Sauron

In other words, you tried to poison the well, by trying to make an irrelevant connection. And when challenged to show how one link on a page affected or informed other claims, you tucked your (rather fat, stinky and lazy) tail between your legs and bolted.

I don't blame you.


Sadly wrong. I did answer it - there is no mandatory contradiction here. You simply skipped over my answer, and went back to repeating your objection. You wanted an either/or response, but the situation doesn't need one.
Not quite. Lupia says that the patina has flaked off. And he only indicates that for the exposed surface of the stone, not for the crevices.

Irrelevant to the question at hand, since IGS was not doing a test for forgery. Lupia suggested both a method for committing such a forgery, as well as a way to test for it:

www.minervamagazine.com/news.html

Equally damning are the remarks of John Lupia, Editor of the Roman Catholic News, who has argued that the inscription must be forged because while patina can be replicated by burying an artefact for a few years in wet salty soil containing a solution of iron salts, a fundamental difference can still be perceived. Natural patina has an atomic bond with the limestone that crystallizes in such a manner that cracking and flaking are an impossibility. Such a patina cannot be cleaned off limestone with any solvent or cleanser, since it is essentially baked in place and would require the application of a hammer and chisel or surgical equipment to remove it. Since the Geological Survey of Israel’s analysis (also published in the Biblical Archaeology Review) identified no evidence of modern tooling in the cutting of the inscription, and since the patina was absent in the grooves of some letters and on some of the inscription, John Lupia concludes that the existing patina - and by association the inscription - results from modern meddling.

Ahem.

Says who? You have presented no evidence to support that claim.

Why would the IGS be trained for such matters? Especially if they weren't looking for forgery, and if they did not have any experience in trying to examine an article for deliberate deceit? They are a Geological Service. That means they are the govt agency that is responsible for such things as oil, natural gas, earthquake monitoring, pollution of water and conservation of water resources, etc. They're not a CSI unit. A brief glance at their web page shows that:

http://www.mni.gov.il/english/units/...ofIsrael.shtml

On the other hand, Lupia has degrees in both archaeology and art history. Given that the study of forgeries would crop up in both archaeology and art history, it isn't surprising at all to me that he would be aware of a method to forge patina. And a method to test for it.

Not really - since the IGS testimony that the patina has been cleaned off supports Lupia just as well.

Irrelevant, given that there is zero evidence that the IGS was looking for a fraud, or indeed is equipped to do so, given the nature of their charter.

If you believe it is necessary, then outline the kinds of observations that you claim would be pivotally decided by an in-person viewing, as opposed to digital photographs. Support your case with references and examples.

BWAAHAHAHAHA!!!


YOu had better hope so, J. Pretentious Huffenstuff, or else your faith in the IGS is sorely misplaced - as well as your reliance on the skill of your various experts. It is from previous ossuaries that a baseline for comparison gets established, by which a new ossuary can be judged. And that (rather substantial) body of knowledge is precisely why it isn't necessary to view each and every ossuary in person - any more than it's necessary to view each and every amphora (Greco-Roman wine jug), because we have literally thousands of others that have been examined. Previous viewing and cataloguing of ossuary characteristics is precisely why someone like Rahmani can create a catalog of thousands of ossuaries.

Is all this information difficult for you? Poor fraudulent Holding, did his widdle brain faw down go boom?

The only thing with mold around here is you, JayPee Moulding.

No. Get off your lazy butt and look it up. That's what you expect your readers to do; now it's turn-about fair play.

Yes, I did. But there's more information than what can be found at Infidels. The fact that you missed it both:
(a) on the web, as well as
(b) on the infidels site;

well; it makes me wonder whether you oughta be forced to get a license to operate a browser, young man. In any event, keep ooking. It's the same thing you tell the drooling multitude at Tackytonics; no reason why it shouldn't apply to you as well. I'll give you a hint: Canada. Now go search.

Mounties and maple leaves, JP Horsemanure. Mounties and maple leaves. Keep looking.

Translation: you're stumped. You're stooopid. And you can't find it. So you want someone else to spoonfeed it to your lazy butt. But just as you fail to provide links to your opponent's arguments on your website (what is that url again? http://www.tonkatoys.com?), I shall also refuse your request here. Actually, let me rephrase that: (ahem) "We do not support mental indolence, so we are refusing JP s base request to do that, which he can do for himself. We are not amused."

Bag of tricks? I dunno; lemme look....Hmm..now, I'm thinking about quitting my job and begging money on the internet. You know - stop looking for work, and ask other people to send money so I can entertain my ego. I heard that's a pretty cool racket; what do you think, JP Handout?

Um, Haran asked why two quotations allegedly from Yardeni were in contradiction. I provided an explanation. If you believe that Yardeni has been misquoted, then by all means, present your evidence. So far, you're simply relying on Haran's idea - not exactly the most stable of foundations.

Actually, if you check back, you'll find a host of my questions that you failed to answer. Which is pretty much a guarantee that you won't be looking back.

Fortunately for our viewers at home, this isn't a debate where I'm being defeated. Unless of course, points are awarded based solely on number of words typed or amount of distractions tossed in. In which case, I don't stand a chance.


Meier knows better than to trust an article with dubious provenance. He himself indicated that the best way to settle the question was to have an international panel of experts - but that's information I doubt you have, since it can only be obtained by reading the article.

But as for making assumptions about what Meier thinks, well, guess what? It was YOU who were saying earlier:

Meier's comment is nice, but doesn't really say anything useful. He's taking care like he should as one who has no relevant training in the subject of paleography.

So right back at you: you asked Meier why he was being careful? If so, provide evidence of the communication between you and Meier. Good luck.

That sound is the noise of metal gears inside your head, JP Hallucination.

BZZT. You don't know that was his reason for being careful at all. You claimed it ex nihilo, because it was complimentary to your argument.

You assume wrong.

If you want me to believe that Meier was being cautious because he knew he wasn't a paleographer -- as opposed to, oh, because he knew that:

1. the owner of the ossuary told conflicting stories about its purchase;
2. the owner of the ossuary told conflicting stories about its location;
3. questions had arisen as to the number of 'hands' involved in scribing the text;
4. other people have come forth stating that the ossuary was circulated for sale only months ago;
5. there were respected experts in archaeology who were surprisingly on opposite sides of the authenticity question;
6. that no such panel of experts (as he recommended) had convened to examine it yet;
7. etc.
8. etc.

If you want me to believe that Meier's caution was rooted in your specifically claimed cause - instead of items 1-8 - then yes; you are going to have to document it. Get busy.

Except that I tend to over-document, while you tend to cast red herrings into the air with such frequency that it resembles a new species of flying fish. Let's remember your record on unsubstantiated claims, dear JayPee Hiding - it is, after all, your entire resume. I mean, I'm not the one who:

1. avoids discussing evolution, cosmology, and earth history, and
2. tries to says that he is unqualified to discuss such topics, yet after all that
3. continues to put forth AiG as a reputable scientific organization, and
4. refuses to explain why

If #1 and #2 are true, then #3 is nonsense - if you don't have the skills to evaluate evolution, then quite frankly you don't know and cannot tell who is right, and who is wrong.

You refuse to justify a reliance on AiG, yet simultaneously try to skip out on debating evolution because "you're not qualified". Bottom line here is that:

1. you're too chicken to debate this topic, because you've already seen that the creationists lose - and badly.
2. You are a coward, who hides his fear by pretending to not be able to debate. But nobody's buying it.
3. So to avoid getting you and your precious ego dirty, you wave your hands and try to sneak out the back door. But everyone sees ya.

Fine. Then produce any evidence that Meier's viewpoint has changed in the intervening weeks or months. Right now, you're just assuming that Meier has changed his mind - yet you have no evidence or statement from Meier to support your crippled viewpoint. Do you? No; I didn't think so.

Just assuming that someone has changed their mind to suite your argument, without having any concrete evidence that they did in fact have such a change of heart, is lame and dishonest. No doubt why you attempted such a tactic in the first place.

Circular reasoning. Your question assumes that such differences in the limestone even exist in the first place - yet you have presented exactly zero evidence to support that.

My point to you is that if the IGS examined six different areas of a stone box that small, then by random probability alone, at least one of those six patches would have been in this mysterious "second area" that made scribing the 2nd half of the text more difficult. Moreover, the six patches they took correspond to the six sides of the rectangular ossuary, so that should tell you where they took each patch from. Yet no evidence of any such difference in hardness. As I said earlier:

Indeed, that is to be expected; it's not a large piece of stone, and to expect it to vary that widely within a single small piece is, um, grasping at straws. Moreover, had there been differences, then the chemical analysis report would have included a range for the given chemical values, instead of a single number.

Uh, wrong, as we'll soon see.

Liar.

You indicated that the hardness/softness of the stone and the chemical composition were cause/effect related. Here are your words:

The basis for discussion is that the second half of the inscription looks (to some experts) rougher and less elegantly executed. SW note that ossuary inscriptions were made quickly, with a stylus, and towards the end of such inscriptions "the script often becomes more degraded." Furthermore the limestone where the second half is etched "appears to be softer" [47] and the condition of the limestone in that secondary area is more degraded than where the first part is. "There is also more patina in the area of the second half of the inscription, indicating a slightly different mix of chemical elements in the stone." They say this may have made it more difficult to carve the letters elegantly and sharply in the second half.

On the contrary - you're the one who's swimming in unreliability, JayPee Moulding.

Uh, wrong. The statement you were asked to support -- found above, in italics-- was in relation to a different chemical composition of the limestone used for the ossuary itself. Yet the part of the report that you quoted discussed only the chemical composition of the patina - which is not the same thing as the limestone at all, dimwit.

The chemical analysis of the patina revealed that:
The patina is composed mainly of CaCO3 (93%) and contains Si -5.0%; Al -0.7%; Fe -0.3%; P -0.4% and Mg -0.2%

These elements total 99.6% of the constituent elements - the word "mainly" covers the remaining 0.4%. Nowhere does your quoted line of text discuss the chemical makeup of the limestone at all. In other words, anyone who tries to use the patina data to derive information about hardness of the limestone is seriously off-course.

Moreover, your claim is not merely that the the chemical composition was different - oh, no. Your claim was *far* more than that, JP Hyperbole. You claimed that such a difference in the chemical composition of the limestone:

(1) also created a difference in the patina; and that

(2) such a chemical differnce in the patina manifested itself by making the act of scribing more difficult in one area than in another area, on the same piece of rock.

Let's say we grant you all your wild-eyed assumptions for a moment. Guess what, JP? You've yet to show that (within the established percentages given above) any such chemical differences would result in a difference in hardness at all - as opposed to any other kinds of changes in the limestone. If the amount of Mg (manganese) were tripled, what effect would that have on hardness? That's the question you have to be able to defend - and to which you are sorely, abysmally and predictably - unequipped to handle.

And, finally, we have no expert's word at all for SW's original claim - that the limestone in the 2nd half "appears to be softer"- no word at all, except for SW's wishful claim. The IGS failed to note any such "softness", and there is no independent evidence for it. There are established tests that objectively measure the hardness of any stone or rock - if SW have a case, then let them test their hypothesis. But right now, it remains wishful thinking by two men desperate to create a holy relic.

Sure it does. You claimed that the the second half of the inscription was made in softer limestone. Let's see your words again:


The basis for discussion is that the second half of the inscription looks (to some experts) rougher and less elegantly executed. SW note that ossuary inscriptions were made quickly, with a stylus, and towards the end of such inscriptions "the script often becomes more degraded." Furthermore the limestone where the second half is etched "appears to be softer"[47] and the condition of the limestone in that secondary area is more degraded than where the first part is. "There is also more patina in the area of the second half of the inscription, indicating a slightly different mix of chemical elements in the stone." They say this may have made it more difficult to carve the letters elegantly and sharply in the second half.

1. First, you've yet to show evidence that such a condition is geologically possible - two noticeably different hardnesses within a single, continuous piece of limestone.

2. Secondly, you've failed to produce anyone with a background in geology to attest to the claim that the limestone is softer" in one half of the inscription area.

3. And finally, you have yet to show any proof that softer limestone would result in "rougher" or "less elegantly executed" script -- as opposed to having no effect at all, or even resulting in a finer, more flowing script.

Basically, your position is just three ad hoc assumptions chained together. So until you produce someone (with the appropriate credentials) to back up your claim about soft limestone, then what I said remains true: the IGS report refutes your earlier claim.

HAHAHAHAA!!! You're a riot. First you make up a claim out of thin air, and then you demand that your opponent produce detailed evidence to refute it. Tsk, tsk, JP Hotair.

The IGS report refutes your claim, because it notes no such soft areas at all. Nor does it note any such "chemical differences" in the stone. Without the chemical differences, your argument about different hardness fails.

No, I understand. They claim to see a diffrence in patina. And they claim that the limestone is softer in half the inscription. Funny, thing, though:

1. No one has produced any evidence that such a condition of mixed hardness is even possible;
2. No one with a background in geology has stated that the ossuary has such mixed hardness;
3. No one has demonstrated that softer limestone would result in the "degraded" script that they discuss, as opposed to some other state;
4. No one has demonstrated that the presence of a greater amount of patina is even the real-world case here;
5. No one has shown any difference in the chemical composition of the limestone; indeed, the fact is that the IGS report lists absolute numbers for the chemicals, and not ranges of numbers - which is what would be expected, if any such chemical differences were found;

Basically, SW are acting like good creationists - tossing out "what ifs", and expecting other people to disprove them. As opposed to actually conducting science, and checking the soundness of their own (strained and desperate) special pleadings.

Flatly incorrect, for several reasons:

1. I did not ignore the claim about other ossuaries with degraded script - I saw it, but it was not relevant and was such a transparently stupid argument for mixed hardness, that I couldn't believe they were offering it. (I'm not surprised you are endorsing it, however - stupid is, as stupid does, they say). So you think that other ossuaries with degraded terminal script are proof of mixed hardness in limestone? So why is it the script always degrades towards the end, and never at the beginning? If there are all these blocks of limestone out there, with mixed hardnesses (a point you've failed to support yet), then random chance says that there ought to at least be some ossuaries where the first half of the script is degraded, and the 2nd half is clear and sharp.

2. Or, picture the scribe at work. Right handed scribe, with a small mallet in his right hand, and a chisel in his left. During the 1st half of the inscribing work, the scribe can rest his left arm on the ossuary stone, to steady the chisel in his hand. As he completes each letter, he moves a little bit to the left, to make room for the next letter. As he completes more and more of the text, however, his left forearm moves closer to the left-hand edge of the ossuary. Eventaully, he reaches a point where he runs out of stone to steady his forearm upon. At that point, the letters become degraded, due to the lack of a support for his left forearm.

3. Degraded script in the 2nd half of the ossuary can be more easily explained by other factors - such as a scribe rushing as they approach the end. To pull an ad hoc and totally unproven assumption out of the air about differences in limestone hardness as the explanation; -- well, the words "sad", "lame", "pathetic" and "desperate" all come to mind. (As does the word "Tektonics", but that's probably just a coincidence, I'm sure....)

You're unlikely to be able to "talk" with Lupia, in any set of circumstances. He's an expert in his field; you're just lost and wandering about in a brier patch. Moreover, you're a coward for dodging the point. (Well, if I'm going to be precise, I'd say you're a coward for a lot of reasons, I suppose. But at this particular moment your cowardice is obvious from your immediate attempt at a dodge).

(1) First, your feeble mind thought you had a contradiction in Lupia's position:

It says nothing about it being cleaned off the inscription; where does Lupia get this from? IGS?

If I read right he also says he doubts that it actually was cleaned. So who's right and why?

(2) The problem, though, is that (as usual) you didn't understand what the other person was saying. So to correct your mistake (i..e, that Lupia doubts the ossuary was cleaned), I presented you with a tidy, Gerber baby-food version of Lupia's hypothesis, just to make sure you could understand without choking on the big concepts:

1. Lupia first points out that patina and biovermiculation are going to be the keys behind his claim to forgery, and he explains what those phenomena are.

2. He points out that the ossuary had plenty of both, except around the area of the inscription.

3. The excuse offered for that, was that the inscription had been cleaned off.

4. Lupia counters that such a cleaning process is impossible, without leaving behind evidence.

5. So Lupia's conclusion is that the patina is forged, and instead of being cleaned off, has actually flaked off.

I bolded it for you this time.

And as for your comment "when chemical tests further confirm his view, we can talk" - well, aren't you the Master of Double Standards? Lupia has a PhD in Archaeology and another PhD in Art History, and might easily be expected to spot a forgery, given *both* of those disciplines. Yet JayPee HoityToity thunders and declares that CHEMICAL TESTS ARE NECESSARY!!!

Yet you want everyone to just accept your idea about a limestone block having different chemical make-ups and hardnesses, even though:

1. No one has produced any evidence that such a condition of mixed hardness is even possible;
2. No one with a background in geology has stated that the ossuary has such mixed hardness;
3. No one has demonstrated that softer limestone would result in the "degraded" script that they discuss, as opposed to some other state;
4. No one has demonstrated that the presence of a greater amount of patina is even the real-world case here;
5. No one has shown any difference in the chemical composition of the limestone; indeed, the fact is that the IGS report lists absolute numbers for the chemicals, and not ranges of numbers - which is what would be expected, if any such chemical differences were found;

You're such a blatant hypocrite, it's a wonder your ego doesn't suffocate you.

You shoot from the hip regularly; why should this occasion be any different?

Except I do know what I'm talking about, and you've utterly failed to demonstrate otherwise.

Uh, yes I did, JayPee Horsehockey.

BZZT. Twisting my argument. I never said that they had only dedicated publishing houses that produced nothing but that kind of literature. What I said was:

have their own publishing houses that they direct their material to, who specialize in publishing their material,
or
are outright owned by groups espousing these ideas.

So your re-wording of my position did not work.

Moreover, your original analogy is still in trouble. You reject Jesus mythers for their (alleged) lack of publication in peer-reviewed journals, yet (in contradiction) you support and rely on AiG, even though they are guilty of the same thing.

Unless you can name AiG members who have published in peer-reviewed journals? Hmmmmm? And on the topic of evolution, mind you - not on circuit board design, or some other area irrelevant to the creation/evolution debate?

And I noticed that in all your bluster and handwaving, you've yet to justify your reliance on AiG - if you can reject Jesus mythers based on #2, then you should likewise reject AiG. Yet you do the opposite.

Let's remember: your original claim was that Jesus Mythers were less qualified to discuss the historical christ than creationists discussing evolution, because they didn't have the necessary educational background, but - choke, giggle - creationists did! Here's what JP Handwave said, folks:

Too bad there's no parallel between the qualifications -- Ph. D.'s across the board in the sciences,

So you think there are creationists who try to discuss evolutionary biology? And who have a degree in that field? Fine; produce three such individuals.

No. Creationists you like - such as the ones whom you rely on, in AiG.

Extensive searches of resources such as Medline. Or, you could read McClean vs. Arkansas Board of Education:
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/mva.html

The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded'' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.

I'm not interested in your evaluation. But as long as we're talking about people utterly incapable of executing the task they assign themselves, that applies to every creationist author or self-appointed expert out there.

And, of course, it also applies to you.


Of course we're not. Those adjectives describe you, my dear JayPee Hackingcough. And now I can add "shifty", "confused", and "dishonest" to your list of un-merit badges.

Yawn. Let me see now....

Mental equipment - I have more than you, but haven't needed to use it; after all, your assertions don't have any foundation, and really aren't a worthy exercise for me;

Stamina - there are no points awarded for being verbose or typing a lot, only for solid arguments and hard data, so I'm not worried, and besides - I have a 60 hour/week job, and I don't make my living by begging money from the internet;

Ability - that's the same thing as mental equipment and stamina, so you're being unnecessarily repetitive here - as if that were a news flash;

So yeah - I doing just fine against Grand Master Bluster.

Actually, what I saw was you changing your arguments, editing them surreptitiously, and not having the cojones to admit it - but as we've determined, you are the quintessential coward.

In the first place, the victories are real - whether against you and your attempts to edit your own arguments, or against the lame, desperate critters known as creationists.

And in the second place, my point in bringing this up was to note for everyone that you are lying when you try to avoid such debates, by your stated reason of not being educationally qualified. That's a laugh - being educationally crippled hasn't stopped you from discusssing *other* things, as we've all noted.

In any event, you're caught in your own contradiction - you want to beg out of the discussion on hard sciences due to your alleged inability to accurately evaluate the data, while you simultaneously endorse AiG and their silly pseudo-science.

If you
(a) endorse AiG or their positions, but then refuse to
(b) debate creationism vs evolution, on grounds that you lack the educational preparation

then you're lying. Plain and simple. Since both acts, (a) and (b), require a knowledge of science and the ability to weigh the evidence, your position of doing (a) while refusing (b) is a contradiction. Wish I could say that I was surprised. Or that *anyone* is surprised.

You refuse to debate creationism, cosmology, etc. NOT because you lack the educational preparedness, but because you know it's a hopeless losing battle for creationism.

JayPee Hypocrite, He of the Great Chicken Challenge, is too big of a flippin' chicken to discuss these areas, because he already knows he will lose.

Knowing more than you doesn't make anyone "qualified in everyting". Indeed, it's hard to imagine someone who *didn't* know more than you. In any event, your attempt at dodging the point by flinging an ad hominem isn't going to work. Once again, the point here is:

you refuse to debate creationism, cosmology, etc. NOT because you lack the educational preparedness, but because you know it's a hopeless losing battle for creationism. JayPee Hypocrite, He of the Great Chicken Challenge, is too big of a flippin' chicken to discuss these areas, because he already knows he will lose.

How bout them thar feathers you be a-growin; is they startin' to itch ya yet, JayPee?


Irrelevant dodge. You are trying to hide behind someone else, as a way to avoid answering the question. Others besides jimbo have asked you the same question, so pretending to be waiting on jimbo is kinda lame and transparent.

No thanks. My words are tasty and sweet. Yours, on the other hand, are tinged with the metallic taste of fear and defeat.

Sorry, J. Petty Horseyhiney. Turning the opponent's words around - I'm afraid that's more YOUR style of debate, not mine.

Unable to name any? You mean name a contradiction in your behavior? I just gave you one:

You
(a) endorse AiG or their positions, but then refuse to
(b) debate creationism vs evolution, on grounds that you lack the educational preparation

No, separate postings are just what I said they were: an attempt to keep separate topics separate. If you're too slow, too stupid, or too scared to keep up, why is that my problem?

Wrong. The individuals I listed have listed the incidents where you've twisted their arguments, edited your own postings surreptitiously, and basically acted like a spoiled brat who wanted to win a debate at any cost.

Face it, JayPee - you're busted.

Aw, did mommy send you a birthday present? What's that - a whole TWENTY DOLLARS? Where you gonna spend it, JayPee?

As I said: fleecing the feeble and easily confused.

Ha. I'd rather be flipping burgers than begging money from the internet. At least one is honest work; the other is just an exercise in ego-stroking.

Once again, your mental midgetry trips you up. Yours is still an invalid parallel. In your Flat-Earth scenario above, only one side is debating.

However, in the situation that I'm describing (i.e., where you consistently refuse to provide links to your opponent's arguments when you debate them), two sides are actively debating. Your analogy is not parallel.

Why should I? The USGS is not engaged in a debate. They aren't publishing responses to the Flat Earth society. So the protocols fail to apply here. What's more, since the USGS isn't even publishing a response, how in the world could they link to the Flat Earth society's argument? Without a response document, no such link is possible.

The USGS is not engaged in debate - but you are.

Only in your silly theatrical imagination - not for the audience as a whole. Or for the world as a whole. For that reason, attempting to compare your debate to the USGS / Flat earth scenario is (again) invalid.

Not only is the issue of getting your butt kicked still an ongoing event, but you skipped my other two reasons as to why your USGS - Flat Earth society analogy is not parallel.

3b. The USGS has no obligation to link to an organization that is scientifically and objectively wrong;

4. For issues that are actively debated now - such as, oh, how about endothermia among dinosaurs - such debates are extensively referenced and full disclosure does apply

You don't satisfy the requirements of 3b, so your analogy is broken; and you refuse to satisfy 4, so your attempt at justifying your behavior likewise fails.

Except that you cannot prove "objectively wrong" at all. You have a damn hard time proving "subjectively wrong". So not only does your analogy break down, but your rationalization is based upon a supposition that isn't even true.

Yawn. So what? You respond to a lot of things. You're very good at responding, oh yes, precious, the nasty little Holdingses, they're very good at responding. But you post nonsense responses, that you hope will simply exhaust your opponent. Ain't working.

What you haven't done, poor wretched Holding, is you haven't refuted or disproved what Till said - and therein lies ALL the difference. Nor do you seem to be able to do so, or else you wouldn't bluster and blow so much.

Ditto, indeed. Holtz caught you red-handed changing your own arguments, and you tried to bluster and ad hominem your way out of it.

Yeah, lots of violent rolling on the floor, laughing - tends tends to happen whenever I read your posts.

Then you're incompetent, because I found it.

I should think you'd keep that around already, JayPee Molding.

No, I provided examples. You responded with cow doo-doo.

Of course it's special treatment. You are projecting a farce onto your readers and to everyone else, and the moderators not only tolerate it, but they enable it. And instead of critically examining that behavior, the mods simply ignore it. Do you really think anyone else would be enabled in such a transparent deception? Of coures not. But because the mods are part of the feebleminded that you fleece, they gladly enable the behavior.

The only thing ringing around here is the bells inside your head - they're competing for space with the host of voices you keep hearing.

No, just pointing out the hypocritical behavior. You're a wonderful testimony why people shouldn't become a christian, JP Horsemanure. Keep up the good work!

Not by you, he didn't. (Of course, you've probably edited your own responses since you got your hat handed to you, so it really is hard to tell what your current position-du-jour is going to be, ain't it?)

I'm not on any meds, JP Hypochondriac. But considering the ringing bells and voices you keep hearing, you might consider some meds for yourself.

Uh, wrong. They demonstrated your tired old tactic of
(a) failing to provide links;
(b) editing your own posts surreptitiously;
(c) constructing vast armies of strawmen out of your opponent's position;
(d) ad hoc arguments and special pleading

It just goes on and on.

They aren't my idols. And they didn't get smashed. But they DID smash YOU.

When I start telling any, I'll be sure to let you know. Ain't happened yet, though.

Is that another of your debate techniques? Or a "principle of christian apologetic research"?

Fact is, however, silence can't admit anything.

Irrelevant and off-point. It does not matter if the articles are easy to find, or hard, or impossible. That does not excuse your lack of professionalism. It's obviously an attempt to bias the debate by not providing your audience with full disclosure of your opponent's views. And, of course, by not providing full disclosure, it makes your deliberate editing of the opponent's points more difficult to catch. So you can snip away at what your opponent actually says, and (you hope) your audience will never know.

Checkmate.


Didn't need to, dork. Already told you above why your USGS comparison is invalid in, oh, about three different ways.

Gentle readers - what was that second point, that JayPee Hiding tried to dodge? Let's repeat it here, so that everyone can see:

Your own argument defeats you - if you think that finding the articles isn't a problem for anyone, then you should logically have no objection to providing those links yourself.

Unfortunately, this doesn't establish your point. How, exactly, did SW find all this out? Simple - by interviewing Golan, and asking him what happened. But interviewing Golan is not the same as investigating the issue - they did not interview the IAA or the police. By taking Golan's word at face value, they not only expose their own bias, but they failed to perform the necessary rigorous investigation to validate the claim.

Golan *knew* he was being questioned by police authorities. What's more - the folks at BAR didn't even know about it.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y

This modest man is Oded Golan, a 51-year-old engineer from Tel Aviv, unmarried and childless. A few hours before the press conference, he was questioned under warning for four hours at a Tel Aviv police station by investigators from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). They raised the suspicion that the ossuary was stolen, and that in any case, it belongs to the state and is not Golan's private property.

"He wasn't surprised when he was brought in for questioning," says Amir Ganor, head of the unit for prevention of antiquity theft at the IAA. At BAR, they didn't know that the anonymous hero of the affair had been questioned by the police. "We didn't hear anything about it," says the senior editor.

Says Golan: "I didn't see myself as being under investigation. They asked that I give them clarifications and what I could give them, I did."

Basically, Golan was brought in and questioned by the police, under suspicion of having stolen the ossuary, or having fraudently completed the paperwork for taking it out of Israel. He put the best spin on the event possible; "Naw, the police weren't involved - they were just questioning me, no big deal." But in reality, it is exactly what everyone has been saying: the police were investigating Golan, on suspicion of an illegal antiquities theft.

You think so?

Big problem, JP Handywipe: you have presented zero evidence to support a claim that the book chronologically supersedes the articles.

Moreover, coming out after the newspaper article doesn't mean that the book is factually correct - as we've just seen, SW took Golan at face value, when the reality is that he was most certainly questioned by police under suspicion of antiquities theft.

So you thin that SW's reference is more authoritative? Then get busy, and be thorough in providing your evidence. 'Cause you know I ain't gonna take your normal JP Horsehockey as evidence.

No, what it does is quote Golan. That's not the same thing as refuting the newspaper article. Golan can be expected to claim that the police weren't involved. You've shown zero investigative effort on SW's part.

Set against their reporting of Golan's statement, we have:

[1]the name of the law enforcement official who questioned Golan is in the Ha'Aretz article, as well as a direct quote from the deputy head:

http://www.archaeology.org/magazine....briefs/ossuary

The owner, it turns out, is Oded Golan, a 51-year-old engineer living in Tel Aviv. Hours before the announcement in Washington, Golan was at a police station being questioned about the ossuary by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA).

Amir Ganor, head of the IAA's antiquities theft unit, had visited Golan's home a few weeks earlier on a routine inspection of his antiquities collection, reputedly one of the country's largest. Golan made no mention of the ossuary or its inscription, which he had shown to Lemaire months earlier. Around October 7, Golan requested a permit from the IAA for the temporary export of two ossuaries, to be displayed at a late November convention of biblical scholars in Toronto.

Again, there was no mention of the inscription.

"The IAA didn't know about the significance of the inscription when granting the license to exhibit it in Canada," says Uzi Dahari, the authority's deputy head. "We made the connection between our export license and the James ossuary after we saw the BAR article, three days before its publication."

[2] And we have another statement by Amir Ganor:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y

This modest man is Oded Golan, a 51-year-old engineer from Tel Aviv, unmarried and childless. A few hours before the press conference, he was questioned under warning for four hours at a Tel Aviv police station by investigators from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). They raised the suspicion that the ossuary was stolen, and that in any case, it belongs to the state and is not Golan's private property.

"He wasn't surprised when he was brought in for questioning," says Amir Ganor, head of the unit for prevention of antiquity theft at the IAA.

[3] Further evidence that Golan has had dealings with the police on other matters:

https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ch/007582.html

Last Tuesday Golan was called again for interrogation together with his secretary. At night the IAA and the police searched other storehouses that Golan did not inform about, revealing hundreds of archaeological finds suspected as being looted, boxes with earth from various locations in the country, chemicals, engraving tools, dental equipment and other suspicious items of this kind. From there, the investigators went to search the apartment of Golan's parents. Golan was taken there too, with handcuffs. At this point he broke and asked to stop the search, promising that the JI will be brought to the IAA. Yesterday the stone was brought by Golan's lawyer to the Jerusalem police, then to the office of the Minister of Education and to the IAA.

[4] Other items of interest that pertain to Golan's trustworthiness and his run-ins with the police:

https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ch/007632.html

I understand that the store contained many genuine(supposedly looted) antiquities. As for the dental equipment, chemicals etc, this can be used also for restoration. Even at my own lab (in which some restoration of metals is being made together with microarchaeology) there is such equipment. So it doesn't necessarily mean that Golan was the forger of the JI (and I agree that it is most likely a forgery). Yet earth samples and engraving facilities are indeed suspect.

At present, the IAA is planning to appoint two research committees that will examine the authenticity of the James ossuary and the JI. Being a member of one, I know that these committees will consult experts from other laboratories around the world. So, unless Golan admits his direct involvement in faking these artifacts, the verdict as to the authenticity of the James ossuary and the JI will be given by the experts.

That sinking feeling you have is the realization that you're totally outclassed and outgunned on this topic, JayPee HelpMeMommy.

I already won several dozen. One more won't make much of a difference.

Except that my sources aren't outdated, as you've utterly failed to prove.

As I said before:

* If you think the information is inaccurate, then bring forth your evidence.
* If you think the information is suspicious or maliciously motivated, then bring forth your evidence.
* If you think the reporter for Ha'Aretz is lying, or incompetent, then bring forth your evidence.

So far, all you've provided is one single quotation from SW, which is nothing more than a quotation of Golan telling his side of it. You've failed to satisfy any of the three criteria above - naturally.

HAHAHAHA!! You really are a three-ring circus, aren't you?

I don't have to produce the exact quote. It was reported in a respected journal. If you have evidence that the quote is wrong, or out of context, then present it. But you aren't going to gainsay the quotation just by waving your hands and running about in circles.

Oh and by the way, JP Handwave, that particular detail wasn't even from the newspaper. It was from Archaeology.com, an official publication of the Archaeological Institute of America:
http://www.archaeology.org/

And now their article:

http://www.archaeology.org/magazine....briefs/ossuary

According to Golan, he was unaware of the inscription's significance until he showed Lemaire a photograph of it last spring. At the Washington press conference, Golan was said to have a limited understanding of archaeology, which explained why he did not understand its importance. These statements are difficult to reconcile with the description of him given to the press by family members. His mother says Golan was digging at a neighborhood site in Tel Aviv at the age of eight. His brother Yaron recalls him gluing potsherds together at an early age and befriending archaeologist Yigael Yadin when he participated on the latter's excavation at Masada when he was 11 years old. Golan is said to know Aramaic and, his brother says, he "has phenomenal knowledge" of archaeology.

Multiple sources who were quoted by a respected article. Something which you don't have, and which obviuosly bothers you a great deal.

Except that Golan has specific motive to lie here; you have yet to establish that with the Bethlehem antique dealer.

Moreover, Golan is not well-known for being a dealer, a businessman, with a reputation to keep clean or else it might affect his ability to conduct that business. Once again, your attempt at drawing a parallel dies a sad death.

Incorrect. You have failed to show that it's slander, and the newspaper article accounted for it. Your entire argument is based upon slander, in fact, which appears to be the only thing you have left in your bag of tricks.

Because it's expensive, and because the village where it allegedly came from was Arab. What do you think the chances are, that he would have (a) had the money, and (b) as a Jew, been wandering around an Arab village during the Six-Day War?

Incorrect. The particular dating for this ossuary is *just* outside the boundary of the time limit. Again: very convenient.

You are also unable to do basic math. "All his purchases before that date" would amount to him being some kind of amazing boy collector, since the date he claimed to have bought the box would make him 16 years old. "All his purchases before that date" means you are painting him out as a boy collector with a huge trove of such items.

Asked and answered. Waiting on you now, oh Jaypee Handwave.

Not simple at all. Your little scenario still fails to explain why Shanks would care about how long the ossuary had been "here". His interest would have been in the total time of ownership - not in the amount of time it had been in Golan's (current) apartment. Therefore your hypothetical question would not have been phrased that way.

Moreover, your explanation for this being a simple mistake of language doesn't wash, either. Shanks examined this for several hours. Does he really think that Golan lived in that same apartment since he allegedly bought it in 1967?

Actually, it did sound like it - a fact that you, of course, know. No one would have mistaken otherwise - not even you, and we both know that you didn't accidentally misread what the inspector's comment was.

But like always, you can be trusted to duck/dodge/evade the clear point of someone's statement, by creating a red herring that you hope distracts everyone. That's the point of apologetics, isn't it?

But as usual, it didn't work here. The IAA inspector clearly was describing Golan's carefully scripted story of how he acquired the ossuary - scripted so carefully that it bespoke of a clear understanding of the law, and what was necessary to avoid getting entangled in it.

Seriously (and hiliariously) wrong, for several reasons:

1. Chronological order does not imply accuracy, and you've failed to demonstrate otherwise;
2. You've failed to identify or demonstrate the chronology of SW's book in any event;
3. You have failed to present any evidence that SW did the necessary type of probing investigative journalism to establish the facts here, as opposed to just taking Golan at his word.

Boy, when you lay an egg, you really lay a BIG one, dontcha? I guess you come by that naturally, since you're too chicken to debate creationism vs evolution, though.

1. The original article is from November. It has been updated since then.
2. You have not established that old news is wrong news, in any event.
3. There are direct quotes from the law enforcement official involved, who states that Golan was being questioned under suspicion of theft.

Keep that denial coming, JayPee!

It goes to a pattern of behavior, and is quite admissible as evidence. And I notice that you haven't bothered to refute it, because you know better than to even try. Smart move - one of the few you've made.

Here's another article, on a respected archaeologist's website:

http://www.robert-deutsch.com/

About three months before the case was covered by the media, the looting inspection unit of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) had begun investigating the case of the Jehoash inscription (JI). Their main suspect became Oded Golan, and they applied for a warrant to search his apartment.

There they discovered several documents, including a letter he had sent to his lawyer's office claiming that he was the owner of an ancient stone, purchased some time earlier. In addition, they found drafts of the booklet brought together with the JI to the Geological Survey of Israel before it was examined there for its authenticity. They also found a photo of Golan with the JI, several photos of the JI at Golan's stores, and a letter to somebody explaining why Golan preferred not to expose his name in relation with the JI. Another find was a letter from an Arab antique dealer named Abu Yassir (who died two years ago), allegedly confirming that Golan bought the JI from him two years ago.

The same night, the IAA investigators searched several offices and storehouses in Tel Aviv, all belonging to Golan. The following day Golan was interrogated under oath at the Jaffa branch. Later he was interrogated five more times under oath.

During his meetings with the IAA staff, Golan first demanded full immunity in return for loaning the JI for 90 days. He also demanded that if the JI turned out to be authentic, the state would pay him for it. The IAA asked for the advice of the attorney general and the chief of the Jerusalem police. The latter objected to Golan's suggestion and informed the IAA that the police were also investigating the case. From this stage on, the police cooperated with the IAA in the investigation.

Last Tuesday, Golan was again called for interrogation, together with his secretary. At night, the IAA and the police searched other storehouses that Golan had not mentioned, revealing hundreds of archaeological finds suspected as being looted, boxes with earth from various locations in the country, chemicals, engraving tools, dental equipment and other suspicious items of this kind. From there, the investigators went to search Golan's parents' apartment. Golan accompanied them, wearing handcuffs. At this point he broke and asked to stop the search, promising to bring the JI to the IAA.

Yesterday the stone was brought by Golan's lawyer to the Jerusalem police, then to the office of the Minister of Education and to the IAA.


What we have here is a man trying to perpetrate antiquities fraud. Period.


But you go right ahead, JayPee Molding - you continue defending this guy, and his position that "he didn't think he was being investigated" by the police. Cause the more you defend such a hopeless liar, the more we all see how much you'll twist the truth to win an argument and salvage your fragile ego.

It is? Says who? No one I've ever talked to. Orlando's a dusty little dive-town. Armpit of Florida. Why would anyone care about their newspaper?

On the other hand, Ha'Aretz is a major national paper of Israel, comparable to the Washington Post or the New York Times. Your comparison is invalid. And probably insulting, to Ha'Aretz.

Moreover, considering what a ho-hum event your co-worker's prestentation was, well, it's easy to see why someone might not give a rat's patooty about the details of your coworker's presentation. They probably fell asleep during it, or left early out of boredom. It's certainly not to be compared to something like a probing investigation of a amazing new archaeological find, whose analysis strikes at the core of Christian belief - and the investigation of the fraud and discrepancies surrounding its owner.

Finally, there have been independent substantiations of the problems and discrepancies that Ha'Aretz reported. I doubt that anyone cared enough to substantiate the key points of some slide show, by your co-worker.

I honestly have *no idea* what you're talking about. Is that one of your former sockpuppets? Someone who used to write letters to you when you worked as a COMBAT PRISON LIBRARIAN?

You certainly seem to have a lot of these persecutors, don't you? Ever wonder if that ought to mean something, hummmm???

Ted Hoffman

Hilarious. Just stick his face in his dung till he drowns it it.
Please post a link to this - for my benefit.:notworthy

worldling

Having read some of Turkel's stuff, both on his website and on the board, it is clear than the man is what is technically known here in the UK as an "arsehole". Christianity, to him, is merely a vehicle he uses to express his arseholiness. It could have been anything - another religion, a political ideology, or a football team - it doesn't matter. Turkel is an arsehole first, and a Christian second.

We can only speculate as to why he is this way. My guess is one too many "turkey" jokes at school.

Haran

Wow, what a lot of fluff... Why do you bother to respond like that (and in such length), Sauron? In my own opinion, it certainly doesn't help your case to stoop to his name-calling level.

This is incorrect. As stated in BAR, SW, and several other sources including the posts to the academic e-list ANE below (the following two deal with the JI, but reflect the process used on the ossuary as well - as mentioned in BAR and SW):

HaAretz on Joash Inscription
RE:......

Others are not arguing that the IGS didn't do tests for forgery, but that they did not do exhaustive tests for forgery (i.e. that they didn't think to do every possible test under the sun, in other words).

Their conclusion even states that they believe no modern tool was used.

IGS disagrees and so does Jack Kilmon (as stated recently on the scholarly Ioudaios-L e-list which I don't feel like looking up - you should really be following the scholarly lists rather than the popular news for better information).

I find this silly. IGS includes experts in geology, which is the main field for dealing with the related issues (i.e. patina, etc.) of the ossuary. Geology is the appropriate field for these particular issues. Lupia does not have a degree in geology to my knowledge.

They send finds to IGS all of the time for this kind of analysis because they are experts. There really is nothing to debate here for an unbiased person.

These were rationalizations. As I reported, I contacted the sources of these quotes, and they traced back to Dr. Altman who does not seem to be the best of authorities considering her multitude of serious mistakes and misrepresentations.

Why do you keep saying this kind of crap about me like this, Sauron? What do you know about me and what I know?

Seriously, why do you say that mine are "not exactly the most stable of foundations"?

Personally, though I can see you've read a lot of popular news sources on the issue, I'm not sure you've been following scholarly debate in schlarly forums or talking with other scholars as I have. Have you?

I found this interesting. John debates in online scholarly forums (including my own in the recent past), and in others on the internet and is quite accessible.

John Lupia knows quite a bit, but I would like to see an expert in the appropriate field back up his claims. I would like to see anyone back up his claims for that matter. Do you know of anyone who has done so? Jack Kilmon recently disagreed with him on Ioudaios-L.

Word of advice...stop debating JP Holding. It's bad for your blood pressure.

Sauron

Latest response to Turkel:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...3374#post53374

godfry n. glad

I've said it once and I'll say it again.

The IGS report, as presented in the Lemaire BAR article, was _incorrect_. They managed to surmise waaaaay beyond their expertise that the ossuary came from the Jerusalem area. When called on it, they correctly restated, or corrected the mistatement of, their position to state that it could not be definitively determined as to where the stone for the ossuary was quarried _nor_ where it might have been fashioned into an ossuary.

For some questions, the IGS might have been helpful, but hardly definitive. For that, the ossuary should have been presented to the IAA, so that not only the ossuary itself, but the incised inscription could be studied. That was NOT done by Lemaire or Golan, which is, in itself, highly suspect. Instead, it was secreted out of the country in a hurry, to a place far from the world's leading experts in ancient Jewish ossuaries.

When can we expect a report from the _two_ commissions appointed by the IAA once they had legally seized the returned ossuary?

godfry n. glad

godfry n. glad

Also, as for John Lupia, he may have higher degrees in Art History and Archeology, but he has some views on the historical Jesus that are distinctly idiosyncratic in relation to the bulk of mainstream biblical scholars.

If you're not a member of JesusMysteries, or if you are and you slept through it, here's a link to his links on his positions regarding the historicity of Jesus:

John Lupia bares all

For starters, he gives GLuke priority.

From what I can tell from skimming his links, the position he takes allows him to consider the gospel Jesus to have been the historical Jesus....I may be wrong, but I'd say he's an unreconstructed biblical literalist with regards to the historicity of Jesus.

Curious, huh? I'll bet that he defends the assertion that the gospel siblings of Jesus are cousins rather than actual siblings.

godfry n. glad

Sauron

Correction.

1. BAR did not make any statement on testing the patina for any kind of advanced forgery. If you think they did, produce it.

2. A search of the English Ha 'Aretz archives shows no such article for the date in question.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/a...chEngArt.jhtml

I searched under "ossuary", "patina", "Ilani", "Joash", etc. So you're going to have to provide the article. Not merely because it may not be there (as your source indicates), but also because I want to read the text myself.


And Lupia notes that they did not do the specific test that he described. Moreover, the same ANE list you reference indicates that their examination could have been more thorough:

http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu:8...1-01/0782.html

Which doesn't prove anything about patina, since that comment was directed at cutting the inscription.


1. You haven't shown that IGS disagrees.
2. Who is Jack Kilmon, and why should I care?
3. If you have evidence that the "popular news" is incorrect, then present it.


Specializing in geology is not the same as specializing in detecting forgery. Again: if one examines the homepage for the IGS, it becomes obvious that they are a govt agency, similar to the US Forest Service or the US Geological Service. Their charter does not include forensic examinations to detect forgeries.

So is archaeology, which is often beset by forgery.
So is art history, which is often beset by forgery.

Can you refute these two points, Haran? You continue to duck on them, so I am guessing the answer is "no".

It is just as likely (indeed, in some cases, far likelier) that a archaeologist/art historian would be able to spot a forgery, than a geologist.

He doesn't need one, in order to know about forgeries and spot them. That's what archaeologists do - and art historians.


There is plenty to debate, Haran. And if you recall my introductory position on the ossuary, I really don't have a bias on it.
1. I think the ossuary is probably a 1st century genuine artifact.
2. The writing is less certain.
3. And the provenance is highly, highly suspicious.


Correction, Haran. You assume that the source was Altman. You backtracked through some articles, but the trail went cold before you could link it to Altman. So you don't have anything to show that the ultimate source was Altman. The strongest piece of evidence presented so far indicates that Yardeni holds the same (or a similar) point of view. Your entire case is based upon a connection that you would like to create, but have not yet been able to make work out for you.

So I repeat: If you believe that Yardeni has been misquoted, then by all means, present your evidence. So far you haven't done so.

Because you deliberately avoid seeing the obvious, Haran. Oded Golan was trying to pull a "fast one" over on the authorities. The evidence is stacked a mile high. Yet you shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, I don't know......."


Some of it. That's how I found out about Lupia, and the various criticisms of the IGS' examination of the ossuary.

Sauron

I don't follow the JM discussion. It tends to make my eyes glaze over.

That's not to say that I have a position either way - it just gets to a point where it isn't worth my time to follow it.

godfry n. glad

Sauron did ask:

Jack Kilmon is a denizen, and _moderator_, at XTalk2. He claims expertise in paleography and can be mildly educational. However, he is adept at sticking his scholastic foot in his mouth, as well as parading his arrogance where it was neither supportable, nor appreciated. On occasion, he has been caught without support on JesusMysteries. He, like Lupia, seems to hold some extremely naive views on the historical Jesus. He's a mixed bag, to say the least.

I really don't think you should care.

godfry n. glad