Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ericmurphy · 07-07-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

That would be odd.
I, for one, don't believe any of those things. I believe the 1000 year old patriarchs is a myth, and the other things you list are wildly inaccurate characterizations of some pretty reasonable conclusions.

Best I can tell, you do indeed. But you would use more flowery language so that it doesn't seem quite so obvious that you believe in something rather fantastic.

Dave, for the things you list that aren't completely bogus (DNA arising from pond scum? Give me a fucking break), there's substantial empirical evidence. For the point you're arguing here, that any human being anywhere in the history of the universe lived ~1,000 years, there is zero empirical evidence.

I know you can't tell the difference, but at least the other people reading this thread can.

Faid · 07-07-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Surely, so long as by 'physical evidence' you do not mean what you say you do -- that the laws of physics and biology cannot and never have changed. That may or may not be so -- how do we tell? -- but a denial of it is the point at issue, and for your argument to hold water you'd need to demonstrate it, not presume it.

What.

...

Roger, there is a debate consensus that is way older than the internet(s):

Appealing to the problem of induction to shift the burden of proof means you're all out of arguments, and the debate is at an end.

The Evil One · 07-07-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faid

Appealing to the problem of induction to shift the burden of proof means you're all out of arguments, and the debate is at an end.

Well, I'm glad it wasn't just me that thought that.

ericmurphy · 07-07-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

(a) I treat the Sumerian king list just as critically as I treat Genesis

(b) I don't how else to explain this ... we would have very little knowledge of the events of history were it not for written records. Yes, they can be flawed. But they are in a class by themselves (that is, better) than any other type of artifact. What's amazing to me is that this is not obvious to everyone.

Dave, you continually claim that written documents are "better" evidence than any other form of evidence. You have nothing to back this claim up. In fact, we've been hammering you for over a year now with evidence of yawning, gaping holes in the documentary "evidence" you supply, and yet you persist in this absurd belief. We show you lists of sumerian kings with lifespans almost three orders of magnitude beyond what is even possible, we show you your biblical flood cannot possibly have happened, and yet you persist in your belief that written records are more accurate than any other evidence.

Why?

ericmurphy · 07-07-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

You see, literary sources tell us the majority of what we know about antiquity. I cannot imagine any conceivable archaeology that will give us what Pliny's letters do, for instance. How do we learn about the plotting after Caesar's death, other than from the letters exchanged at the time that we get from Cicero?

Literary sources that cannot be corroborated using external evidence are automatically suspect until such evidence is found. Why do historians doubt the existence of Atlantis, despite ample documentary evidence of its existence? Because there's scant physical evidence of its existence.

There's certainly ample literary evidence for the existence of gods' dwellings on Mt. Olympus. How much physical evidence is there for it?

BWE · 07-07-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

You do know, don't you, that human testimony is the weakest kind of evidence there is, and it gets exponentially weaker the more "second-hand" it is?

Hoo boy. I can't wait to finish this thread.

deadman_932 · 07-07-2007, 05:05 PM

.
Ah, now that I have a bit of time:

Quote:

Roger opines:
As far as I am aware, you are not proposing to produce some ante-diluvian skeletons to argue from. In fact you merely propose to keep asserting what is the state of play of human nature today.

This, as I remarked earlier, is to waste time by asserting what no-one debates; that these ante-diluvians were not like us. That they lived for vast periods shows that.

I think perhaps your slip is showing a bit. Quite an unqualified claim you have there. Perhaps you actually meant that some texts make this claim, Roger...texts that are unsupported by any actual external data that I know of. Otherwise, it seems to imply that you accept the idea of antediluvian super-geriatrics.

If you'd like to venture an opinon on when these ante-diluvians might have lived, and where, I'm pretty sure I can bring some information to the table, and I invite you to do so as well -- although it'd be best if you didn't bring your strawmen friends along.

Cheers, Deadman.

deadman_932 · 07-07-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

You do know, don't you, that human testimony is the weakest kind of evidence there is, and it gets exponentially weaker the more "second-hand" it is?

Hoo boy. I can't wait to finish this thread.

I just "got" this. Smart-ass (but funny as hell). Damn, I'm slow today.

The Evil One · 07-07-2007, 05:22 PM

Don't suppose you could explain it for the even slower and sleepier amongst us, could you?

deadman_932 · 07-07-2007, 05:29 PM

Evil One: Here's my take on it. (BWE is wise and crafty, so I may well be wrong)...if human testimony/opinion (say like that which Dave repeats) gets weaker and weaker when repeated...then Dave will eventually pop out of existence on this thread like a will-o'-the-wisp as he has so many other times. At least that's how I took it. Roger seems to have taken a break as well.

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

07-07-2007, 05:22 PM	#99
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	Don't suppose you could explain it for the even slower and sleepier amongst us, could you?

07-07-2007, 05:29 PM	#100
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	Evil One: Here's my take on it. (BWE is wise and crafty, so I may well be wrong)...if human testimony/opinion (say like that which Dave repeats) gets weaker and weaker when repeated...then Dave will eventually pop out of existence on this thread like a will-o'-the-wisp as he has so many other times. At least that's how I took it. Roger seems to have taken a break as well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.