orac

You must be having a problem there. You would have been more accurate if you had said "Biff noticed the lack of first hand evidence for miracles, and wants you to provide the evidence that you have."

The question is still "did the sky darken when Jesus died" and Biff, like many other people, is wondering where the evidence for that specific event is. The interesting thing about this event is that it would have been observable and significant to a large number of people who would not have any religious reason to avoid writing about it, simply because they didn't know or care about Jesus. True, Biff is commenting on other miracles also believed to have happened at the time, but the lack of evidence that they occured is not helping you persuade people that they did happen.

If a lack of evidence for miracles suggests to you that Jesus was a myth, that's not our problem.

Actually, come to think of it, if you require evidence for things you believe to be true, that's something we'll all be impressed by.

Mageth

Crimony.

Magus:

Since no one could explain the darkness, they didn't consider it to be important enough to copy down, at least since it was written by Luke, Matthew and Mark.

Not likely, as I've already explained, since the earliest of these three was not written until at least 70 AD, the authors of these three are not known, and the gospels were not written as historical documents. Further, Matthew and Luke were based on Mark, and written much later. And then there's the problem of awareness and access. Books weren't published back then like they are now, remember? The gospels would have been hand-written, copied, and passed among the churches. The chances of a historian in the region even being aware of and having access to the Gospels in the First century are very slim.

Mageth

Magus:

Egyptians didn't exist before the flood. They were one of the first civilizations to form after the flood.

So, tell me, Magus, when exactly was the flood?

Mageth

Magus:

Moutains weren't very high, and the ocean floor wasn't as deep. The flood, God and plate tectonics are what caused the Earth to become the way we see it today.

One out of three ain't so bad, I guess.

Let me guess; you flunked the Geology section in High School Science, right? Biology, too, I imagine.

Magus: Mt. Everest is a bit over 29,000 feet high. Can you calculate for me how many feet a year it would have to rise to reach its current height if it started rising during or after the flood? And Mauna Loa is a bit over 30,000 feet, base to top, with about the top 13,000 feet rising above sea level.

When you finish that task, you can explain how older mountain ranges, such as the Appalachians and the even older Ozarks, managed to rise to Himalaya-like heights and then erode to their current heights, all since the flood.

Mageth

Magus:

Why couldn't the foot prints been left after the flood?

Do you believe the sedimentary layers were deposited by the flood as many flood proponents do? If so:

Explain how a creature could leave footprints after a flood in one layer, and then, after the same flood, another creature could leave footprints in another layer a foot above the first layer, then another creature leave tracks after the same flood in yet another layer ten feet above the second layer, and so on for numerous layers covering a few hundred or thousands of feet? (all these layers supposedly deposited by the same flood)

Mageth

Magus:

Ah yes, good old radioactive iostopes. Such a useful tool, especially when they date the eruption of Mount St. Helens at 2 million years ago. . .

Ah, yes, good old Magus pooh-poohing something he knows absolutely nothing about. Rather, echoing someone else's pooh-poohing without bothering to research the subject himself, I imagine.

Perhaps it would be useful for you to read this site to learn a bit about the subject. BTW, it's written by a Christian from a Christian perspective. And it covers the Mt. St. Helens dating "fiasco" that many Creationists use to "disprove" radiometric dating.

Magus55

The most accepted date is about 2500-3000 B.C.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Magus55
The most accepted date is about 4400 B.C.

Accepted by whom?

Magus55

see above, typo - happened about 4400 years ago, putting it somewhere around 2500 B.C.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Magus55
see above, typo - happened about 4400 years ago, putting it somewhere around 2500 B.C.

Accepted by whom?