Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 01-14-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Yes you could be neutral before listening to our witness(bible).

No, one remains neutral in evaluating a potential witness.

Quote:

This is a point that was made by others.

No, you have obtained opposition to your attempt to skip the evaluation process and go straight to the witness stand "in good standing".

Quote:

They tried to say the bible could not even make the stand and declare its story until it PROVED it was a legitamate witness.

I'm not saying anything different. :huh:

Quote:

Yet like in real life and on a court stand we do accept any witness as reliable as a first insinct.

No, this continues to be contrary to actual practice in the legal system as well as incredibly naive in real life.

Quote:

The witness credibility is being accepted unless there is a reason not too.

No, witness credibility must be established by either the witness or those proffering the witness as reliable.

Quote:

The witnesses credibility is presumed to be good even before we consider thier actual account.

This is certainly not true within the legal system but it is an excellent way to be repeatedly gulled by con men. How many times have you agreed to allow the man from Nigeria access to your bank account?

Quote:

After the resurrection the evidence for it came from witnesses eyewitness and was evidence alot.

What sort of evidence do you imagine was available a month after the fact?

Amaleq13 · 01-14-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

If i come to some people and say theres a gunman a floor below they will not first ask for references on my credibility..

This has already been addressed. Please don't pretend that it hasn't. This is simply not analogous. The possibility of an ongoing crime outweigh considerations of your credibility but an ongoing crime isn't analogous to the clearly cold case we are discussing.

Quote:

The bible is like a gut telling you something.

No, the Bible is a collection of ancient texts making various claims.

Your entire argument is essentially nothing more than an effort to shift the burden.

Doug Shaver · 01-15-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

What kind of evidence is required to prove that the Bible cannot be used as a witness?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Yes you can cross examine the witness.

I didn't ask you whether I could. That was not my question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

you must receive the witness because you must presume the credibility of the witness.

I have stipulated that, just for the sake of discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

We present the bible as credible and you must show it isn't before you dismiss its account.

My question was: How can I do that? What is required to show that the Bible is not credible?

Robert Byers · 01-15-2008, 11:35 PM

To everybody:
So many attempts to show someone saying something should be not credible until they have proven their credibility.
I'm confident this is not real life interaction and the court analgy we have been using is not about present jurisprudence proceadure but simple witnees and jury scene.
We are not neutral listening to a witness but presume they are credible until they finsh talking and then judge if they are still credible.
We are neutral to thier truth perhaps but not their credibility.
For example.
I upon first being brought to my attention the Koran. While I'm a christian.
I do not ask for it to prove its credible before reading.
i read it with a presumption it is a credible witness of things
I only read in the first place because I presume its credible in its integrity.
I read it like I would be listening to a guy talking.
if I am neutral to its credibility then I am in effect saying the Koran is possibly lying. So I'm not neutral. I'm making a judgement.
I accept the Koran as a witness in good standing until shown otherwise.(by any reason in my mind) This happens when i stop reading as I see its claims as wrong.
We are never neutral in listening to someone tell us something. If we were neutral then we would be in fact making a judgement on the credibility of the witness. Therefore this judgement would erase neutrality.
A line of reasoning here.
In listening to a witness we must receive their credibility as presumed true and only while listening and after judge their account.
Yet the witness (bible) is presumed honest. Otherwise your presuming its something other then honest and so making a judgement without evidence.
Robert Byers

spin · 01-16-2008, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

To everybody:
So many attempts to show someone saying something should be not credible until they have proven their credibility.
I'm confident this is not real life interaction and the court analgy we have been using is not about present jurisprudence proceadure but simple witnees and jury scene.
We are not neutral listening to a witness but presume they are credible until they finsh talking and then judge if they are still credible.
We are neutral to thier truth perhaps but not their credibility.
For example.
I upon first being brought to my attention the Koran. While I'm a christian.
I do not ask for it to prove its credible before reading.
i read it with a presumption it is a credible witness of things
I only read in the first place because I presume its credible in its integrity.
I read it like I would be listening to a guy talking.
if I am neutral to its credibility then I am in effect saying the Koran is possibly lying. So I'm not neutral. I'm making a judgement.
I accept the Koran as a witness in good standing until shown otherwise.(by any reason in my mind) This happens when i stop reading as I see its claims as wrong.
We are never neutral in listening to someone tell us something. If we were neutral then we would be in fact making a judgement on the credibility of the witness. Therefore this judgement would erase neutrality.
A line of reasoning here.
In listening to a witness we must receive their credibility as presumed true and only while listening and after judge their account.
Yet the witness (bible) is presumed honest. Otherwise your presuming its something other then honest and so making a judgement without evidence.

In this thread the biggest problem has been that different people explain the matter differently and so you are confused.

There are two aspects to be considered:

Before presenting information one must make a case that the potential witness has the opportunity of knowing what they claim to know. (Note that one processes the information to decide if the informant is in the position to know.)
The information is treated as evidence and presented for the case where it is weighed on its merit (veracity, relevance, etc.).

We attempt to make and analyze objective arguments here, which require more than your friendly little church chat. Normal standards of scholarly endeavor apply. You seem to totally ignore the first point above and think that any boy or his dog makes a credible witness -- despite the vast numbers of crank calls that the police receive every day. When will you face the first issue? You have assiduously avoided it thus far.

If you want to deal with matters here in any objective way, you need to try to be scholarly about how you use information.

spin

01-16-2008, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

We present the bible as credible and you must show it isn't before you dismiss its account.
Rob byers

It HAS been shown not credible.

There is hardly a book in the world which has been studied and examined so carefully and for so long.

The results of this study is clear :
It is not credible.
It is not a witness in good standing.

Iasion

01-16-2008, 01:52 AM

Hmmm...
This is truly a bizarre conversation,
but
I think this is what Robert is (incorrectly) hearing here :

"we will not even consider the bible,
we will not read or study the bible
we will completely ignore the bible,
we will have nothing to do with the bible"

Iasion

Johnny Skeptic · 01-16-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

We present the bible as credible and you must show it isn't before you dismiss its account.

Deists present deism as credible and you must show it isn't before you dismiss its account.

Evolutionists present evolution as credible and you must show it isn't before you dismiss its account.

Opponents of a global flood, which include some evangelical Christian geologists, present their opinions as credible and you must show that their opinions are not credible before you dismiss their opinions.

Now here is one for the books. At the Evolution/Creation Forum, you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

The ice age would be some 400-500 years after the flood by tree rings found in fossils areas of a post flood world.

Now you mentioned tree rings, but yet you later said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

I have never studied tree rings myself.

You have no business disscussing tree rings if you have not studied them. The link to that thread is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...98#post5093998.

In that same thread, you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Dates of old trees are probably wrong and at least not verified.

I easily refuted that in my post #15. You need to read that post. I mentioned Dr. Roger Wiens. He is a conservative Christian. Consider the following from that post:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScienceinChristianPerspective

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Dr. Wiens received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Wheaton College and a PhD from the University of Minnesota, doing research on meteorites and moon rocks. He spent two years at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (La Jolla, CA) where he studied isotopes of helium, neon, argon, and nitrogen in terrestrial rocks. He worked seven years in the Geological and Planetary Sciences Division at Caltech, where he continued the study of meteorites and worked for NASA on the feasibility of a space mission to return solar wind samples to Earth for study. Dr. Wiens wrote the first edition of this paper while in Pasadena. In 1997 he joined the Space and Atmospheric Sciences group at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he has been in charge of building and flying the payload for the solar-wind mission, as well as developing new instruments for other space missions. He has published over twenty scientific research papers and has also published articles in Christian magazines. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other.

As the article shows, Dr. Wiens is a conservative Christian, and a distinguished scientist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger C. Wiens

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

[YEC's claim that] different dating techniques usually give conflicting results. This is not true at all. The fact that dating techniques most often agree with each other is why scientists tend to trust them in the first place. Nearly every college and university library in the country has periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals that give the results of dating studies. The public is usually welcome to (and should!) browse in these libraries. So the results are not hidden; people can go look at the results for themselves. Over a thousand research papers are published a year on radiometric dating, essentially all in agreement. Besides the scientific periodicals that carry up-to-date research reports, specific suggestions are given below for further reading, both for textbooks, non-classroom books, and web resources.

Consider the following:

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/p...g-methods.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Feuerbacher

In conclusion, it is clear that independent evidence, in the form of ancient coral growth rings and the slowing of the earth's rate of rotation, and in the form of ice cores, confirms the general validity of radioactive dating methods. To convincingly show these dating methods to be invalid, one must show how radioactive dating consistently shows errors, and show how independent methods that point to similar conclusions are also invalid. In particular it must be shown how two or more invalid methods can be consistent with one another. It is not sufficient to argue that "men make mistakes, so all scientific methods may be wrong," as the Society invariably does.

Regarding "To convincingly show these dating methods to be invalid, one must show how radioactive dating consistently shows errors, and show how independent methods that point to similar conclusions are also invalid," please go to the Evolution/Creation Forum and show how radioactive dating consistently shows errors, and show hos independent methods that point to similar conclusions are also invalid. It would be best if you would start a new thread on datings methods.

You did not reply to my post #26 in a thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=234265&page=2. Please do so.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

What is your explanation for that? At the very least, it is needlessly confusing, as are the two apparently different versions of the death of Judas, and the apparent different versions of the events at the tomb. If God inspired the Bible, there would not have been any need for him to inspire confusing and misleading writings that even Christians themselves often disagree on regarding what they mean. Many Christians have killed each other regarding disputes over interpreations of the Bible. Such would not have been the case if God had acted properly.

Your interest in Biblibal evidence is not consistent. If the New Testament said that the same number of eyewitnesses saw Jesus injure and kill people with supernatural powers, and that Jesus said that God will send everyone to hell, Christians would reject the same quality of evidence that they accept now because of their emotional perceived self-interest. On the other hand, I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim was true. Following are some of the reasons that I do not accept the Bible now:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

5 - Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark.

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

8 - I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

9 - I would still question God's desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

10 - As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven and hell were at stake.

So there we have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, Christians will only accept promises that they believe will ultimately benefit you. Christians have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interests.

Hypothetical arguments are frequently excellent tools for revealing invalid arguments. Fundamentalist Christians frequently use them when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.

Robert, since I visit a number of forums like you do, I usually know where you are. If you are evasive and do not reply to my arguments, I will repost them wherever I find you.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-16-2008, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

The first and best evidence for Israel in Egypt is the Bible itself. It is a legitimate witness until proven otherwise to what it accounts. The Bible says this and that and so it is beholden on deniers to show it is false before it can be said not to be evidence for those who believe it.

But Robert, this thread is about Israel in Egypt. What you said deals with accepting the entire Bible. What you essentially said is "The first and best evidence for THE ENTIRE BIBLE is the Bible itself." What you need to do is to start a new thread at this forum or some other forum and present you case why you believe that the Bible is a legitimate witness.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

Robert Byers: The Bible is a legitimate witness until proven otherwise

Muslim: The Koran is a legitimate witness until proven otherwise.

Deist: Deism is a legitimate witness until proven otherwise.

Agnostic: Agnosticism is a legitimate witness until proven otherwise.

Robert Byers: Well, er, uh.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

I would also add the story is so aggresive in its contentions, written back then, that it seems unreasonable to think authors invented it out of the air.

But many religious books are full of agressive, false claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

If so it must of created a stir in the Egypt of the day to hear what is said about their own history.

On the contrary, if the Ten Plagues occured, that would have been the end of Egypt as a major power in the Middle East. As history shows, that did not happen.

If the Ten Plagues actually occured, they would have easily been the most incredible news story in the entire world at that time, or at any previous time, or at any subsequent time. No widely agreed upon event in history is nearly as important as the Ten Plagues. Travelers and traders were always going to and from Egypt. If the Ten Plagues occured, travelers and traders returning home would have quickly circulated new of the Ten Plagues in many countries. Can you imagine how people who lived in neighboring countries would have reacted to the news, and how historians in the Middle East would have reacted to the news?

If God wanted people in future generations to believe that the Ten Plagues occured, he would have caused records from non-Biblical sources to survive.
Similarly, if God wanted people in future generations to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, he would have caused records of Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances from non-Biblical sources to survive. Why aren't there ANY surviving records where a skeptic basically said "I saw Jesus perform authentic miracles, but I rejected him."

Sheshonq · 01-16-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

To everybody:
So many attempts to show someone saying something should be not credible until they have proven their credibility.

That is how it works.

Quote:

I'm confident this is not real life interaction and the court analgy we have been using is not about present jurisprudence proceadure but simple witnees and jury scene.

No one cares if you are confident. The only thing that matters is whether you are correct.

You are not.

Quote:

We are not neutral listening to a witness but presume they are credible until they finsh talking and then judge if they are still credible.

Incorrect. A witness must be validated first before they can give testimony in open court.

Quote:

We are neutral to thier truth perhaps but not their credibility.

Also incorrect. We verify not only their credibility, but we make sure that their story "checks out" and that they are in a position to have knowledge of the topic.

Quote:

For example.
I upon first being brought to my attention the Koran. While I'm a christian.
I do not ask for it to prove its credible before reading.

No one cares how you personally approach something. We were discussing this in two other contexts:

1. how this would be handled in a courtroom scenario - which you cannot seem to understand does not assume credibility (or truth) without prior verification;

2. how actual historians or scientists would evaluate these claims - which also does not assume credibility (or truth) without prior verification;

Quote:

if I am neutral to its credibility then I am in effect saying the Koran is possibly lying. So I'm not neutral.

Wrong. If you are neutral to its credibility, then you are saying that you DO NOT KNOW. A person is neutral if they have no belief either way; i.e., the Koran might be true, or the Koran might be false, and the person is willing to be convinced in either direction, provided that enough evidence is produced.

Quote:

We are never neutral in listening to someone tell us something.

Speak for yourself.

Quote:

Yet the witness (bible) is presumed honest. Otherwise your presuming its something other then honest and so making a judgement without evidence.

As shown above, that line of reasoning is broken.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2008, 11:35 PM	#174
Robert Byers Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto. Ontario, Canada Posts: 921	To everybody: So many attempts to show someone saying something should be not credible until they have proven their credibility. I'm confident this is not real life interaction and the court analgy we have been using is not about present jurisprudence proceadure but simple witnees and jury scene. We are not neutral listening to a witness but presume they are credible until they finsh talking and then judge if they are still credible. We are neutral to thier truth perhaps but not their credibility. For example. I upon first being brought to my attention the Koran. While I'm a christian. I do not ask for it to prove its credible before reading. i read it with a presumption it is a credible witness of things I only read in the first place because I presume its credible in its integrity. I read it like I would be listening to a guy talking. if I am neutral to its credibility then I am in effect saying the Koran is possibly lying. So I'm not neutral. I'm making a judgement. I accept the Koran as a witness in good standing until shown otherwise.(by any reason in my mind) This happens when i stop reading as I see its claims as wrong. We are never neutral in listening to someone tell us something. If we were neutral then we would be in fact making a judgement on the credibility of the witness. Therefore this judgement would erase neutrality. A line of reasoning here. In listening to a witness we must receive their credibility as presumed true and only while listening and after judge their account. Yet the witness (bible) is presumed honest. Otherwise your presuming its something other then honest and so making a judgement without evidence. Robert Byers

01-16-2008, 01:52 AM	#177
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Hmmm... This is truly a bizarre conversation, but I think this is what Robert is (incorrectly) hearing here : "we will not even consider the bible, we will not read or study the bible we will completely ignore the bible, we will have nothing to do with the bible" Iasion

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.