher wood included.

Add to that that the asteroids are compositionally different to the earth and moon (the Moon WAS a part of the earth)

Robo,

Like I mentioned Enceladus, the energy comes from tidal pumping confined water, and in the case of the Earth, over centuries before release. Other mechanisms at release would supply additional energy, so even by conservative numbers you can easily exceed the initial escape velocity.

Even it there was, half the energy would also have been returned to the earth,

Not so much returned. However, below surface would have experienced everything from major mechanical stress, piezoelectric effects to water hammers and so on. Most of the inner earth takes the heat though, and is still warm/hot as you go down in depth. Subsurface exploration is finding large pockets of water, even salty water, deeper than 5 miles.

There's no way out of it that wouldn't completely anhilate the surface of the earth, fishes and gopher wood included.

Think of contrails from a jet plane. The exhaust is hot initially (composed of water vapor), but it experiences rapid expansion and thus rapid cooling.

SCW had fluid and gas like properties. Going from extreme high pressure to release where the pressure is minimal forces temperature way down. Even if the initial temps are over 3000 F, due to the rapid expansion, rapid cooling would dominate. So if you had read what I posted for you, you would see the calculations would drop it down to almost absolute zero. The surface experienced cold, not heat if anything. Large hail, and rocks that didn't escape orbit would have fallen back to earth.

Add to that that the asteroids are compositionally different to the earth and moon (the Moon WAS a part of the earth)

Well this argument is a double edged sword for you. How can it be argued that asteroids/comets are the source of Earth's water or even life if they are so vastly different in composition?

Asteroids vary in specific composition which would easily be attributed to their composition prior to escape and their spheres of influence during escape from Earth more so than anything else. It would make binary asteroids possible having fled with similar velocities and proximity away from their source. Being larger than meteorites, they gathered more dust and water along the way. Meteorites contain the same materials as the earth as well.

This is also why the moon and Mars have multiple impacts and both objects show signs of water and lots of dust.

If you see shoes with a Swoosh, we must assume they came from a Nike factory, not the other way around.

Like I said, Yellowdart, if the Earth contained that much energy it would have been completely destroyed many times over. It's more than enough energy to turn the entire earth into glowing plasma, it simply couldn't have built up that much energy without vapourising the planet before releasing it. I read what you posted and it's bunk. You want to stick to your hypothesis because you think it justfies your religious dogma, despite it flying in the face of the evidence. Have you even considered how much water would need to released for in order for significant amounts to hit the moon, never mind somthing as distant as mars? It's magnitudes more than the mass of the whole earth.

Well this argument is a double edged sword for you. How can it be argued that asteroids/comets are the source of Earth's water or even life if they are so vastly different in composition?

It's not a double edged sword, its a sharp stick you're poking yourself in the eye with. It's because the meteors that formed the earth and the asteroid belt formed in different areas of the solar system. Earth like meteorites are rare because Earth cleared its orbit eons ago. You really, really need to get a decent handle on the science before embarrassing yourself on a science site. Do the maths FIRST. Read up on celestial mechanics and the composition of meteorites (generally completely distinct from anything on earth).

Don't just take someone's word for it, especially not nitwits like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham. They don't get it either, despite what they tell you. Find out what REAL science says.

It's more than enough energy to turn the entire earth into glowing plasma, it simply couldn't have built up that much energy without vapourising the planet before releasing it.

In other respects you would be correct, but the energy doesn't act uniform at once over the entire earth nor entirely as heat. Initial energy would be generated by tidal pumping, nuclear would not occur till release.

SCW is composed of small droplets of liquid surrounded by vapor. The surface area is immense, and so is it's energy properties. As you add heat you are only increasing vapor phase, not temp, which would also further lead to greater ionization in the SCW. In essence the heat is largely transferred to electrical energy potential. Upon release at the rupture point the pressure drops, so what heat there is, is rapidly cooled.

Yes temps in the subsurface got over 3000 F easily, but most of the energy is released as kinetic, not thermal.

Have you even considered how much water would need to released for in order for significant amounts to hit the moon, never mind somthing as distant as mars? It's magnitudes more than the mass of the whole earth.

Oh there's plenty of water. You realize that the amount of water on earth would only make a bubble with a diameter of 860 miles...

http://ga.water.u...uch.html

By comparison, the amount of water on Mars, moon, and asteroids/comets is not even close.

I'll explain it in words you can understand. This amount of energy exceeds the energy in the chemical bonds of the matter in the whole earth. It is thus more than the earth can contain in any form, electrical, thermal, mechanical, whatever. I was extremely conservative with the numbers. You are talking about pushing trillions of tonnes uphill to beyond Mars. Not to mention that there is no evidence of the flood in the first instance, and yes, I've read the creationist literature. Please read something by Bart Erhman and you will see why the Bible cannot be trusted as a historical document. Unless your dogma is more important than the truth?

My point was in order to hit the moon or mars, the vast, vast majority will miss. The moon only covers less than 1/100,000th of the sky. Mars, far, far less. You know mars had oceans once right? This isn't scientific enough to even be wrong. Its unfalsifiable bunk.

It's because the meteors that formed the earth and the asteroid belt formed in different areas of the solar system.

Oh so different rocks from some other region of which was where, again? By most publications the meteors that brought water here are thought to still be "earth-like".

Earth like meteorites are rare because Earth cleared its orbit eons ago.

I know you posted a nifty link, but my use of composition did not mean to imply SiO2 vs. Fe2O3. That does help show some differences. And one would expect that even as I have been describing, because subterranean rock would have been exposed to varying conditions, and esp differed from surface rock as an example. But all of these, esp down to the chondrites contain compositions similar to earth when it comes to isotopic compositions of the more refractory elements.

http://www.nature...37a.html

Not counting the water, limestone, sugar, and possible DNA/bacteria some contain.

This amount of energy exceeds the energy in the chemical bonds of the matter in the whole earth. It is thus more than the earth can contain in any form, electrical, thermal, mechanical, whatever. I was extremely conservative with the numbers. You are talking about pushing trillions of tonnes uphill to beyond Mars.

Earth's escape velocity is what 7mi/s? Once you are in space thrust can be minimal, and there's multiple reasons thrust would continue.

Not to mention that there is no evidence of the flood in the first instance

Wasn't it you with the quip about religious bias earlier?

Please read something by Bart Erhman and you will see why the Bible cannot be trusted as a historical document.

It's honestly the most historically accurate and well preserved literature we have, even if you don't like the God part.

Unless your dogma is more important than the truth?

Is yours?

My point was in order to hit the moon or mars, the vast, vast majority will miss.

I see. Sorry if I missed your point here. If that is the case though, how do other meteors effectively repeatedly hit the earth then to bring water?

Considering it would be a launching of water vapor and dust, the moon would still be hit by the ensuing wave so to speak. And it doesn't all have to hit immediately.

You know mars had oceans once right?

Mars shows signs of water, but that does not yet indicate anything near to an ocean as relative to the Earth.

Fascinating.

I'm really interested to know where the energy came from as well! What pushed all that water up out of the Earth??

I don't follow a dogma. I used to, but I valued the truth more. Are you honest enough to follow the evidence where it leads?

I see. Sorry if I missed your point here. If that is the case though, how do other meteors effectively repeatedly hit the earth then to bring water?

How DID... The earth was still forming. The water was abundant in the accreting material. And stuff generally falls DOWN.

Considering it would be a launching of water vapor and dust, the moon would still be hit by the ensuing wave so to speak. And it doesn't all have to hit immediately.

only if it was aimed with sniper accuracy. Space is big. The Moon is small.
Even one of the meteorites that caused large craters such as the Vredefort would have been enough to kill all vertebrate life on earth. Did the whales and sharks ride on the unobtanium
ark while it was swamped with thousand meter waves?

Earth's escape velocity is what 7mi/s? Once you are in space thrust can be minimal, and there's multiple reasons thrust would continue.

No. It takes a lot more to get where you want to go. For my calculation I used the minimum delta V for Ceres orbit (I'm going easy on you)

Wasn't it you with the quip about religious bias earlier?

My bias is following the evidence where it leads. You cannot start with your conclusions. I've read all the arguments (on both sides, I used to be a creationist myself). The sedimentary arguments are disingenuous. Sedimentary layers are very different to geological ones - look it up.

It's honestly the most historically accurate and well preserved literature we have, even if you don't like the God part.

Sorry, you've been lied to again. It's a mishmash of myths from the mesopotamian area, hearsay and second hand tales, many of which have been debunked (There was no exodus). Please at least read "Forged" by Dr. Erhman.

I don't follow a dogma. I used to, but I valued the truth more. Are you honest enough to follow the evidence where it leads?

The truth is always biased. However, if you do not allow it to be questioned, then you become just as guilty of establishing a dogma, whether religious or not. Don't become guilty of what you say you are not. Nor do you need to use condescension to justify your arguments.

How DID... The earth was still forming. The water was abundant in the accreting material. And stuff generally falls DOWN.

Couldn't have. We sit inside the "snow line" so to speak. Water can't condense and form ice and be swept into the formation. See "A Frosty Finding" by Hsieh in Nature April, 29, 2010.

only if it was aimed with sniper accuracy. Space is big. The Moon is small.

Doesn't matter so long as it passes through the plane. The moon orbits the earth. It would be like you running through a sprinkler.

Even one of the meteorites that caused large craters such as the Vredefort would have been enough to kill all vertebrate life on earth. Did the whales and sharks ride on the unobtanium ark while it was swamped with thousand meter waves?

Water can absorb a substantial amount of energy compared to air. Why would it have wiped out sharks or other fish that were not local to impact?
Also, the water didn't need to exceed a mile in height, much less did you need a boat that could sail, simply floating is enough. I thought you had read plenty of this?

My bias is following the evidence where it leads. You cannot start with your conclusions.

I don't. I start with the initial conditions.

I've read all the arguments (on both sides, I used to be a creationist myself).

Yet you seem to have misconceptions.

The sedimentary arguments are disingenuous. Sedimentary layers are very different to geological ones - look it up

Quite so, sediment makes up 70% of the earth's surface, yet only 5% of the crust. Doesn't change the fact it practically requires water or a solution in most cases to even have sedimentation.

Sorry, you've been lied to again. It's a mishmash of myths from the mesopotamian area, hearsay and second hand tales, many of which have been debunked (There was no exodus). Please at least read "Forged" by Dr. Erhman.

Do you like Erhman because he satisfies your dogma or because he establishes it? :)

I'll check him out. One thing you should take a closer look at is that there are similar stories like the Flood, you mentioned Gilgamesh earlier. However, a closer look shows the dramatic differences in the Genesis account. Gilagamesh and the rest of the pagan accounts show pantheism, lack of judgement for sin, and a lack of sovereignty. The Bible is a stark contrast to that.

I'm not saying that validates it or proves it. What I'm saying is that it sets itself apart. Further, the multiple accounts by multiple people/civs show something major happened, even if some accounts became "bigger fish". Like reading multiple new reports from different sources.

Where did I say that it needed to sail? and the thousand meter waves comment was regarding the vast tsunamis the impacts would cause, they would obliterate any vessel. You know as well as I do many creationists try to explain the geological column as sedimentary layers, when they are completely different. None of which changes the fact that you don't have the energy budget to explain what you claimed happened, or that the biblical record is as inaccurate as any other from that era.

I like Erhman because of his rigour. I read him because he conflicted with my dogma at the time. I wanted to know if my beliefs were true, and biblical authority underpinned them. If the bible wasn't the word of god, then the rest of apologetics was irrelevant. It was an uncomfortable journey, many of my friends and family rejected me, but in the clear light of day, the bible doesn't stand up as any more than it is - a collection of often conflicting ancient writings that is consistent with common knowledge at the time. the bible is only contrasted by the arbitrary criteria you set it. why should pantheism or monotheism have any bearing on the authenticity? a pantheist could use the opposite argument.

and the thousand meter waves comment was regarding the vast tsunamis the impacts would cause

Impacts were still localized. None of the larger are anywhere near the middle east. And we see tsunamis today over relatively calm waters in comparison. In other words, a large impact still has to overcome the already oscillating wave forces to generate anything different. I'm not saying water levels don't rise, but assuming vast tsunamis is a stretch, much less that any would have had an impact on the ark.

You know as well as I do many creationists try to explain the geological column as sedimentary layers, when they are completely different.

Different how? I'm not sure what your distinguishing here. Geology typically views sedimentary layers of which fossils are found in as usually homogenous and consistent in order. (although some layers are not always present), in order to date them.

The difference with creationists (at least usually), is that the flood is responsible for deposition and sorting of the sedimentary layers. In essence the sedimentary columns aren't sorted by time, but by an event.

None of which changes the fact that you don't have the energy budget to explain what you claimed happened, or that the biblical record is as inaccurate as any other from that era.

Earlier you said it would be so much energy that it would vaporize the earth. Are you saying now that it didn't have enough energy?

I like Erhman because of his rigour. I read him because he conflicted with my dogma at the time.

Erhman's latest that you recommended, Forged, attempts to show that over 70% of the NT was not written by it's assumed authorship, right? He readily admits though that if someone like Paul used secretaries, then his whole book is pretty much a wash and nothing was forged.

A solid critique and please note that the review here gives Erhman credit for his writing, research, and his rigor as you put it.

http://www.bibleg.../forged/

I imagine if we were to read through Forged the same way, you would find substantial parts that have been edited and written out of his "style". We wouldn't come back and say that Erhman's books are forged.

Realize a couple other of things concerning Erhman. You settle for someone who is entirely against his peers, even among many liberals, as to authorship of the NT. Why? And why does that not extend to the same principle to be okay in the realm of science? Seems you just prefer him as it gives the excuse, rather than actual truth.

Also, inerrancy refers to the original texts, not translations, and inspiration is not God putting words in people's heads to write down. Inspiration is God working through their personalities in accordance with his sovereignty. That is what is taught by even the most conservative denominations and confessions like the Westminster.

Which is why Paul can hand a letter to another willing person able to proofread and edit his letters. You would want clarity and accuracy in a time where your religion was a stark contrast to everyone else.

It's not a matter of liberal/conservative. It's a matter of which evidence fits best. There is no evidence that the authors of the gospels are who Christian revisionists have assigned to them.
There are no original texts. There are no first hand accounts. The NT was written in greek. Jesus and the disciples would have spoken Aramaic, so it is all a translation, assuming the authors were who it is claimed they are.
The Pauline epistles have little to do with the historicity of the rest of the Bible, as they are mostly about establishing christian doctrine. The gospels are not even consistent about the life of Jesus. They can't even agree on who his ancestors were.

There is no evidence that the authors of the gospels are who Christian revisionists have assigned to them.

Don't be so disingenuous. Would it be fair if I said there "is no evidence for evolution"? No it would not.

For every Erhman there has been 100 others listing evidence after evidence of who (such as Paul) wrote the gospels to be true.

When there are over 5000 manuscripts of the NT, with an accuracy of 99.5%, I'd say Erhman and you stand on the short side of the stick. Compared to any other ancient writings, the next closest is Homer's Illiad at 640 and 95%.

The NT was written in greek. Jesus and the disciples would have spoken Aramaic, so it is all a translation, assuming the authors were who it is claimed they are.

Go to Sweden, kids learn English in the 3rd grade. Greek was the english language of it's time. Someone like Paul probably knew it. However, that would also lend to the need to have someone who did speak Greek, who could proofread and edit...Remember that he is traveling to other cities well outside of aramaic and even talking in the Greek temples.

The Pauline epistles have little to do with the historicity of the rest of the Bible, as they are mostly about establishing christian doctrine.

Yes, he was about establishing christian doctrine, but Paul was a former religious leader of the Jews. He was well versed in the O.T. He uses it over and over in the NT. Paul was practically a theological genius and entirely built Christianity around the O.T.

What has that got to do with the historical accuracy? Paul wasn't an eyewitness to any of the historical events of the Bible. He could have been the worlds leading expert in Hebrew scriptures (the OT wasn't compiled till the 1st Century) and it would have no bearing on the veracity of the events therein.

What has that got to do with the historical accuracy?

Oh, are you referring to eyewitness testimony and historical accuracy as in Paul wasn't in the Garden of Eden or wasn't at the battle of Jericho so he can't testify to those things?

We were talking about Erhman who's book was geared toward the NT and it's accuracy, not the OT. So when you claimed Paul's letters have little to do with historicity that's how I replied to it.

And it does, not as in an eyewitness, but in the fact that Paul and other NT authors treat men like Adam as specific real people with specific real events that occurred.

What has that got to do with the historical accuracy?

If you want to talk OT history, it's perfectly fine to start compiling that against other civilizations and their histories as well. You can't stop with Egyptian though, but by taking into account Hittite, Amorite, Israelite and so on as well.

Typically the arguments line up with Egyptian dynasties being sequential vs the argument against that many were contemporary. So where as you would have been correct earlier to say that there is no evidence for the exodus, this is in light of the sequential chronology projecting it to the 18th dynasty.
But by contemporary dynasties, and simply by logic and known evidence, the Exodus makes better sense during the 13th dynasty. Dr. Rosalie David has found evidence of a mass exodus, slaves leaving over night. Neferhotep I has never been found and his son never rose to the throne. The Hyskos (Amelekites) conquered his brother and Egypt, without a fight. Saul later destroysthem

All evidence suggests the Israelites were native to Palastine. There is no evidence of the Egyptian culture on them.

There is no evidence that these were the Israelites, or even if this story is historical, or given that, any supernatural events.

Just because Troy existed, doesn't mean we accept that Achilles was the son of a god.

There is no evidence of the Egyptian culture on them.

Israel wasn't formed as Israel until after it left Egypt. They also lived in Goshen, separate. They left behind the everyday things, and after 40 years of wandering a desert where those most apart of the former culture would have died off. So what are you expecting to find other than historical events?

There is no evidence that these were the Israelites, or even if this story is historical, or given that, any supernatural events.

Just because Troy existed, doesn't mean we accept that Achilles was the son of a god.

Where was I arguing that? Because the Egyptians were accurate on some things, doesn't validate their gods either. That's understandable. One may discuss Israel historical accuracy without proving their God as well, by the same token.

There is no evidence of the Egyptian culture on them.

They also lived in Goshen, separate. They left behind the everyday things, and after 40 years of wandering a desert where those most apart of the former culture would have died off. So what are you expecting to find other than historical events?

There is no evidence that these were the Israelites, or even if this story is historical, or given that, any supernatural events.

Just because Troy existed, doesn't mean we accept that Achilles was the son of a god.

Where was I arguing that? Because the Egyptians were accurate on some things, doesn't validate their gods either. That's understandable. One may discuss Israel historical accuracy without proving their God as well, by the same token.

There is no evidence that these were the Israelites, or even if this story is historical, or given that, any supernatural events.

1000 years from now when we look back at WWI, would it be fair to say that the Holocaust never happened, because there is no evidence of it during WWI? Likewise, you can't use the 18th dynasty to disprove Israelite Exodus.

Nor can you say there is no evidence of Jericho, simply because some archaeologist 3400 years later just feels it shouldn't be at the hands of the Israelites.

The findings at Jericho show the accuracy of the Bible down to the T. From the fallen walls, to a short siege, to the jars full of grain, city burnt to the ground, cept for a small portion of the wall (Rahab?).

The only thing you keep saying is like saying there was no Holocaust in WWI...and your right, because it was in WWII :\

Exodus was likely the 13th dynasty.

The only thing you keep saying is like saying there was no Holocaust in WWI...and your right, because it was in WWII :\

Exodus was likely the 13th dynasty.

Excellent. Please link or refer to your evidence for the Exodus occurring in the 13th dynasty.

http://www.bibleg.../forged/

I imagine if we were to read through Forged the same way, you would find substantial parts that have been edited and written out of his "style". We wouldn't come back and say that Erhman's books are forged.

You probably shouldn't use Michael Licona as a source for biblical inerrancy.

http://www.christ...ate.html

Excellent. Please link or refer to your evidence for the Exodus occurring in the 13th dynasty.

Already discussed it and posted a link that explains some of the synchronisms. If you need more info, feel free to PM me.

You probably shouldn't use Michael Licona as a source for biblical inerrancy.

I didn't use him as a source of inerrancy. I used a quick review of Erhman's book. Further, I'm not sure that Licona has an inerrancy problem, as the article you linked to does a fair job of expressing that his differing view on Matthew 27 is hermeneutical and not over inerrancy.

In other words, his interpretation is different, not that he doesn't find the bible inerrant.

Remember I also said that Erhman was out on a limb even for liberal standards, in essence, not many who believe the Bible is errant would still deny authorship to Paul. Erhman is way out on a limb here that few tread.

You miss my point. I'm not claiming inerrancy for Erhman or anyone. That's projection on your part. The point is that his books show how the scriptures have been manipulated over the years, with entire passages forged (e.g. the woman caught in adultery) so that any claim of inerrancy becomes meaningless. Adding your own (extra-biblical) nonsense like about asteroids being formed in the flood would most die-hard apologists raise their eyebrows. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, you're not even wrong.

I'm not sure that Licona has an inerrancy problem, as the article you linked to does a fair job of expressing that his differing view on Matthew 27 is hermeneutical and not over inerrancy.

That's semantics. He doesn't think that the zombie invasion in Matt. 27:52-53 actually happened. He thinks they are symbolic. Many Christians think the same about Genesis, and I suppose you can wish away most of the more fantastic claims of the Bible if you go down that path.

You miss my point.

Not unless you changed your point. I clearly stated that Erhman is attempting to claim the letters were forged and not Paul's work for instance.

The point is that his books show how the scriptures have been manipulated over the years,

The point is, by his own admission is that if Paul used a secretary then Erhman's arguments in Forged are useless. Which it is highly likely and plausible that Paul did use a secretary.

Which really shows that Erhman is just about making a dollar off of you more so than anything else.

Adding your own (extra-biblical) nonsense

But you will accept Erhman's extra biblical nonsense?

That's semantics. He doesn't think that the zombie invasion in Matt. 27:52-53 actually happened.

That doesn't necessarily imply inerrancy though. Licano seems to view it as symbolic or a sign. It is not an easy couple of verses that is for sure, but the article YOU posted clearly quotes others who did not think he was remarking in regards to inerrancy.

The dead rising though, isn't something that was foreign to other passages. Lazarus for example among others was raised from the dead. So it may very well be a literal event.

it is highly likely and plausible that Paul did use a secretary.

If you make a lot of unjustified assumptions. And it's not just Erhman. The majority of scholars accept that the Pastoral Epistles were not authored by Paul. That aside, even if they were all signed "love saint Paul" in the same handwriting it would have no bearing on the truth of the contents of the Bible. Proof of authorship is not proof of truth, and you don't have that.

That's semantics. He doesn't think that the zombie invasion in Matt. 27:52-53 actually happened.

That doesn't necessarily imply inerrancy though. Licano seems to view it as symbolic or a sign. It is not an easy couple of verses that is for sure, but the article YOU posted clearly quotes others who did not think he was remarking in regards to inerrancy.

The dead rising though, isn't something that was foreign to other passages. Lazarus for example among others was raised from the dead. So it may very well be a literal event.

So how do you distinguish between literal resurrection and symbolic resurrection? Why didn't the author of Matthew (whoever that was) make the distinction?

If you make a lot of unjustified assumptions.

What's unjustified? Erhman himself uses an editor/proofreader. That's not an unnatural assumption, ESPECIALLY, since Paul himself says he used them several times. It's fairly normal to have important writings double checked before sending them out.

The majority of scholars accept that the Pastoral Epistles were not authored by Paul.

http://en.wikiped...epistles

Wiki seems to think otherwise. 7 are undoubtly Paul's, 6 are still regarded as likely written by him. The last is Hebrews, which has always been under debate with authorship never really settled.

Proof of authorship is not proof of truth, and you don't have that.

Of course authorship is not proof of truth, which is all the more reason that Erhman wastes his time trying to prove that the letters weren't Paul's. He can't disprove their truth that way.

Proof of truth is always coupled with faith, on what evidence there is. You either believe the testimony of someone like Paul or you do not. You either believe Luke when he writes about Christ, or you do not. It is not for lack of evidence and testimony.

So how do you distinguish between literal resurrection and symbolic resurrection? Why didn't the author of Matthew (whoever that was) make the distinction?

You mean resurrection of the saints in CH 27? Considering that Lazarus had been raised and others brought back in other stories by Christ, and some later by the apostles, I think it's a literal physical event of the saints rising to be what's intended by Matthew. It's not like it's out of Christ's power to do so. (And for the record, they weren't zombies)

Now that may also have a symbolic meaning as well. He talks about the veil tearing from top to bottom right before that, which fully seems to be a literal physical event, yet it also has a very symbolic meaning as well.

In essence, Matthew didn't need to make a distinction on the reality of his description. How many times do you expect him to say it?

Of course authorship is not proof of truth, which is all the more reason that Erhman wastes his time trying to prove that the letters weren't Paul's. He can't disprove their truth that way.

Sorry, no. If the letters claim to be written by someone, but were not, that is a lie and calls the rest of the document into question.

Proof of truth is always coupled with faith, on what evidence there is. You either believe the testimony of someone like Paul or you do not. You either believe Luke when he writes about Christ, or you do not. It is not for lack of evidence and testimony.

There is no evidence Luke wrote anything at all. His name was ascribed later to make them appear more authoritative. There are no eyewitness testimonies of Jesus' life.

Given the multitude of conflicting and contradictory faiths, it's pretty obvious that faith is a poor gauge of truth. Faith is credulity elevated to a virtue by those who don't wish to be challenged.

Sorry, no. If the letters claim to be written by someone, but were not, that is a lie and calls the rest of the document into question.

Of course it would, but you've yet to show anything of the sort.

There is no evidence Luke wrote anything at all. His name was ascribed later to make them appear more authoritative.

The assignment to Luke as author of Luke and Acts is based on several lines of evidence. To say there is none is disingenuous. He did not personally sign them, as Paul does in many of his letters, so it can be debatable. However, Luke is most likely the author as he honestly makes more sense than anyone else, plus if he was not significant in some way, he wouldn't have been used for that authority.

There are no eyewitness testimonies of Jesus' life.

Even if true, (which it's not), that still wouldn't compromise the NT. Why? Because of the close proximity in which the authors would have interacted with those who DID witness. You would readily accept a biography from an author on the president if written 10 years from now, esp if they were getting their material, right from the president.

Of course it would, but you've yet to show anything of the sort.

Because you refuse to read anything from outside of your apologetics la-la land.

The assignment to Luke as author of Luke and Acts is based on several lines of evidence. To say there is none is disingenuous.

The majority of scholars (Christian included) would dispute this.

. However, Luke is most likely the author as he honestly makes more sense than anyone else, plus if he was not significant in some way, he wouldn't have been used for that authority.

You can't see the temptation to ascribe the authorship of much of the ministry of Paul to one of his companions? It seems to have been common practice in the early church to ascribe anonymous writings to the "saints". Assuming they had the "correct" theology of course. Don't be put off Erhman because he's an agnostic, Christian scholars would agree with him on most of these points. Try reading something which doesn't make a-priori assumptions.

Given the multitude of conflicting and contradictory faiths, it's pretty obvious that faith is a poor gauge of truth. Faith is credulity elevated to a virtue by those who don't wish to be challenged.

And you think that the absence of religion in life removes faith and puts you on some virtuous passage of your own? I fail to see how it's any different in that case nor any less prone to bias. What is atheism, agnosticism, or religion then? Even in science one must put faith in the results of men, of which, we all know men love to twist and tweak results even if it's just over something as simple as money.

The Bible is unique, because no man would write it that way, out of the very reason you express and that is man's bias. No man makes God entirely sovereign, independent of his creation, and yet willing to die and bring salvation to fallen man.

Because you refuse to read anything from outside of your apologetics la-la land.

Robo, I've read mountains of information, even in just discussing with you. I visit physorg quite often as well. I have no trouble reading what you've suggested. Yet you offer no credible rebuttal just general stereotype dismissals.

The majority of scholars (Christian included) would dispute this.

Even by wiki, you are wrong again, even Raymond Brown says that Luke is possibly still the author. Most biblical scholars still assume Luke, and they have done just as much rigorous reviewing as anyone else.

Even if true, (which it's not), that still wouldn't compromise the NT. Why? Because of the close proximity in which the authors would have interacted with those who DID witness. You would readily accept a biography from an author on the president if written 10 years from now, esp if they were getting their material, right from the president.

Sorry, it is true. The gospels were written 50 to 100 years after the death of Jesus.
And no, I wouldn't readily accept a biography of a president, especially if written by an ardent fan. A more accurate comparison would be a biography of Joseph Smith or Sai Baba by one of their respective followers, i.e highly biased and credulous, especially when it comes to miraculous claims. Cookoo cults can arise very quickly, as scientology, mormonism and rastafarianism demonstrate admirably.

Even by wiki, you are wrong again, even Raymond Brown says that Luke is possibly still the author.

Funny, I said the majority and you come back with one author who says its not impossible? It's possible it was the cookie monster. The point stands.

Most biblical scholars still assume Luke, and they have done just as much rigorous reviewing as anyone else.

No they don't. The wiki you are using says as much.

"According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown."

You can't see the temptation to ascribe the authorship of much of the ministry of Paul to one of his companions? It seems to have been common practice in the early church to ascribe anonymous writings to the "saints".

You mean ascribed to the disciples/apostles or prominent early church figures? They were often written to the "saints" not by, so be careful of terms here. But I see you question, the problem for starters though is that no group of people are going to associate themselves with those apostles unless they believe them to be true. The early church was persecuted for saying a man rose from the dead. That's not something anyone takes lightly, and thus I see no reason to over assign letters. Integrity would be highly important to the truth, and they came from a Hebrew culture that was very orthodox when it came to copying and authorship.

Funny, I said the majority and you come back with one author who says its not impossible?

Your knowledge of his reputation precedes your lack of knowledge in the area then. http://en.wikiped...E._Brown

He's your kind of guy. Your majority statements are false. I can keep going on and on with scholar after scholar.

Sorry, it is true. The gospels were written 50 to 100 years after the death of Jesus.

And in the least by men who walked and talked with those who walked and talked with Jesus.

And no, I wouldn't readily accept a biography of a president, especially if written by an ardent fan.

But if he his not an ardent fan, how would you know that he isn't biased against him? You can't readily accept in any regard.

But someone even 50-100 years post event, is still far closer than someone trying to write testimony to someone 1000 years later. The proximity in general lends to more credibility. I'm not saying it proves that accuracy, you'll still believe it one way or the other.

From the same wiki: "The traditional view on Lukan authorship, however, is held by many scholars,[66] and according to Raymond Brown it is "not impossible" that they are right."

Take your pick. One can believe it is unknown and still lean toward Luke. Much like one can know that Hebrews is largely unknown, yet may feel it leans toward Paul.

You mean ascribed to the disciples/apostles or prominent early church figures? They were often written to the "saints" not by, so be careful of terms here.

So they weren't written by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Paul etc? That was my meaning.

But I see you question, the problem for starters though is that no group of people are going to associate themselves with those apostles unless they believe them to be true.

A great way of lending them credibility is by ascribing them to authors who appear in what is considered canon.

The early church was persecuted for saying a man rose from the dead.

Not really, the Greeks and Romans had their own resurrection myths. It was just a heresy against their own supertitions.

It's possible it was the cookie monster.

No, it's not. Cookie monster wasn't invented until the 1960s, so his authorship is clearly out of the question.

But if he his not an ardent fan, how would you know that he isn't biased against him? You can't readily accept in any regard.

Yet you do.

But someone even 50-100 years post event, is still far closer than someone trying to write testimony to someone 1000 years later. The proximity in general lends to more credibility. I'm not saying it proves that accuracy, you'll still believe it one way or the other.

A 2nd hand account written decades after the event from a highly biased source doesn't deserve much credulity. You'd be a sucker if you didn't approach it with extreme scepticism.

It's possible it was the cookie monster.

No, it's not. Cookie monster wasn't invented until the 1960s, so his authorship is clearly out of the question.

So you'll swallow unscientific nonsense about the recent terrestrial source of the asteroid belt, but reject my chronologically offset alternate universe cookie monster theory out of hand?

So they weren't written by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Paul etc? That was my meaning.

I said I figured that's what you meant, but it would be better to say apostles in that case as saints implies any christian really.

A great way of lending them credibility is by ascribing them to authors who appear in what is considered canon. Not really, the Greeks and Romans had their own resurrection myths. It was just a heresy against their own superstitions.

They didn't have a NT canon at the time, so why would they falsely ascribe them? They had little credibility against their culture at the time not just because it would look like heresy to the Greek/Roman myths but because the Jews themselves thought it was heresy.

He's your kind of guy. Your majority statements are false. I can keep going on and on with scholar after scholar.

You seem to be having difficulty with the difference between "not impossible" and "likely". "Not impossible" and "complete speculation" are perfectly compatible statements.
You can cherry pick your scholars all you like, that doesn't change the majority view. The point stands.

Yet you do

And so do you. Who has the bigger problem with that though? You?

A 2nd hand account written decades after the event from a highly biased source doesn't deserve much credulity

Every source is highly biased, esp if it is true. Decades aren't that important if you are still alive while they are alive. It deserves more credibility than when not having that case, which I agree on.

You'd be a sucker if you didn't approach it with extreme scepticism.

The assumption, simply because I don't agree with you, does not mean that I am any less or was not any less a sceptic.

The sucker is when you think that faith is only a matter of religion. It permeates any set of beliefs, god or not.

They didn't have a NT canon at the time, so why would they falsely ascribe them?

They had scriptures considered authentic at the time. If they could link epistles they liked to the consensually authentic ones, it gave it credibility.

They had little credibility against their culture at the time not just because it would look like heresy to the Greek/Roman myths but because the Jews themselves thought it was heresy.

They were written to the existing churches. They had all the credibility you need whilst preaching to the choir.

So you'll swallow unscientific nonsense about the recent terrestrial source of the asteroid belt, but reject my chronologically offset alternate universe cookie monster theory out of hand?

Asteroids in the belt, are largely considered to be from an earth like planet. I'm just saying we are standing on it. Nike shoes come from a nike factory.

If you can show evidence of Cookie Monster time travel or an alternate universe, by all means I'll be glad to listen.

They had scriptures considered authentic at the time.

If they were considered authentic already, then why would they need to change the author later?

And so do you. Who has the bigger problem with that though? You?

I have a problem for not believing spurious and contradictory documents?

Every source is highly biased, esp if it is true.

What? Truth makes you more biased? You may want to rethink that. Bias makes you biased. Your assertion doesn't even make sense.

Decades aren't that important if you are still alive while they are alive. It deserves more credibility than when not having that case, which I agree on.

Sorry, you get squat credibility with corroborating evidence or a least a decent track record.

The assumption, simply because I don't agree with you, does not mean that I am any less or was not any less a sceptic.

No, the fact you'll swallow things wholesale without any evidence because it suits your religious beliefs is what makes you less of a sceptic.

They were written to the existing churches. They had all the credibility you need whilst preaching to the choir.

You mean the choir that was just converted by the same exact message and same exact people? Look at Acts, it's Peter preaching. The message is consistent. Why would that be a problem?

Is every asteroid article on physorg just as much preaching to it's choir? Of course it is.

You mean the choir that was just converted by the same exact message and same exact people? Look at Acts, it's Peter preaching. The message is consistent. Why would that be a problem?

The problem would then be ascribing anonymous documents to persons mentioned in Acts, decades later, in order to give them credibility. I've said this several times now in different ways.
Is every asteroid article on physorg just as much preaching to it's choir? Of course it is.

I have a problem for not believing spurious and contradictory documents?

Gee, you must hate science then :)

What? Truth makes you more biased? You may want to rethink that. Bias makes you biased.

Truth is biased. It ignores alternatives.

No, the fact you'll swallow things wholesale without any evidence because it suits your religious beliefs is what makes you less of a sceptic.

And you swallow guys like Erhman who presents a weak argument. You swallow an agnostic who has a bias towards being an agnostic. He isn't immune to his beliefs, wants, and the lens by which he views it. Nor are you or me.

Is every asteroid article on physorg just as much preaching to it's choir? Of course it is.

You mean the articles about papers written by scientists who have to publish their methods and data? Who get peer reviewed? So that anyone can replicate their findings?

As opposed to an old book without any supporting evidence. Your crazy asteroid hypothesis doesn't match the data, as I have demonstrated.

Gee, you must hate science then :)

I hate bad science. I'm not sure I get your point.

Truth is biased. It ignores alternatives.

And sycophantic biographies invent them.

And you swallow guys like Erhman who presents a weak argument. You swallow an agnostic who has a bias towards being an agnostic. He isn't immune to his beliefs, wants, and the lens by which he views it. Nor are you or me.

Actually, Erhman started as an evangelical, he started studying to defend the infallibility of the Bible - which he was forced by what he found to reject.

The problem would then be ascribing anonymous documents to persons mentioned in Acts, decades later, in order to give them credibility

But they weren't anonymous to them. You are insinuating without proof simply because they don't name themselves. When you don't have personal signature, you have to go by the witnesses of those who speak to it, unless you can prove it was someone else, which you can't.

In other words, take Luke, which the earliest known manuscript says "the gospel according to Luke" which is dated mid 2nd century. That doesn't mean there wasn't an earlier letter with it. There are manuscripts, early on, that don't have that line, but they also don't suggest anyone else.

So it's fine to hold Luke as the author with a grain of salt. But honestly, there is no reason to name Luke, if he wasn't the author. You aren't gaining much toward the choir, when other names would be far greater.

As opposed to an old book without any supporting evidence. Your crazy asteroid hypothesis doesn't match the data, as I have demonstrated.

And I demonstrated several articles discussing the similarities and why published peer reviewed articles were stating the current thought that asteroids reflect an earth like planet.

I hate bad science. I'm not sure I get your point.

Articles constantly contradict things if you read physorg enough. Quantum vacuum vs. dark matter now? I'm not saying either is bad science, just saying no one agrees on big theories, quite often. So to the layman, it all looks contradictory.

Actually, Erhman started as an evangelical, he started studying to defend the infallibility of the Bible - which he was forced by what he found to reject.

I fail to see how that makes his argument any better. Many atheists have rejected atheism for the infallible Bible.

Earthlike != Earth. Mars is earthlike by that definition. Thats a massive leap to say it IS earth, especially as there is no physical way they could have got from here into a stable orbit between mars and jupiter. Find me ONE scientist with a background in physics who thinks that's even possible.

Articles constantly contradict things if you read physorg enough. Quantum vacuum vs. dark matter now? I'm not saying either is bad science, just saying no one agrees on big theories, quite often. So to the layman, it all looks contradictory.

There are competing theories in science. Usually, enough data is gathered and one wins out. Science is a process, not a body of knowledge. Theories get refined or rejected as new data comes in. No-one in science is claiming absolute truth, thats the business of religion. Unfortunately this kind of projection is common amongst the religious, who fear doubt as a sin.

I fail to see how that makes his argument any better.

Because you asserted that he had a pre-existing bias.

Many atheists have rejected atheism for the infallible Bible.

Very rarely, especially those who know what they're talking about.
Amongst Scholars and scientists the tide is not in your favour. The god of the gaps is running out of places to hide

Thats a massive leap to say it IS earth,

Once again, assuming that nike shoes come from a nike factory is not a massive leap. Mars exhibits some similarities as well with asteroids at least at it's surface, however, it does not display significant water or life, thus your greater and more likely source is Earth.

Find me ONE scientist with a background in physics who thinks that's even possible.

It only takes one with a background in physics? You sure you want to say that? Brown, a former evolutionist, has a Ph.d in M.E. from MIT, which is who I linked you to, way back regarding escape velocity. How does it get to a stable orbit? He discusses the radiometer effect. He also discusses how photon energy and momentum would create thrust, must like a solar sail. http://creationsc...p5301170

Science is a process, not a body of knowledge.

:\

No-one in science is claiming absolute truth, thats the business of religion.

Then if it does not claim absolute truth, all the more, what you believe requires faith then.

Because you asserted that he had a pre-existing bias.

He does, we all do. He wrote Forged under an agnostic bias.

Very rarely, especially those who know what they're talking about.

You mean those who are most biased?

Amongst Scholars and scientists the tide is not in your favour. The god of the gaps is running out of places to hide

The Jews crucified Jesus. The tide quite often goes against what is right. It becomes consumed by power, greed, selfishness, influence, etc. The science community is no less susceptible than Congress for it is made of men.

The god of the gaps is running out of places to hide.

When the science community suggests that apes and men share the same ancestor after some insane abiogenesis, I say it's just as much a fairy tale that "evolution did it" in the least. Sure sells those books though don't it? :)

Assuming that all shoes come from a Nike factory is a massive leap. Asteroids mineralogy is compositionally different from that of the Earth, so to improve your bad analogy, you're assuming all Adidas trainers come from the Nike factory. Nice try though.
Walt Brown? Dear god, it all makes sense now. Even many creationists think he's a crank. He's wrong about so much I don't know where to begin.
Having a Phd in mechanics doesn't make you a planetary scientist sorry. He has exactly zero scientific citations (though plenty of scientists think he's hilarious). Your link is to his OWN website. He hasn't even done (or doesn't like the results of) the calculations of the simple energy requirements of your hypothesis. And the radiometer effect is measured in grams. It's enough to move an asteroid a few Km over several years, not enough to brake one travelling at escape velocity.

Humans and apes do share the same ancestor.
http://www.youtub...3CkSmT3c

Assuming that all shoes come from a Nike factory is a massive leap.

I didn't say all shoes, I said nike shoes.

Asteroids mineralogy is compositionally different from that of the Earth,

It's mostly metal, rock, water/ice, carbon. :\ Not sure how that is much different. My dirty nike's won't exactly match your new clean ones 1:1 for instance. But I have already linked you to several published papers that state they are similar enough.

Walt Brown? Dear god, it all makes sense now.

Jimminy Crickets man, had you have READ what I linked to earlier, you would have already sounded off about it being Brown.

Even many creationists think he's a crank. He's wrong about so much I don't know where to begin.

You don't know where to begin because you didn't read. For instance had you have read, you would have seen in the recent link where he quotes calculations on the rate of solar sail speed/distance from Witze in Science News from Sept. 2011.

Having a Phd in mechanics doesn't make you a planetary scientist sorry.

M.E. requires solid knowledge of physics. You did not ask for a planetary scientist just a background in physics.

He has exactly zero scientific citations (though plenty of scientists think he's hilarious).

Did Darwin before he wrote Origin?

Humans and apes do share the same ancestor.

Really? Ken Miller? You can do way better than him.

Miller is using similarity to attempt to prove common ancestor. I fail to see how one can then deny it to a common designer for example if similarity is enough. Funny how you jump on this which is not nearly the same standard you use against the NT.

The problem for Miller is that other animals also show fused chromosomes yet they don't necessitate an ancestor or a new species. Further, there are multiple proteins and genetic encoding/information that we have that chimps do not.