Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cross Examiner · 10-10-2003, 01:36 PM

Spenser, you write:

Quote:

Here is an interesting find of Egyptian writing which dates back 5500 years. There are various flood dates but as posted above I see this one, 2304 BC, probably the most. Lets do some simple math:

2003 - 5500 = -3497 or 3497 BC.

Um. Your inscription is not Egyptian, it is Harappan (read: Indus River Valley Civilization). Even YECs allow that the Earth is 10k-6k. To have any sort of 'contradiction,' you have to force the low-end of the range (i.e. Ussher's 4004 B.C. date of creation) and a few other things that I'll not get into now. And you wrote some more stuff in your last post that I could probably contend with but ... nah. I thought I made it clear that this stuff doesn't particularly move me. And Jim, partner, read the entire thread then you'll understand why I'm not debating this. Likewise, I'll probably not engage in a debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or why Joseph Stalin is the quintessential atheist.

Regards,
BGic

Spenser · 10-10-2003, 01:47 PM

Billy, if you read the article in its entirety you'll see the link to Egyptian writing. Ancient writing much like humans, has evolved. But if you want it dropped, so be it.

Edited to add: But now that I've been doing some research my interest has been peaked.

For others who do not wish to drop it, Jericho (a biblical city) has been contiguously occupied for over 10,000 years (estimated to 8000 BC). Strange this city wasn't washed away in the flood...

Cross Examiner · 10-10-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
Billy, if you read the article in its entirety you'll see the link to Egyptian writing. Ancient writing much like humans, has evolved. But if you want it dropped, so be it.

Spenser, bud, I'm not trying to embarrass you. You're a bright guy and everyone would agree. However, I did read the article 'in its entirety' and it patently features a Harappan inscription as the 'earliest writing,' not Egyptian. And so, citing your earlier tirade against me: the 'Egyptian writing which dates back 5500 years' does not actually exist since, as your BBC article points out, the earliest Egyptian writing actually dates to 3300-3200, or ~5300 years ago. So, there is no need for me to 'reread it,� as you suggest, as I understand it fully. In fact, on a minor personal note, ancient civilization has always intrigued me and I seriously considered studying something akin to it (only if there had been a more serious commercial application, got to pay bills ya know) at university � though I finally opted for international business being the pragmatic little bugger that I am. And all the wrangling over Flood dates and so forth does not excite me. So, yes, we should drop it.

Regards,
BGic

Spenser · 10-10-2003, 02:14 PM

My apologies. In my haste (even the second go through) I only seemed to absorb the following:

Quote:

"Last year it was suggested that the oldest writing might have come from Egypt.

Clay tablets containing primitive words were uncovered in southern Egypt at the tomb of a king named Scorpion.

They were carbon-dated to 3300-3200 BC. This is about the same time, or slightly earlier, to the primitive writing developed by the Sumerians of the Mesopotamian civilisation around 3100 BC."

Quote:

"It probably suggests that writing developed independently in at least three places - Egypt, Mesopotamia and Harappa between 3500 BC and 3100 BC. "

So the tablet in question wasn't Egyptian, and for the mistaken identity fault goes to me. My point was still confirmed in the article fro m the dates mentioned for Egyptian writing in the quotes above.

Cheers
Spenser

Cross Examiner · 10-10-2003, 02:26 PM

Spenser,

Quote:

My apologies

No problems friend. You ever play Civ 3? Fun game. Teaches (a bit) about history also. Have a good weekend. Go Chargers!

Edit to add: woops. They've got a bye this week. At least they can't loose this Sunday.

Regards,
BGic

Kosh · 10-10-2003, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
I mean no disrespect, but I don't know how one could possibly botch accessing a hyperlink. Anyway, here it is again. Let me know how things go. We may need to escalate this to IIDB tech support if things go awry once more. If you manage to find the appropriate post, but are confused regarding the supposed relevance of this post to your question(s), then you will do well to retrace the the conversation to the elusive, endangared post on my thoughts about the Flood, this thread, and the thread-starter.

Regards,
BGic

Ignoring your supersillious attitude which is nothing more than a poker front, it's simple. The link you provided does not specifically address the question. Basically, you keep talking past the question.

Fair enough, we can now see that you have no intention of debating this. Although why you choose to continue trolling the thread is beyond me. I hope you're enjoying stroking your own ego!

Cross Examiner · 10-10-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
The link you provided does not specifically address the question.

Good call.

Quote:

Fair enough, we can now see that you have no intention of debating this.

Excellent.

Quote:

Although why you choose to continue trolling the thread is beyond me.

I'd hardly call reiterating my disavowal of any original intent to debate the Flood, against calls from you and your fellows that I do just that, as 'trolling.'

Quote:

I hope you're enjoying stroking your own ego!

Ego stroking? Yes, I'm sure I come off looking like a champ for refusing to debate something that I am, admittedly, inadequately equipped to debate. I truly, in my heart of hearts, hope that I do not need to explain yet again my insufficiency of interest and knowledge regarding the Flood to you or anyone else who might say: 'hey, how come you're not defending an early Flood date, what gives?' Like I said, you may stroll to CARM or theologyonline or x to find many willing combatants for that subject matter, if that is your goal. On that note, I think I'm done here. Have a good weekend.

Regards,
BGic

Doctor X · 10-10-2003, 03:13 PM

Unable actually debate the science and literary evidence, the individual can only bleat this:

Quote:

Not familiar with sarcasm, eh? In your own mind, you may recognize whatever you wish.

I cannot be blamed if the individual's attempt at wit proves only half as effective as he intended. Perchance a better joke writer? Perchance he should simply address the topic.

Quote:

I infer you are a member of some sort. When you exegete, do you speak on behalf of the Society of Biblical Literature? Would there be dissenting voices from yours within the Society of Biblical Literature? Do your views reflect the consensus opinion of Society of Biblical Literature? Thanks.

Argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam of course.

Since the individual missed the point offered, humbly, for he education, let me restate it. Yes, indeed, the scholars that comprise said body do disagree with him. He would know this if he bothered to read scholarship rather than bleat "there are not contradictions" then flee when shown them.

Quote:

'Rebuttal to the scientific discussion?' Hm. Maybe you haven't been reading my posts.

One may call a yak's bladder cheese cake, yet it remains a yak's bladder. On the contrary, the individual has yet to address the science. He has waffled, made excuses, engaged in fallacy, and other tactics eschewed by gentleman.

Indeed, Spenser rather summarizes the facts not addressed by the individual:

Quote:

The others were time lines of civilizations and there written records. It is a scientific FACT that a world wide flood having occurred is impossible; it would have left a mark, not just a story. Also, it is a historical FACT that civilizations were in existence and flourishing during the so called time frame of the flood.

We could also add in the facts concerning the evidence against an Exodus.

Quote:

Moi:
indeed there is less here than with the previous attempts of the individual to make the mauling of children by bears a minor incident. Unfortunately, Roy Horn's enounter with a tiger rather lays to rest that madness unless, of course, the individual wishes to delude himself that a mauling by a bear is far less catastrophic than that by a tiger.

The bear thing. You can go 10 rounds with Glen Miller over this then. Best of luck. Let us know how things turn out.

Always prefered Benny Goodman to Glen Miller--had a far better drummer. I mean, triplet rim-shot-rolls!

Anyways, the individual brought up this "evidence" in the previous thread and . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . it was demolished by posters, not simply myself.

Of course, it remains par for the course in the individual's intelectual dishonesty to throw up an apology, watch it fail, ignore it, and, a week or so later, try again.

Hint: Even with strawberries, the yak's bladder remains a yak's bladder.

--J.D.

Spenser · 10-10-2003, 03:26 PM

For those that wish to stay I don't want you to overlook this little tid bit I added to my earlier post:

Quote:

For others who do not wish to drop it, Jericho (a biblical city) has been continuously occupied for over 10,000 years (estimated to 8000 BC). Strange this city wasn't washed away in the flood...

Plus a Link

Edited to fix a word not caught by spell check; simply because it was the correct spelling of the wrong word...

Cross Examiner · 10-10-2003, 03:49 PM

Doctor X,

Quote:

Yes, indeed, the scholars that comprise said body do disagree with him. He would know this if he bothered to read scholarship rather than bleat "there are not contradictions" then flee when shown them.

I would know that the scholars of the Society of Biblical Literature disagree with your views if I 'read scholarship?' Yes. I'll simply send a poll out to the Biblical Studies community and ask them if they disagree with 'Doctor X.' Brilliant, J.D. And when, exactly, have you 'shown' me contradictions?

Quote:

On the contrary, the individual has yet to address the science.

After that last post of mine, I didn't think anyone would still ask me why I'm not debating the Flood. However, in any group of 10 there is at least one that p -- though there is a particularly high concentration here.

Regards,
BGic

10-10-2003, 01:47 PM	#52
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	Reread It Billy, if you read the article in its entirety you'll see the link to Egyptian writing. Ancient writing much like humans, has evolved. But if you want it dropped, so be it. Edited to add: But now that I've been doing some research my interest has been peaked. For others who do not wish to drop it, Jericho (a biblical city) has been contiguously occupied for over 10,000 years (estimated to 8000 BC). Strange this city wasn't washed away in the flood...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.