Ask a physicist anything.

[sandwiches]

For the second time --- who says they didn't?

What makes you think they didn't write it down in real-time or ex post facto?

For the second time, where are they?

 

[sandwiches]

For the second time --- who says they didn't?

What makes you think they didn't write it down in real-time or ex post facto?

God promised He would preserve His Word, not the words of the Mayans.

So the Mayan records did not fall under God's umbrella of protection.

You edited your post twice after I replied, so I'll just re-reply.

So, the answer again, is that they don't exist then. You could've just said so.

 

[TerranceL]

It was "over the whole/all the land", not worldwide.
"From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land." (Matthew 27:45)

"At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour." (Mark 15:33)

"It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour," (Luke 23:44)

See http://www.christianforums.com/t7410729-58/#post53467519,
and also Thallus. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

Then where are the roman texts talking about the sun going dark for no apparent reason?

 

[Spacewyrm]

Correct. While it's theoretically possible for them to exist on their lonesome, they really really don't want to .


The quark theory of matter was hypothesised after particle physicists kept discovering hundreds and hundreds of particles, a veritable zoo. By positing that they were made of combinations of more fundamental particles, they could vastly reduce the number of fundamental particles in the universe. And lo and behold, we can explain pretty much all particle physics in terms of quarks.

As the field advanced, we had to go from just two quarks (up and down) to six (up, down, top, bottom, charmed, and strange), along with their antiquarks (anti-top, etc). There is also the theory of quantum chromodynamics, which posits that quarks have a colour: 'red', 'blue', and 'green', or an anti-colour, 'anti-red', etc. That's when it gets a little complicated!

But basically, quarks were discovered when the vast number of particles found by particle detectors followed a tantalising pattern that physicists realised was a kind of combinatrix: they could explain all kinds of phenomena with the quark model.

OK. Thanks for the answer! I was always fascinated by how scientists were able to find out about stuff that small. It's all so interesting. I think when I have time I'm going to find some books on particle physics or quantum mechanics or whatever it is that deals with that sort of stuff. Actually most areas of science fascinate me. It's hard to keep my attention focused on anying in particular for too long.

 

[TheReasoner]

For the second time --- who says they didn't?

What makes you think they didn't write it down in real-time or ex post facto?

God promised He would preserve His Word, not the words of the Mayans.

So the Mayan records did not fall under God's umbrella of protection --- hence they got dusted.

But AV, you don't believe God's word, so why should we believe you?

Allow me to expand very briefly.
You believe God spoke and the world came into being. That means this world is nought but the effect of God's voice, His words made solid. And you don't believe what these solidified words say. You believe your own interpretation of a text. An interpretation which is heavily colored by your upbringing your understanding, education and flimsy human opinions. What you read out of that text is not what was once read and is not what one day will be read. The same words and Christians disagree on basic points all the time. Yet you believe your own interpretation which is by it's nature as a human device (and therefore imperfect) flawed.

Yet what you don't believe is that which is beyond mere human interpretation. That which is beyond ephemeral human ideas and cultural development and transcends our very existence as a species. That which we - created in the image of God Himself - cannot create, only manipulate. You believe what you think the bible says and base your worldview on that. Whereas the whole message engraved in creation's most fundamental building blocks you ignore. You proudly say "God did it, case closed!", well why not heed your own words. GOD spoke this world into existence. His solidified words are what this universe consists of. HIS speaking made all this we see. HE designed this universe, and you ignore the structure, the archives detailing it's history and the drawings clearly signed by the designer all because you refuse to believe that a poem written about the building is anything but the whole, literal story.

God did it you say? Well, why don't you believe it then?

 

[AV1611VET]

But AV, you don't believe God's word, so why should we believe you?

Oh, my.

That door swings both ways, doesn't it?

 

[Belk]

You bet we do.

You see --- the records that were written outside of God's inspiration are/were subject to nature; and nature doesn't take kindly to things existing eternally.

This is why Mother Nature is going to soon get a reality check.

AV1611VET, do you see Mother Nature as some sort of sentient entity? The way you talk about it sounds like you see it as an actual personification.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

AV1611VET, do you see Mother Nature as some sort of sentient entity? The way you talk about it sounds like you see it as an actual personification.

Mother Nature is a personification. How else do you talk about a personification, if not as a person?

 

[Jazmyn]

Then where are the roman texts talking about the sun going dark for no apparent reason?

Phlegon of Tralles from his Olympiads quoted by Sextus Julius Africanus preserved by Georgius Syncellus, another quote recorded in Origen's Against Celsus, Book II and another in Eusebius' Chronicle (in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad) preserved by Jerome.

Thallus from his Histories cited by Sextus Julius Africanus preserved by Georgius Syncellus.

Tertullian wrote of it.

Paulus Orosius in his Seven Books of History Against the Pagans.

 

[TerranceL]

Phlegon of Tralles from his Olympiads quoted by Sextus Julius Africanus preserved by Georgius Syncellus, another quote recorded in Origen's Against Celsus, Book II and another in Eusebius' Chronicle (in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad) preserved by Jerome.

Thallus from his Histories cited by Sextus Julius Africanus preserved by Georgius Syncellus.

Tertullian wrote of it.

Paulus Orosius in his Seven Books of History Against the Pagans.

Phlegon was born 200 years after christ was dead already.
Sextus Julius Africanus was a Christian traveller and historian of the late 2nd and early 3rd century AD.

uintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian, (ca. 160 – ca. 220 A.D.)[1]

Paulus Orosius (b. circa 375, d. 418?)[1]

Not one bit of your evidence comes from anyone who even lived in the same century as christ.

 

[catzrfluffy]

Thallus might have lived near the time. Evidence in history is much like that. Especially written history, it can't be negated because of the time difference.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thallus might have lived near the time. Evidence in history is much like that. Especially written history, it can't be negated because of the time difference.

I think it can. What someone in the 19[sup]th[/sup] century wrote about 15[sup]th[/sup] politics is hardly a reliable account of said politics.

We rely on contemporary, verifiable evidence for a reason.

 

[Cabal]

I think it can. What someone in the 19[sup]th[/sup] century wrote about 15[sup]th[/sup] politics is hardly a reliable account of said politics.

We rely on contemporary, verifiable evidence for a reason.

Surely that's not quite fair, if someone had access to decent contemporary primary sources it would be somewhat reliable - however I don't know if Thallus et al were in the habit of citing things...

 

[TerranceL]

Thallus might have lived near the time. Evidence in history is much like that. Especially written history, it can't be negated because of the time difference.

Sure it can, none of the people you listed saw anything. They all wrote about what other people wrote. None of them were even alive at the time. To claim that it can't be negated is silly.

 

[Michael]

By the way WC....

I still have a bone to pick with you about your haphazard application of Occum's razor as it relates to individual experiences of God and NDE's. It seems to me that such a conversation would be a hijack of this thread and my life is wee hectic at the moment. Just know that I'll be starting a new thread on that topic at a later date.

 

[TheReasoner]

Oh, my.

That door swings both ways, doesn't it?

Oh, really? Am I insisting my interpretations are the only truth, any and all evidence to the contrary be darned?
No. I'm not. But you are.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Surely that's not quite fair, if someone had access to decent contemporary primary sources it would be somewhat reliable - however I don't know if Thallus et al were in the habit of citing things...

True, I suppose I should have been more clear: the 19[sup]th[/sup] writer is writing from his own ideas about what happened four centuries ago, not basing his entire work on the objectively verifiable work of contemporaries.

By the way WC....

I still have a bone to pick with you about your haphazard application of Occum's razor as it relates to individual experiences of God and NDE's. It seems to me that such a conversation would be a hijack of this thread and my life is wee hectic at the moment. Just know that I'll be starting a new thread on that topic at a later date.

Fair enough. Send me a link when it's up .

 

[Jazmyn]

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

.

 

[icarusforde]

Well, since you say anything...

Can you do my physics homework?