Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 07-09-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calilasseia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

They aren't manuscripts, Cal. In Roger's world, nothing counts unless it's a manuscript.

Any other type of paper (or evidence) fails to provide him with the opportunity to hold forth as a pseudo-expert. And he's not willing to invest any time in self-education, outside of manuscripts.

So until you have a quote from Tertullian about the quantum state of the early universe, it doesn't count in Roger's world.
When the only skill you have is using a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

In that case shall I have them transcribed onto parchment by a geriatric monk? He'll have to wait a long time though because the business of illuminating the first capital letter takes two hours.

[Note: if a certain person from another board sees this and recognises their comic handiwork, copyright is duly acknowledged to Trumpton]

Be careful. If afdave or Roger see the phrase "geriatric monk", they're likely to claim the monk lived 1,000 years. :devil:

Sauron · 07-09-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Some scholars, apparently including Petrie regarding Egypt, believe that Monotheism is the oldest form of theology.

1. Petrie was an Egyptologist, almost 125 years ago.

2. His argument is based in the near east only, it isn't a universal argument.

3. Your "link" goes to an Australian bibl-arch institute (think Discovery Institute).

Quote:

Why do you suppose that it takes very long for a civilization to reject monotheism and adopt an elaborate system of polytheism?

That wasn't Petrie's position or argument.

Quote:

How long did it take for the scientific community to reject Creationism and adopt Darwinism? Not very long.

Incorrect. It took about, oh, 10,000 years to grow out of the idea that gods created everything.

Sauron · 07-09-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

You don't know that until you read his book like I have. You're the one with the imagination. Stop pretending you know things that you don't.

Whatsamatter, Davey? Seemed to work for you, when you were telling us all about a global flood.

You also tried to tell us what these 11 alleged sources said, even though you clearly hadn't read any of them.

Are you being a hypocrite again, Davey?

Quote:

PS Evil One ... You are right about Josephus' (not) 11 sources. As we discussed earlier, they probably only amount to about 5 independent sources. But that is still significant.

Nope. None of the sources support genesis' claims about 1,000 year lifespans.

You still can't seem to get that point drilled into your head, for some reason.

Sauron · 07-09-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Roger: you used that phrase yourself earlier. Look at my previous post and all will be revealed to the capable reader. Perhaps you can manage that.

What is the point of insulting your opponent with every post? Is there something you wish to accomplish with this approach?

Uh Davey....I think you'll find that it was Roger who first tried to claim that people were "parroting" things they didn't understand.

If you're trying to reduce the insults, maybe you should focus on the person who took the first swing here. Oh, except he's a fellow theist like you are, so I guess that's asking too much.

Sauron · 07-09-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

MORE ON ORIGINAL MONOTHEISM IN EGYPT
Monotheism in Ancient Egypt

You realize that's an Islamic website you're quoting from, right Dave?

Ya think maybe they have any agenda in showing that monotheism existed in Egypt?

Sauron · 07-09-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm not the only one having difficulty with this thread, I see!

Actually, you're probably the most confused participant. Let's watch to find out why.

Quote:

I did not express any such view, nor do I hold it.

But your arguments presupposed it. Maybe you need to work on how you frame your arguments.

Quote:

My point was about the kinds of arguments that were being made; that both sides agreed that any such people were not like us today, precisely in that they lived for a long time.

Then you were sadly mistaken. Both sides" have agreed nothing of the kind.

The skeptic side doesn't admit to the existence of any such flood or antediluvians. Given that fact, they also don't agree that (nonexistent) antediluvians were different.

Moreover, the skeptics are saying that there is zero evidence that anyone in history has ever been *so* different as to live for 1,000 years.

So Roger:
How you could be involved in this thread, and yet so thoroughly misunderstand the position of the majority of participants, is in want of an explanation (to borrow a pointed Britishism).

Quote:

But the difficulty with this thread is that 90% of the posters have now turned off their minds and are parrotting stale old invective almost in set terms. This of course squeezes out any possibility of intelligent discussion, and leads to people attributing to others views that they do not hold on subjects that they have not discussed.

As I said: you are probably the most confused participant.

Sauron · 07-09-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

Actually (slaps forehead) why are we arguing about whether monotheism is original or not? Surely this is a derail? How is it relevent to the OP?

It isn't relevant.

It's a classic afdave tactic: introduce a distraction when he can't answer rebuttals to his original claim.

Pappy Jack · 07-09-2007, 12:33 PM

I have yet to see the creos post any evidence here - other than from sources using legend and myth as their primary inspiration - that is in any way comparable to the results from archaeological and palaeopathological research into lifespans that gainsays any suggestion whatsoever that any member of the human species born anywhere or anytime could ever have lived to be much more than 100 years old.

Median lifespans (years) in the E Med (M followed by F):

30k-9k BC = 35.4/30.0
9k-7k BC = 33.5/31.3
7k-5k BC = 33.6/29.8
5k-3k BC = 33.1/29.2
3k-2k BC = 33.6/29.4
2k-c.1.5k BC = 36.5/31.4
c.1.5k-c.1k BC = 39.6/32.6

Source:

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...-1984-1a.shtml

Demographic statistics on Dynastic Egypt:

Child mortality in the first 5 years of life was around 45%
Life expectancy at birth was between 20 and 30 years (probably nearer 20)
Average adult age at death was between 30 and 40 years (women around 5 years less because of pregnancy-related complications and illnesses)
Annual population growth was around 0.1% and population doubling took anything from 30 to 60 generations

Source:

http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/index.html

Apologies to those who have seen these stats before, but I have yet to see a meaningful creo reply to them.....

VoxRat · 07-09-2007, 01:03 PM

So, after all this discussion, where do we stand?
Is the evidence for any humans ever having lived two centuries or more:

(A) more convincing than the evidence for a talking snake
(B) less convincing than the evidence for a talking snake
(C) exactly the same as the evidence for a talking snake

(Just for the record, I vote "C".)

Pappy Jack · 07-09-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

So, after all this discussion, where do we stand?
Is the evidence for any humans ever having lived two centuries or more:

(A) more convincing than the evidence for a talking snake
(B) less convincing than the evidence for a talking snake
(C) exactly the same as the evidence for a talking snake

(Just for the record, I vote "C".)

Oooh, oooh, me too! I vote 'C' too!

07-09-2007, 12:33 PM	#348
Pappy Jack Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: French Pyrenees Posts: 649	I have yet to see the creos post any evidence here - other than from sources using legend and myth as their primary inspiration - that is in any way comparable to the results from archaeological and palaeopathological research into lifespans that gainsays any suggestion whatsoever that any member of the human species born anywhere or anytime could ever have lived to be much more than 100 years old. Median lifespans (years) in the E Med (M followed by F): 30k-9k BC = 35.4/30.0 9k-7k BC = 33.5/31.3 7k-5k BC = 33.6/29.8 5k-3k BC = 33.1/29.2 3k-2k BC = 33.6/29.4 2k-c.1.5k BC = 36.5/31.4 c.1.5k-c.1k BC = 39.6/32.6 Source: http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...-1984-1a.shtml Demographic statistics on Dynastic Egypt: Child mortality in the first 5 years of life was around 45% Life expectancy at birth was between 20 and 30 years (probably nearer 20) Average adult age at death was between 30 and 40 years (women around 5 years less because of pregnancy-related complications and illnesses) Annual population growth was around 0.1% and population doubling took anything from 30 to 60 generations Source: http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/index.html Apologies to those who have seen these stats before, but I have yet to see a meaningful creo reply to them.....

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

07-09-2007, 01:03 PM	#349
VoxRat Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,768	So, after all this discussion, where do we stand? Is the evidence for any humans ever having lived two centuries or more: (A) more convincing than the evidence for a talking snake (B) less convincing than the evidence for a talking snake (C) exactly the same as the evidence for a talking snake (Just for the record, I vote "C".)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.