badger3k

Funny, I've seen a lot of people who seem to have changed their opinions, but they are usually people who deal with facts and reality. You, on the other hand, deal in lies and delusions. Is your latest defense now that "you are only following orders"?
Why not back up your claims once again, Lee. Really, why not back them up for once.

Um, no - your claim was that the archaeologists did not object to people living there originally, so that was "evidence" for you to claim that the people were not living in the ruins. My point was that we do not have evidence that archaeologists did not protest the inhabitants, so we cannot use that as some basis for where these villagers lived.

You do realize that people who live in and among ruins do not have the vehicles and tools for widespread demolition of archaeological sites. So even though they do damage the sites, the scale alone is different. If Saddam came in and had bulldozers and other heavy machinery moving among the ruins, that alone would be enough to do irreparable damage to the site and it's artifacts. Add in all the workers, who would probably do the same thing that others not concerned with history or archaeology would do (such as vandalize the site, take things, paint/scratch graffiti into the walls, etc). Then you also have to consider the level of visibility of the people. Small families could move into a site that archaeologists have little to no access to without a lot of notice, but heavy machinery and a massive building plan would be noticed - which would cause a larger reaction in the archaeological community.

Um, no, again, <deleted> Let's look at your whole quote, from here-http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2663362#post2663362:
Now, let's see what I said:
and
Now, your original was, as you quote, more than a block or two. As I said, it seems that the palace covered an area that exceeded a block or two. Now, you do know that a palace is not a single house, right? You have the residence, barracks, support structures, homes or residences for full time workers, etc.

However, let's look at some goalpost stretching:
When confronted with the fact, you move the goalposts. Notice that your original requirements did not include two miles of streets, and ziggurats as well. What goalposts? Lee, they are already outside the stadium, and you keep moving them even further. To prevent further goalposting on your part, let's be more specific - how wide are these streets, how long (ie, to what extent are they counted from (edge of house? edge of what? center of mass of houses?), what are they to be made of (paved, stone, dirt, sand, diesel-packed road?)? What counts as a house? Wood, adobe, stone, yurt, mobile home? What if there is a store on one street - that's not a house - does that invalidate the entire strip of road? Do these roads need to meet, cross, can they be parallel? What about other structures? Can these ziggurats be mosques instead? Do these temples/ziggurats/whatever need to be built of clay brick, or can something more modern be used? Do they have to be dedicated to the Babylonian Gods, do they have to be used, and if so, by how many worshippers? Can there be modern structures and utilities, or is electricity a no-no that would invalidate the "rebuilding"?

Anything else we can add? I think we can keep this up and push the goalposts out of the atmosphere (wasn't that an old Leonard Nimoy Film "Lee Merrils of the Stratosphere"?).

I also just looked through what you posted again, and noticed that at first, you said: "I don't know if ziggurats were part of ancient Babylon, if they were, a few of those would be appropriate", but when you changed your mind, it became "three temples similar to the ones we know were there once". Why the change? Are you going to say it wasn't a change? There's more, but I just want to see you weasel your way out of this first before I see if the entertainment value is worth the time for the rest.

Also, considering that several writers in a recent Biblical Archaeology Review (which is the publication I think you are referring to) were very supportive of the fraudulent Ossuary (a month or three ago, can't find the issue right now), I'd be cautious of wanting to use them as an unbiased reviewer of ziggurats. Why not the American Schools of Oriental Research ? I'm sure there are many experts in Babylonian architecture or ziggurats who would be credible reviewers.

Sauron

No, we wouldn't.


You didn't even make it to the second response without lying, lee_merrill.

You've already been told what what the bible means when it says rebuilt. It means what everyone else in the world means when they say "rebuilt" - everyone except you, that is. It means "to build something over again." Blue text since you are trying to ignore it.

Apparently the bible uses "rebuilt" or "built again" the same way that everyone else. Scale is not relevant. Here we have an example of a small building being rebuilt:

CH2 33:3 For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down, and he reared up altars for Baalim, and made groves, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.

There are two aspects to the debate:
1. your personal conduct
2. the quality of your argument

Given how low you score in both categories, I'm surprised you had the nerve to bring up the topic of lurkers. How do you think lurkers would judge you on these two aspects, lee?

You're also under these orders, but that doesn't seem to bother you:

PE1 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

PRO 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

PRO 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Nice try, except that isn't what the article says. It says that they were displaced to make room for the palace.


No, it's a statement from the article. People were living there. People live in buildings. It's as simple as that. But if you really believe that this is not the case, then the burden of proof falls on your back to prove otherwise. You took the original affirmative position for fulfilled prophecy; it's up to you to prove your case.

And you've already been informed that:

1. there is no reason to believe that the archaeologists were silent about these other buildings at Babylon, given that they were not silent about Angkor Wat;

2. the amount of damage that a full military construction battalion (like Saddam's) would do to the area was several orders of magnitude greater than the occasional small house or building that was hand-made by ordinary people.

Yes. Therefore your desperate assumption that for some strange reason archaeologists didn't object at Babylon is not believable.

No, lee. You are moving the goalposts. In your world, the goalposts are on training wheels to make it easier to move them all around the playing field.


Ducking and dodging.


But as you've been informed a dozen times, Babylon *was* rebuilt. Time for more blue text:
Ah, but you've already been informed of your error here as well. Babylon was rebuilt - by Cyrus II, then again by Alexander's men, and after Alexander's death his successors (the Diadochi, etc.) continued the work. Esagila was rebuilt and services continued into the 1st century AD.


So when do you plan to actually prove this position - instead of asserting it and expecting your opponents to do all the legwork?

And if this is your new position (third or fourth revision, of course) then do you plan to refrain from claims about muslims/skeptics wanting to rebuild Babylon? Trying to have it both ways is not gonig to work:

1. You want to make the claim.
2. But you don't want to justify and support it.
3. So you re-categorize the claim as something "not really part of your argument," hoping that excuses you from defending the claim.
4. But then you fail to retract the claim.
5. And you try to *include* it as part of your argument.

That isn't going to work. Any claim you bring into the argument is fair game for skeptics to ask about. You have only two choices:

(a) get off your lazy ass and defend the muslim/skeptics claim about rebuilding Babylon; or
(b) drop the claim entirely

Anything else is just dishonest.

Johnny Skeptic

But Lee, you were perfectly willing to discuss intent, results and motives for a number of weeks. You abandoned that approach when you got into trouble.

I hereby issue you the following challenges:

1) Please restate your arguments without making any mention of intent, motives and results, or 2) please tell us what is at all unusual about the fact that Babylon has not been rebuilt, assuming for the sake of argument that it has not been rebuilt. If you wish to mention intent, motives and results, then by all means, please do so, but you have already embarrassed yourself when you used that approach regarding the current views of Muslims and skeptics. If you do not wish to mention intent, motives and results, then all that you can claim is that God predicted that a certain city would not rebuilt out of hundreds of other cities that have not been rebuilt. Some people tried to rebuild “those� cities and failed to do so, and most certainly “not� because God prevented them from doing so. Your arguments would be much better if historically, attempts to rebuild and/or reinhabit cities almost always succeeded, but obviously,
such has not been the case.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Even if the Babylon prophecy is valid, you still lose hands down. There is no logical correlation that can be made between the ablity to predict the future and goodness. If I could predict what the stock market will close at on November 6, 2005, would that prove that I am good? Of course not. What evidence do you have that God is good?

You have a fascination with "You can easily disprove the Bible anytime that you want to by doing so and so" types of prophecies. You claim that people who do not attempt to do so are inconsistent. However, that most certainly IS NOT the judgment of people who do not choose to attempt to do so. In fact, it is not even the judgment of the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians. In typical dictatorial fashion, you try to make up all of the rules of the game. You try to change the rules at the drop of a handkerchief anytime that you believe that it suits your purposes to do so. If you have the right to claim that Muslims and skeptics are not consistent, then I have the right to claim that they are consistent. How can we prove who is right? Obviously, by discussing the motives, results and intent of Muslims and skeptics. The word "consistent" indicate intent, does it not?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I suppose Alex and Saddam tried to rebuild this city because they didn't want to! Well, no, but let's grant your point. Let's say nobody really has ever wanted to rebuild Babylon, so this would be like saying "Nobody will ever grow rose bushes in Antartica." Who would want to do that? But here's the point, if this was in a book people were trying to disprove, and growing those rose bushes would clearly disprove it, then that itself would be a motive to grow those rose bushes, regardless of whether people on their own would think this to be a good idea.

I would say people generally don't know about this possibility, and any reluctance after knowing about this might be because people don't generally want clear proof that God is real! That would change the world view, considerably.

"It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. 'Look out!' we cry, 'it's alive'! ... There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us? So it is a sort of Rubicon. One goes across, or not. But if one does ... one may be in for anything." (C.S. Lewis)

No, my claim was that the absence of any objection from the archaeologists implies these people had not built on the ruins. Otherwise, we would expect to hear "Well now, at least we can get back to excavating over where these people were settled!" And should we assume the archaeologists made no attempt to stop them from building there in the first place? I think that would be improbable.

Sure, but simply building on top of a site prevents any further excavation.

I think archaeologists are a bit more attentive than this! Wouldn't they want people not to steal artifacts, for instance? They can be sold for a pretty penny on the black market.

Not Saddam's palace, it's a single building. But why do we have to dispute the meaning of "two blocks of houses"? Of course, I meant individual residences, this really should have been clear.

Well, I did say that "I meant that the requirements need not be so exact." So then when pressed for exact requirements, I stated those requirements after more careful consideration, and thus the requirements changed some. Why is this then, surprising?

Well, this is just being silly! But if you want me to answer all these questions, I shall say whatever these theoretical 60% of archaeologists would say was a house and a street etc. etc. Let them define all this more specifically...

Well, the words were "to make way," which is less specific than what Sauron said here. And again, the complaint from the archaeologists implies Saddam's palace was going to prevent the archaeologists from doing something they had been able to do before.

Well, see above! And I think it's pretty clearly not rebuilt now.

That is a different topic, though I agree that a real prophecy does not necessarily indicate motive or character. But let's stick to the chosen topic!

Well yes, and I disagree with them, for example, if I am trying to do X, and find a way to clearly do X, and the cost is not prohibitive, then X is a reasonable option.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

If you are trying to disprove a claim that no one can grow rose bushes in Antarctica, you would choose methods that you believe would best enable you to grow rose bushes in Antarctica. If there were perceived substantial benefits from growing rose bushes in Antarctica, if some people had adequate time and financial resources, they would attempt to grow rose bushes in Antarctica. Similarly, if you are trying to disprove the Bible, as befitting practicality, you would choose methods that you believe would best enable you to 1) substantially reduce the number of Christians in the world, and 2) in the case of Muslims, change U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and Muslim countries. In both cases, rebuilding Babylon would not achieve the desired results.

badger3k

What do you mean "excavate"? Who said anything about excavation? Have you even heard of attempts to PRESERVE historical and archaeological sites? Do we have the Alamo in it's own little preserve so that we can excavate? Do we preserve the Great Pyramid so we can excavate? I guess we can add that you know nothing about the preservation of historical sites to all the rest.

Now, for the other part. Please explain to me what archaeologists can do to stop people from living in ruins? Do we employ the Archaeology Army (maybe the Knights in Archaeology's Service?)? About the most that archaeologists can do is appeal to the people and the governments and try to influence them to take action. Considering Saddams desire to build a palace on the site, do you think he cared enough to act - until he wanted to use the site?

Again, excavation has nothing to do with it. You probably believe that the world will end sometime soon, so preservation of the past (which you distort anyway) has no meaning to you, but others don't feel that way. Since we are no longer excavating the Great Pyramid of Cheops (to use one name for it), should we allow it's blocks to be used by local builders?

Unless there is something unusual, most artifacts will probably be pot shards and the like. Pollen or ashes from fires, trash deposits, the buildings and remains themselves, possible writing or decorations - that's the stuff of archaeology. While there may indeed be a black market for pot shards, I'm not aware of it. Do you think that a village of (at least) 1,000 people all made their living out of pillaging ruins and selling items on the black market?! As much as I like the Indiana Jones movies, that's not archaeology.

Now, given the nature of Saddam's regime, do you think he let a lot of archaeologists into the country? Or let his own archaeologists have free rein, and let them move people out of the area? Let's try an experiment - we'll pick a dictator and write to him telling him to get people out of some archaeological site. Let's see where that gets us, ok?

<rewrite>Hmm, here's an interesting quote and picture: http://architecture.about.com/library/bl-babylon05.htm
"This particular photo was shot from the ancient "Procession Street" that ran outside the walls of King Nebuchadnezzar's fort/palace. All brick work done in the foreground was built by Saddam's labor force. Archeologists are against building directly on top of actual ancient ruins, as Saddam did. Of course, at that time, no one would argue the fact. Saddam saw himself as a modern day Nebuchadnezzar. In the middle the old ruins are the remains from King Hammurabi's dynasty, approximately 3,750 B.C. In the background is another view of Saddam's presidential palace."

Why do you think no one (in country, presumably) would "argue the fact"?</rewrite>

I missed that the palace itself is one building, although from the aerial view you can see other structures nearby related to it. As for two blocks of houses, that also refers to area. So, let's add to our list of requirements - do these blocks have to be square, or are the houses allowed to be located along the streets. Considering that most villages are not organized in a grid pattern like modern American cities, that's a valid question.

BTW - interesting pictures here (http://architecture.about.com/library/bl-babylon.htm). Hadn't looked at them before.

Because you were asked to state what requirements would be sufficient. I wasn't aware that when asked such a question you don't have to be exact. I remember deploying to Desert Shield/Storm. When asked for our requirements to move personnel, I'm sure our S1 (personnel officer) merely said "airplanes" and they knew exactly what was needed. The question was asked so that you could state what would be sufficient to meet your requirements. So, yeah, for a normal person who is honest, it is surprising that the answer changed; for you, no, it isn't surprising. Since you admit that you do not like to be tied down to definitive statements, the changing requirements are what we expected.

Now see, Lee, here I was asking for particulars, and again you weasel out of it. I don't give a rats hindquarters what 60% of some vague number of archaeologists might say about streets and such.

You were asked a specific question, to which you respond. When presented with evidence, you retreat and restate what would be required to satisfy you (which for some reason is stricter and would invalidate the evidence presented, hmmm). When asked for further specifics, you retreat once again and now say that you will accept some nebulous consensus that doesn't exist. I'm sure if a group were polled and said that two streets (total 2 miles), 100 houses and 1,000 people were sufficient to fulfill this abstract idea, then we would see you backtrack further. I think you need to stop flying back and come back to earth - the air is too thin up there near the firmament and you may bump your head on the rock soon.

All of this is irrelevant, of course, since you haven't even proven that Babylon fell. As much fun as exposing your retreat is, maybe I'll drop this and see if you can give any real information on that. :rolling:
Again, do some research into historical preservation, of which archaeologists often play key roles. Open a frigging book for once, something beyond "Christian Apologetics for Dummies".

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Since you have already admitted that you cannot prove that Arabs have never pitched their tents in Babylon, I am ready for you to concede defeat. When I brought this up before, you said that you preferred to discuss other parts of the prophecy that are easier to defend, but that won't work. You must defend "all" of the prophecy. Your failure to defend any part of of the multi-part prophecy invalidates the entire prophecy.

Sauron

A truly stupid comment, lee. The "intent" and "results" issue relates back to your claim about muslims/skeptics. Neither Alex or Saddam rebuilt Babylon with the "intent" to disprove prophecy.

Your lame rosebush example only repeats the claim without dealing with the fatal flaw in your reasoning process. People would only try to rebuild babylon/grow roses if:
CONDITION 1. they disagree with the prophecy (or book on roses); and

CONDITION 2. they believe that disproving the prophecy (or book) would have an actual effect on christians; i.e., by making them reject their own bible.

Neither of these two conditions has been satisfied here.

No, that's just your silly religious belief. People don't know about this because they don't care about it and don't believe in it.

Of course, lee, if you disagree, then you should take your own advice here: go rebuild Babylon. If you and other christians want to prove to the world that the prophecy is true, then you should take up a collection from among your fellow believers. Start a rebuilding project at Babylon. And when that rebuilding project is divinely and miraculously stopped, you can come back and tell us "I told you so". Put your money where your mouth is, lee.


But you have proven no "absence of objection". As usual. :rolling:

1. Yes, we should assume that they did try to stop them - that would be consistent with archaeologists and past behavior in other locations (Angkor Wat).

2. Improbable? Please. You only think it would be "improbable" because you don't want to expend any energy to research or support that position. So you predictably pick the outcome that is most useful for your argument and declare other outcomes to be "improbable". You're thoroughly dishonest, lee.

1. No, it does not.

2. Who said "excavation" anyhow? For someone who has repeatedly been embarrassed by your lack of background information, you still don't seem to have learned your lesson: stop making statements about areas of science that you don't understand.

1. Most of the surface level artifacts have been gone for years at this site.
2. The ancient site is large - much larger than you seem to realize (naturally - ). Patrolling it would be difficult, especially during Saddam's reign.

Says who? You? My, what an interesting claim. Too bad the evidence says otherwise. Notice all the support buildings to the left and lower area - just like badger3k said:


As usual you just make shit up as you go, filling in the gaps of your argument with casual claims that you never research. All those lurkers that you mention in your last post? I wonder what they would have to say to you, if they could meet you in person after seeing this most recent claim of yours so easily shot down....

Because you always seem to change the goalposts in such a way as to make your argument easier, and shift the burden of work to your opponents. Funny how that works out, isn't it?

It is not less specific. It is the same thing. Here is what the article said:

http://architecture.about.com/cs/cou...damspalace.htm
Villagers told news media that a thousand people were evacuated to make way for this emblem of Saddam Hussein's power.

Why evacuate them if they weren't living there? There would have been no need to evacuate them otherwise.

And again, you're making up claims as you go. That is not what the article said. The article shows that the archaeologists were concerned about the destruction to ancient monuments that Saddam's building would cause. There is nothing here that implies that they were going to excavate:

Archaeologists were horrified. Many said that to rebuild on top of ancient artifacts does not preserve history, but disfigures it.

1. Saw above. Nothing above tells us why this is unusual.

2. Since babylon didn't fall according to prophecy, then everything after that point is irrelevant. The prophecy is already broken.


Restating your example without dealing with the fatal flaw in the reasoning.

1. People aren't going to do X if they don't believe that X will result in any benefit or reaction. You still haven't dealt with that fact, lee. Repeating the claim while ignoring this fatal flaw only shows that you know you are checkmated, but can't find a way out. You are cornered. Pinned down, like a mouse backed into a cupboard. So you pretend not to understand the flaw in your reasoning and repeat it over and over. But everyone else understands why this doesn't work: people don't take actions unless they believe the action will have the desired result.

2. Who said the cost wasn't prohibitive anyhow? Let's see your estimation of the costs, lee. Make sure you include your math, because I'll want to check it. And give citations where you took your cost estimates from as well. Or did you plan to just assert this?

Sauron

And if someone *agreed* that rosebushes could grow there, then that person isn't going to spend any money to prove the point. Why not? Because they already agree with it. Just like the muslim who agreed with lee about the babylon prophecy.