*The source that expouses Creationism as some sort of "science" also suggests that cattle mating in view of striped sticks will produce striped offspring (Genesis 30:37-39).*

Ahh, such great advice from the bible. This of course explains
to runner, Polly and Gibo, where zebras come from! Somebody
must have read their bible and applied the technology to a horse :)

Your memory fails you again Boaz.

>>I'm pretty sure I conceded that he was not a 'co-founder' in the strict sense of the word.<<

Go back and take a look. After I had challenged your assertion, you went completely silent.

>>I don't know why you adopt this 'dog with bone' attitide of pedantism about rather peripheral issues<<

It is not a peripheral issue. It is about credibility.

You elevated Greenleaf to the position of co-founder in order to give his utterances a value that they did not warrant.

You don't check things. If they agree with your prejudice, you accept them at face value.

Here's the Greenleaf story that you swallowed, whole.

http://apprising.org/2008/09/didnt-you-know-gods-word-is-truth/

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf the brilliant 19th century Professor of Law at the prestigious School of Law at Harvard University who wrote a classic textbook on legal evidence was confronted by the powerful living Word of God. In his classes Dr. Greenleaf would consistently attack the Bible until some of his students knowledgeable about their beliefs challenged him to take his textbook and apply it to the Bible and to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dr. Greenleaf accepted the challenge and when faced with the impressive evidence supporting the claims of the Bible he accepted Jesus as his Lord and went on to write another classic book–this one in defense of the Christian faith!"

Or this one:

http://www.christianstoriesonline.com/josh_mcdowell.html

" Have you heard of Dr. Simon Greenleaf, who held the Royal Professorship of Law at Harvard? He was a skeptic, often mocking the Christians in his classes. One day they challenged him to take the three volumes he had written on the laws of legal evidence and apply them to the resurrection. After much persuasion he did that... Greenleaf came to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the best established events in history according to the laws of legal evidence."

Neither of these is even remotely true.

Are you by any chance spotting a pattern here, Boaz?

Because I do.

And just in case you have missed the entire point about ancient documents, Boaz, let's take one last look.

>>under the ancient document rule. Now.. you made a claim that "Rules of evidence: not in this universe" which was patently incorrect.<<

At a pinch, I might be amenable to an accusation of "partially incorrect", in the sense that an ancient document does indeed have its own intrinsic validity in a court of law. But purely as a document.

My contention - which is clear from the context, by the way - is that the content of the document cannot possibly be considered valid evidence on its own, solely on the basis that it happens to be old.

That would of course be a travesty of any courtroom's protocol - just think what fun they'd have with the manuscripts of some of Ovid's poetry, for example.

Not to mention of course, that it is clear from the manner in which the ancient document rule has been applied by the States, it was intended for legal instruments, not parchment scraps.

So your self-indulgent triumphalism is once again premature, I'm afraid.

>>I don't mind being corrected when the motive is TRUTH rather than destroying credibility<<

That's special pleading, Boaz.

Where the truth is an issue, credibility also becomes an issue.

In fact, most trials are conducted on the basis of credibility. Two stories, with two sets of lawyers each presenting their case in the best possible light.

How does the jury decide?

They have to determine which narrative - given all the rules of evidence and the need to give the accused the benefit of any doubt - is the more credible.

You are an inseparable part of your story, Boaz.

Your credibility is therefore a legitimate subject for examination.

A smart move on your part would be to validate your stories in future, using a non-partisan source.

Because you just know that I will check, don't you?

Dear Folks..

Robert first....

You said:

"David the trap would appear to be trying to treat ancient texts as a scientific or historical reference (especially a scientific reference which trumps modern science in regard to the science)."

Exactly :) if you notice....the topic was only about the probability of life forming from swirling chemicals. NOt about 'Is the bible true'....

I know what you said is a trap, but I've not been advocating that the Bible is a scientific document at all. I've stated 2 things.

1/ Probability of life forming is extremely remote.
2/ The first verse of Genesis is quite believable "In the beginning...God created"

I don't consider Gen 1:1 to be a scientific assertion, but a Philosophical one. Nevertheless I believe it to be true... you might even say "on the grounds of scientific probability"

PERICLES....
I'm fully aware of the many Christian 'myths' which speakers love to trot out to give we pew sitters the warm fuzzies.

I generally try to find original sources, but sometimes they can be illusive.
I've appreciated your efforts re Greenleaf, but I still contend that his position of 'Co Founder' or.. 'virtual' core of the Law school is not relevant to the strength of his argument. What IS crucial is his skill as a lawyer.

Now..you make a lot about 'me' being part of the story, but I reject that. That suits your objectives, but does not help in the persuit of truth. If truth is what you seek, then leave 'me' out of it and just criticize the points I make as "true" or.."untrue" and give reasons.

It smacks of sculduggery to try to wage a campaign of "you are not credible/thus all you say is not"...that is in fact quite vexatious.

Porkycrap: << It smacks of sculduggery to try to wage a campaign of "you are not credible/thus all you say is not"...that is in fact quite vexatious. >>

Porky, what is quite vexing is the fact that you repeatedly post untruths, half-truths, unverifiable hearsay and prevarications in your quest to spread fear, loathing and hatred in the community. This is despite the fact that your errors and mendacity have been frequently pointed out to you by Pericles, me and many others.

You don't apparently care whether what you post is accurate or truthful, which is what renders your credibility on any issue questionable at best.

Personally, I've reached the point that I regard anything that you post as so much bulldust unless it's independently verified.

Boaz, you have elevated "not listening" to an art form.

Whereas seven-year-olds use the crude but effective method of holding their hands over their ears and chanting "notlisteningnotlisteningnotlistening", you use the online equivalent, simply ignoring everything that you don't want to hear.

The number of discussions from which you have simply walked away testifies to this. You refuse to accept that there exists a voice other than your own.

>>I generally try to find original sources, but sometimes they can be illusive<<

I'll assume you mean elusive, rather than illusive.

Although it could also be illusory, which is probably closer to the truth.

Because you patently do not check anything.

Exposing your Swedish Pastor myth took me less than three minutes. Finding that Greenleaf was not a co-founder took two, maximum. Although with that discovery I also learned that he was already a lifelong member of the church, rather than the militantly atheistic sceptic you - and many others - made him out to be.

>>What IS crucial is his skill as a lawyer<<

Oh, please.

He doesn't even follow his own rules.

He assumes the content of ancient documents to be true, when the rule is merely that the physical document be accepted into evidence.

Once again, I strongly suspect that you have not read the treatise in question - am I right? It is available on the internet, you know.

You have simply copied-and-pasted ideas from god-bothering web sites, who in turn, have not checked a single fact.

>>Now..you make a lot about 'me' being part of the story, but I reject that.<<

But you are, Boaz.

Your denial of reality, plus your ability to prevaricate, obfuscate and shapeshift, is very much part of the story.

>>If truth is what you seek, then leave 'me' out of it and just criticize the points I make as "true" or.."untrue" and give reasons<<

But I have attempted, on many occasions, to do exactly that. Unable to refute, you obfuscate.

Eventually, this turns into a "yes-it-is, no-it-isn't", at which point your credibility becomes a key component to reaching the truth.