spin

This certainly does sound like projection...

I wonder what specific things are branded "pseudo" that should be considered by logic as evidence...

Absolutely false and untrue.

This intriguingly sounds like new age clap-trap. How does Khufu's pyramid prove anything that interests the writer?


spin

Gullwind

I'd be interested in finding out why Willowtree and Hydarnes have each admitted to rejecting evidence that doesn't support their opinion/philosophy/worldview, yet apparently feel justified in accusing others of the exact same thing.

Why is it okay for them to do it, but not anyone else? :huh:

funinspace

Interesting since it's one of the younger of the tales out there. The Akkadian one beats it by 500-800 years depending on when you want your Exodus. Though the Akkadian tale is 200-500 years younger than the Sumerian one they redacted. And of course all those Christian Bibical scholars that don't buy the inerrant story hook, line, and sinker, should be ignored for their obvious liberal bias. They would put Genesis several hundred years even younger.

funinspace

You missed the debate/hecklers corner on the theory that the xian god built the GP, and not the Egyptians? And it's supposed to be a form of proof...

gregor2

WT
Ha! I love that reasoning - because different myths exist that mention a flood of some proportion, location, and duration, there must have been a global flood in 2,500 BCE. It couldn't be that thousands of cultures have lots of stories about natural events (wind storms, catching magical animals, the spring re-birth, etc.).

So I guess Horus was actually cut up but was revived. It must be true because other cultures have death and re-birth narratives.

And I guess Balaam's Ass actually spoke - the proof is that a black ant spoke to an Indian guide. http://www.earthbow.com/native/creek/animal-helpers.htm

Why don't you put down Velikovsky and pick up Joseph Campbell.

keyser_soze

What you are failing to take into account WT, is that most young civilizations, most settling, was done on rivers and shores. What happens quite often to rivers? Sometimes larger bodies of water? They RISE, they FLOOD. Note the frequency of flooding here in the U.S. Entire cities inundated. Note the nile, whose only means of watering their plantings was by the inundation. Then a few generations of oral history, and you have a flood story. Not exactly rocket science here. Even the simplest of logical tasks seems to be difficult for people sometimes.

Hydarnes

The misunderstanding in your observation is that there is no "accusing" going on here, besides an attempt to persuade those--who would prefer to fancy themselves into believing that all scientific data favors their philosophical stance-- into acknowledging the unavoidable biases that they too embrace.

The difference is that I openly and unreservedly admit my biases, whilst others (some active in this thread) are so blinded by the doctrine constituted in their beliefs that they are not willing to honestly bring themselves to admitting the same inevitabilities.

spin

It wasn't in this thread. I must say though that WT isn't showing very much in the way of analytical ability, just credulity in spewing Velikovsky, Bimson, and whacko theories. But then his defence system is "if you don't like what I say, then you are wrong."


spin

Gullwind

How can you say that you are not blinded by your own biases when you admittedly reject information that does not support the beliefs you already have? How can you ever test your own beliefs if you willfully ignore evidence that may not support them?

Simply admitting biases isn't enough. You have to try to look past them. That's what this discussion board is for - to share information so that we can see other viewpoints and try to make the best decision we can based on as many facts as possible.

Science and scholarship do not consist of choosing a comfortable viewpoint and then closing our minds to anything that contradicts it. That is religion.

Jack the Bodiless

Unfortunately for you, all scientific data DOES support my philosophical stance.

The reason for this isn't a mystery: my "philosophical stance" is BUILT on the data, whereas yours is not.

Rather than blustering, you could atack my "philosophical stance" by presenting data which does NOT fit: but you evidently don't have any.