Robittybob1

I haven't heard that one, so yes.

That is the bit that is harder to comprehend. Mountains might be a few million years old old billions. You are right. Thanks.

I am not a geologists and I'd like Ophilite to comment, for I keep seeing geological formations that make me think the surface of the planet was never really totally molten, but that is too much from a layman's point of view and not an expert.

Wikipedia check up on Thermal gradient, reminded me that in the early Earth the amount of radioactive material was much higher, so the heat being produced early on was at a much greater rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient So the early Earth was hotter but was it the hottest immediately on forming? That was not sufficient to support your presumption. Looking at the radiation of the Earth's surface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Temperature_of_the_Earth But this is from our current quite cold temperatures. I think it is important that Dave understands the ideas behind the Iron Catastrophe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_catastrophe From that it is clear that the Earth built up heat over a period of some 500 million years, whether that coincides with the maximum it doesn't say. From that it appears the surface temperature never got that hot, hence the internal heat of the Earth has persisted for such a long time (4.6 by).

I challenge you to find a reference that backs up your presumption: So do you think the core temperature was the hottest immediately on forming? I'm sure you are wrong about that. But you made the statement so I challenge you to back it up.

No I don't think that is true, as I said I have experienced it with making compost, insulation allows the terminal temperature to be hotter. I doubt whether that is because the composition changes. Is there some other example where the same amount of heat results in a higher core temperature. Home insulation would be an example. The same heating device gets the same home hotter when the rooms are adequately insulated. Without the change in sulation getting hotter would mean adding heat. We disagree potentially on your last sentence. That would be true if all the heat was present at the beginning but more heat is being produced as time go on.

The analogy I was thinking of is compost piles, with more insulation around them you do get a higher core temperature. So the composition of the core of the compost is not changed by the insulation but with the heat being unable to escape the core temperature will rise. The same would happen to a planet if the heat can't escape the core will be hotter, for the heat production (principally radioactivity) will be the same. It does not add heat to the core but enables it to get hotter.

Could the incoming solar radiation contribute to the heating of the surface? Obviously it is a combination of the atmosphere and incident radiation. Once the surface is kept hot, there is less potential for the underlying material to cool, so the whole planet gets hotter. Is this a possible consequence of the small induced magnetosphere on Venus. Michel van Biezen talks of Venus being tipped over (making it orbit in the opposite direction to most of the other planets) at an early stage, so a moon or some other massive object must have collided with Venus to cause this. The loss of a moon and its slow rotation could also be a significant factor. 1 day (passage of the Sun from horizon to horizon) on Venus is equal to 116d 18h 0m on Earth. That is a very slow rotation. (Is it the slowest of all the planets in our SS?) http://www.universetoday.com/47898/length-of-day-on-venus/ (note a full rotation = 243 days)

So what is your point? I'm trying not to post on this thread, and I'll let you others work out whether Jesus was real or not. I am going back over the thread to see whether the claim that I am repeating myself is correct. The first 19 pages seemed tedious but OK. Then pages 20, 21, 22, I don't even get involved. Page 23 and 24 we involve ourselves in the stupid discussion about Dionysus. Page 25 pick on Rob time Page 26 discussion on the grandsons of Jude. Page 27 discussion on historical recordings, and first mention of the Shroud of Turin in this thread. Further discussion on the value of the thread. There was no evidence of repeating myself in my opinion. Bowing out for a while all the same. Cheers.

So it could be a property of the bar magnet. The iron filings are not little permanent magnets too are they. Are iron filings non-magnetized? I have see iron filings stick to a file appearing as if they are slightly magnetized in filing the process. Have you experienced that? It could be the file or the filings.

Briefly how would the Earth's atmosphere affect that radiation rate? Is it going to be at the same ratio regardless?

That is a reasonable hypothesis but I don't think it is proven. All I see, and I think others agree with the observation, is that both ends of the bar magnet are surrounded in a different pattern and I'd like to know why.

Thanks, I think you have come the closest to understanding my point that there was a real person named "Jesus" or some variant of that name and from that person the Christian Church grew. We have insufficient reliable documented evidence to say much else. If it seems I am arguing the same stuff ad nauseam it is always in response to someone else's point.

Still doesn't work. Unless I wanted to pay of course. Don't worry.

That just took me back to where I was before The error message I get is after clicking on "Download PDF" "You are viewing a complimentary shared article, since we have detected that you would not normally have full-text access. Complimentary shares do not allow PDF file downloads. Click here for additional access options." Are you a subscriber?

That link didn't work for me. Is this a different one? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7451/full/nature12163.html

So do I take it you are ignoring the words in the quote you posted (page 27) and now side with Richard Carrier? Reminder That sentence can only make sense if the historical Jesus existed. Where is the confirmation bias in that? It is plain English to me.

Did I say I have exhausted my line of inquiry? So how did you conclude that I have "exhausted (my) current line on thinking"? It is a two way discussion so please don't lecture me on being contradictory. I only brought to the discussion the items that had been asked for. The last being the reports of the relatives of Jesus (the grandchildren of his brother).

I read that as the majority view was that Jesus did exist. There were other views as well but they were in the minority. "There's a lot of evidence that there wasn't" well that is surely wrong, for it is the lack of evidence which is the problem.

Wouldn't that apply to everyone. I find the people with the skeptical view highly unlikely to accept another view. "Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views. This is a forum for discussion, not lectures or debates." It must be applied both ways. No convincing arguments showing Jesus as not being a real person have been put forth in my opinion. I have been looking forward to the killer blow but it hasn't come.

It would be worth looking at that and see what the reason was. I saw them shake the container to distribute the filings in the liquid in one of the videos.

It seemed that one end was forming more intensely than the other. (it ended up being tighter packed as well.)

What is forbidden?

So you wouldn't accept a "Jesus selfie on instagram" either. Was is "contemporary" in the context of this discussion? When oral tales finally get written down, is that still contemporary? I certainly don't feel as if I'm winning the argument, if that is what you mean. But there is humour as well as serious discussion so keep it lighthearted. The Shroud is mentioned as a way of getting Skeptic a Jesus selfie.

What the Shroud of Turin not good enough for you? No plenty of other non NT tales as well.