Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 07-08-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Except that you are wrong. They haven't discovered any real feathers at all

Davey you should know better than to post creationist sources. Come back when you have an actual scientific citation, hmm?

Quote:

1) DNA self-organized from pond scum chemicals in a warm pond
2) Dinosaurs evolved feathers and became birds
3) Flagella magically built themselves

There. Is that better?

No, still incorrect.

Sauron · 07-08-2007, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

If Josephus is correct, then we have 11 sources who agree with the ~1000 year figures

No, we don't. That's the problem. You haven't shown that any of the sources listed by Josephus back up your claim of 1000 year lifespans in genesis. The listings explored in the Josephus quote so far don't even talk about genesis or the patriarchs. They talk about something totally different.

Sauron · 07-08-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

But Genesis, on the other hand, is a different story. Genesis bears many marks of being intended by the authors to be sober history. INTENT of the author is therefore important.

Ah. So if someone really, really, REALLY wants their story to be the true version of history, that sincere desire somehow makes the story become true?

Truth is dependent upon intent, and not accuracy of the content, or the claim?

The creation stories of most ancient civilizations - Egypt, Babylon, etc. - were also intended to be true. Does that make them actual history?

You really ought to slow down and spend 30 seconds thinking of the obvious holes in your claims before giving us a shot at them.

Quote:

On the other hand, if you have a high view of Genesis,

Why should we have a "high view" of it?
Other than your personal bias in favor of genesis, why should anyone else hold such a point of view?

For that matter, why should we have a "high view" of anything?
Why not treat genesis with the same critical approach that we treat any other ancient text?
Are you afraid that your precious genesis tales can't stand up to that approach, and that's why you're asking for a "high view" of the text?
To exempt it from the same critical analysis we would give to The Iliad or the Elder Edda?

Can't win the normal way, so you try to change the rules to allow your crippled dog to run in this race?

Quote:

You make a very good point. As I said, I have not read Josephus' sources.

Then you have no business trying to cite them as proof for your position, now do you?
If you haven't got a clue what they say, then tossing them out as 'evidence' doesn't work for you.

Sauron · 07-08-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I'm going to see if I can hire some Chinese scam artists to build some 900 year old human skeletons for me

Give the ICR or CRE a call. They're pretty good at foisting scams on people.

Sauron · 07-08-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

I already gave you a list of 15 genera. But you have already decided that they weren't feathered dinosaurs, no matter the evidence, so what's the point?

I've never seen the evidence.

Oh for chrissakes.

Did you forget how to click on a link? You've been provided with a dozen or so.

The problem here isn't a lack of information being spoon-fed to you. The problem is that you don't have the intestinal fortitude to actually read something that contradicts your beliefs.

Toto · 07-08-2007, 06:46 PM

The discussion regarding longevity, intellgence, etc. involving Elijah has been split off here and will be moved to S&S.

deadman_932 · 07-08-2007, 07:07 PM

Thanks, Toto, Diogenes and Coragyps... I apologize and I'll try to keep in mind that I shouldn't wander about and insult so much. I am but an egg, a stranger in a strange land, confused by regular and substantive moderation.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

lpetrich · 07-09-2007, 02:19 AM

In the Sumerian King List, the 8 pre-Flood kings ruled for a total of 241200 years. After the Great Flood, the 23 kings of the first Kish dynasty ruled for 24510 years; the first archeologically-documented king, Enmebaragesi (around 2600 BCE), was the second-to-last king in it, and supposedly ruled for 900 years.

The pre-Flood kings ruled for about 30000 years each and the first-Kish-dynasty kings ruled for about 1100 years each.

The dates for the first Kish dynasty extend into the Paleolithic, and those for the pre-Flood kings to before the origin of our present species, Homo sapiens (sapiens).

Roger Pearse · 07-09-2007, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I would hope so. Some might consider that those holding chairs of ancient history and classics at major universities might have some claim to respect also.

Perhaps you should ask them, rather than suppose that they endorse that view. I think that you might be surprised at what you get, even from so object-focused a group.

HEAR HEAR! Finally ... a professional states very eloquently what should be obvious, but sadly is not to many modern minds.

Sorry if I misled you. I do not, of course, hold a chair of ancient history -- I'm an interested amateur like yourself.

The points made don't seem profound to me -- I made them to make sure that we were all singing from the same songsheet --, and after a couple of posts I'm not altogether sure that they are in dispute.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 07-09-2007, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calilasseia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But to discard the texts -- as has been said here -- is to get things thoroughly upside down. It is to lose most of the data that we have.

Er, no one here as far as I can see is saying that the texts should be discarded summarily. What we are saying is that when those texts make unusual claims about past events, claims that initially strike us as being possibly or probably at variance with existing knowledge, then those claims should be subject to independent corroboration.

No-one has said this, but it is certainly possible to argue. I would only ask whether this is distinct in any important way from demanding "independent corroboration" of whatever we choose not to wish to believe.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

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

07-08-2007, 06:46 PM	#246
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The discussion regarding longevity, intellgence, etc. involving Elijah has been split off here and will be moved to S&S.

07-08-2007, 07:07 PM	#247
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	Thanks, Toto, Diogenes and Coragyps... I apologize and I'll try to keep in mind that I shouldn't wander about and insult so much. I am but an egg, a stranger in a strange land, confused by regular and substantive moderation. We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

07-09-2007, 02:19 AM	#248
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	In the Sumerian King List, the 8 pre-Flood kings ruled for a total of 241200 years. After the Great Flood, the 23 kings of the first Kish dynasty ruled for 24510 years; the first archeologically-documented king, Enmebaragesi (around 2600 BCE), was the second-to-last king in it, and supposedly ruled for 900 years. The pre-Flood kings ruled for about 30000 years each and the first-Kish-dynasty kings ruled for about 1100 years each. The dates for the first Kish dynasty extend into the Paleolithic, and those for the pre-Flood kings to before the origin of our present species, Homo sapiens (sapiens).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.