Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Constant Mews · 07-11-2007, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

RE: Mike PSS on Josephus ...

Josephus is not claiming that there were survivors of the Flood. He is quoting Nicolaus of Damascus who sounds like he is saying this in the English rendering. Josephus' point is ... many barbarian historians corroborate the Mosaic story of the Flood.

False. If you choose to accept that Josephus' claims are sound because of the writers that he cites, then you must also accept this as evidence for other flood survivors. Your double-standard is appallingly sloppy thinking.

Dave Hawkins · 07-11-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

......3) SMYTH'S GP DATE IS MORE FIRM THAT HIS FLOOD AND DISPERSION DATES......Smyth has more reasons for the 2170 BC date than just the alignment with Alpha Draconis. Dean also seems to be unaware of this. So I am fairly confident about Smyth's GP date and I think you may be too before long.......

I still await your arguments about why you prefer Smyth's astronomical calculations (which are supported by no other evidence as to the date of Khufu's Pyramid) over, for example, Dr Kate Spence's calculations (which are, and which can also be related directly to the orientations of other pyramids in Egypt)

NB I am not saying that Spence's calculations establish beyond any doubt the date for Khufu's Pyramid. I am only interested in why you prefer Smyth's calculations (and those of other 19th and/or early 20th Century sources) to those using more accurate and refined data than was available 100+ years ago?

Please see my recent posts in the Pyramid thread which address this. I have not seen you present Spence's calculations in that thread. I have only seen you make arguments by link. Dean Anderson has been making his own arguments, which is why I am responding primarily to him. If you would do the same, I would respond more.

The Evil One · 07-11-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Of course I do. The excavations at Ur by Woolley and other excavations indicate a very advanced society complete with high science, astronomy, medicine, formal schooling, etc. in the time frame which would have been shortly after the Flood. This high technology would have logically been carried by Noah's clan. Where else did it come from? Your gradual cultural evolution model over many tens of thousands of years is untenable because you reject such an obvious occurrence in history -- the Global Flood. Once you correct this "beam in the eye", world history starts to make sense.

I would be tempted to interpret this post as proof that afdave is not a creationist at all, and is just winding us all up, except I know better than to be that optimistic.

Occam's Aftershave · 07-11-2007, 08:13 AM

Dave, you're going to completely ignore my question about how your YEC model accounts for the S. American and Chinese populations in 2700- 2500 BC, aren't you?

Why does that not surprise me? Dave Hawkins ignoring still more empirical data his model has no explanation for.

deadman_932 · 07-11-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Of course I do. The excavations at Ur by Woolley and other excavations indicate a very advanced society complete with high science, astronomy, medicine, formal schooling, etc. in the time frame which would have been shortly after the Flood. This high technology would have logically been carried by Noah's clan. Where else did it come from?

It would have come from preceding cultures that were not wiped out by any mythical flood. Since you have not and apparently cannot establish the veracity of a flood, you're stuck with repeating unsupported claims endlessly.

But the fact is that radiometric dating methods that you have NEVER been able to refute....show that your flood never happened. Dave.

Constant Mews · 07-11-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Irrelevant. You need to establish the validity of your Wai wai = Flud survivors' model. You have no more idea of the hygiene standards of the postulated Flud survivors than I have.

Of course I do. The excavations at Ur by Woolley and other excavations indicate a very advanced society complete with high science, astronomy, medicine, formal schooling, etc. in the time frame which would have been shortly after the Flood. This high technology would have logically been carried by Noah's clan. Where else did it come from? Your gradual cultural evolution model over many tens of thousands of years is untenable because you reject such an obvious occurrence in history -- the Global Flood. Once you correct this "beam in the eye", world history starts to make sense.

There is no empirical evidence for the global flood, Dave. And I have proved in our debate that it never happened. Think without the blinders on and you might learn something.

Dave Hawkins · 07-11-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

The population has doubled in seven years??? Did someone put fertility drugs in the village well???

Their Y2000 data was apparently wrong.

Constant Mews · 07-11-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

The population has doubled in seven years??? Did someone put fertility drugs in the village well???

Their Y2000 data was apparently wrong.

Provide evidence. Your unsupported claim is valueless.

Pappy Jack · 07-11-2007, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Irrelevant. You need to establish the validity of your Wai wai = Flud survivors' model. You have no more idea of the hygiene standards of the postulated Flud survivors than I have.

Of course I do. The excavations at Ur by Woolley and other excavations indicate a very advanced society complete with high science, astronomy, medicine, formal schooling, etc. in the time frame which would have been shortly after the Flood. This high technology would have logically been carried by Noah's clan. Where else did it come from? Your gradual cultural evolution model over many tens of thousands of years is untenable because you reject such an obvious occurrence in history -- the Global Flood. Once you correct this "beam in the eye", world history starts to make sense.

Please define 'advanced' and in relation to what. Please explain why you choose to ignore archaeological evidence for the existence of cultures preceding that of Ur (and that of Dynastic Egypt, etc, etc). Please explain how the existence of any 'advanced society' anywhere in the world in the timeframe 3000-2000 BCE is in any way evidence for a global Flud.

Dave Hawkins · 07-11-2007, 08:18 AM

Please note: If anyone here tries to argue that some civilization lived right through the Flood dates and bases their argument on Carbon 14 dating, then forget it. This does not hold water with me. Old Carbon 14 dates do not take into consideration the effects of the Flood on C14 levels, thus they cannot be trusted. In my opinion, you will always have a very confused view of history if you mythologize such a momentous event as the Global Flood, which is so well supported from not only a vast body of literature, but also a vast body of physical evidence.

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

07-11-2007, 08:13 AM	#64
Occam's Aftershave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: California Posts: 2,215	Dave, you're going to completely ignore my question about how your YEC model accounts for the S. American and Chinese populations in 2700- 2500 BC, aren't you? Why does that not surprise me? Dave Hawkins ignoring still more empirical data his model has no explanation for.

07-11-2007, 08:18 AM	#70
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Please note: If anyone here tries to argue that some civilization lived right through the Flood dates and bases their argument on Carbon 14 dating, then forget it. This does not hold water with me. Old Carbon 14 dates do not take into consideration the effects of the Flood on C14 levels, thus they cannot be trusted. In my opinion, you will always have a very confused view of history if you mythologize such a momentous event as the Global Flood, which is so well supported from not only a vast body of literature, but also a vast body of physical evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.