Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hex · 05-14-2007, 01:02 PM

Taken from Pyramids and All That, and referring to issues referred to from Why no archaeological evidence of wilderness trek?, praxeus has, in the post the quotes comes from, cast dispersions on skeptics who require some amount of scientific authority of 'the people who you [skeptics] consider experts or professionals'.

I post the quote alone first, and will respond in the following post. In this, however, I see a greater discussion of how people look to determine the validity for a source - in this case, specifically for ARCHAEOLOGICAL sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Fine, you never ACTUALLY claimed they were ARCHAEOLOGISTS.

Correct, not professional archaeologists that would be acceptable to the skeptics of the thread who are looking to say "no evidence". Apparently you only want input from some special group that has what you call :

"the QUALIFICATIONS to render valid input on the subject".

Hmmm.. that list of valid input folks was not given in the OP.

Yet in fact you all acknowledged that the professional archaeologists you will accept are silent (let's also mention that this strange crew, short on logic, often wants the professionals they will accept to only be non-Christian).

They simply have not looked for evidence in Arabia. And you, Hex will not even look at evidence from any other sources. Pretty dumb. Transparent. Tacky.

(

This is quite amazing from the mythicist crew who are always crying .. look at our 'scholarship' .. why Richard Carrier is an aspiring professional historian !)

So we have fully the answer to the question that was asked ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

... in the 'Why no Archaeological Evidence for the Biblical Exodus' thread,

Simply because the people who you consider experts or professionals or whatever have not looked at all for the evidence in the proper region. And even Frank Moore Cross and Herschel Shanks have both acknowledged that Arabia is significant for the Sinai question so it should be agreed by all (not just the believers) that there is nothing "bogus" or "junk science" about researching and looking in Arabia, as well as giving a wealth of historical references.

Those claims are flat-out false integrity accusations that only darkens the three rah-rah skeptics trying to float and support it on this thread. As if folks hadn't read the earlier thread. If the professional archaeologists you seem to think are the only competent folks aren't doing their job - you should simply be thankful for the professional scientists and laypeople who are out there actually doing the legwork and writing.

So the thread was answered fully.

No evidence (by your artificial standards) .. why ?

The people you find acceptable for convenience haven't looked in the right region.

End of story.
The thread was fully answered.

You also fabricated words into my mouth, as you acknowledged quite reluctantly with a lot of hand-waving diversion.

And RedDave, it is time for you to retract, modify or attempt to support your integrity accusation of a "bogus" (counterfeit, sham, fraudulent, spurious) theory of the Exodus in Arabia. You have successfully demonstrated one thing - skeptics will trip over each other to try to somehow support each other in such a false integrity accusation. Now it is your turn to answer.

Shalom,
Steven

Casper · 05-14-2007, 01:10 PM

Is praxeus saying they came "out of Arabia" instead of Egypt like it says in the bible? Or is he saying that they wandered around Arabia instead of the regions described in the bible?

RED DAVE · 05-14-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Is praxeus saying [1] they came "out of Arabia" instead of Egypt like it says in the bible? Or is he saying [2] that they wandered around Arabia instead of the regions described in the bible?

[2]

RED DAVE

Sarpedon · 05-14-2007, 01:53 PM

I'd say a degree from an accredited university is a good start, and a position in a reputable institution is even better.

Hex · 05-14-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Correct, not professional archaeologists that would be acceptable to the skeptics of the thread who are looking to say "no evidence". Apparently you only want input from some special group that has what you call :

"the QUALIFICATIONS to render valid input on the subject".

Hmmm.. that list of valid input folks was not given in the OP.

Yet in fact you all acknowledged that the professional archaeologists you will accept are silent (let's also mention that this strange crew, short on logic, often wants the professionals they will accept to only be non-Christian).

They simply have not looked for evidence in Arabia. And you, Hex will not even look at evidence from any other sources. Pretty dumb. Transparent. Tacky.

In the thread in question you brought up, as evidenciary sources, Charles A. Whittaker and Dr. Lennart Möller. Neither is an ARCHAEOLOGIST. Whittaker is a theologian and Möller is an environmental scientist.

Would you trust me, with my Ph.D. to do neurosurgery on you? Then why would you trust non-archaeologists to interpret archaeological evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

(

This is quite amazing from the mythicist crew who are always crying .. look at our 'scholarship' .. why Richard Carrier is an aspiring professional historian !)

So we have fully the answer to the question that was asked ...

Simply because the people who you consider experts or professionals or whatever have not looked at all for the evidence in the proper region. And even Frank Moore Cross and Herschel Shanks have both acknowledged that Arabia is significant for the Sinai question so it should be agreed by all (not just the believers) that there is nothing "bogus" or "junk science" about researching and looking in Arabia, as well as giving a wealth of historical references.

Frank Moore Cross has an impressive CV, getting three real degrees (B.A. Maryville College, 1942; B.D. McCormick Theological Seminary, 1946; Ph.D. Johns Hopkins University [Semitic Languages], 1950) and a number of honoris causa. He's listed as being 'Principal Investigator, Punic Excavations of the American Schools of Oriental Research—Harvard—Michigan Expedition to Carthage, 1975-1980', but I couldn't find a real description of what that entailed anywhere. In looking at his peer-reviewed article, they are primarily textual/inscriptive/documentary analyses and commentaries. But ... I didn't find his acknowledgement of Arabia as significant for the Sinai question.

Hershel Shanks, has been a bit harder to really look at. He's described as being a lawyer in one place, a journalist in another, and the editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review and founder of the Biblical Archaeology Society. Remember him? He's the one who put out the articles and books on the authenticity John Ossuary.

Please note that books are NOT peer reviewed. Erich Von Daniken has published numerous books, but ... I wouldn't call him a reputable expert or professional. Both of these scholars have plenty of books, but that doesn't mean that they are 100% scholarly.

BTW, could I get a citation of where Cross acknowledges 'Arabia as significant for the Sinai question'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Those claims are flat-out false integrity accusations that only darkens the three rah-rah skeptics trying to float and support it on this thread. As if folks hadn't read the earlier thread. If the professional archaeologists you seem to think are the only competent folks aren't doing their job - you should simply be thankful for the professional scientists and laypeople who are out there actually doing the legwork and writing.

So the thread was answered fully.

No evidence (by your artificial standards) .. why ?

The people you find acceptable for convenience haven't looked in the right region.

End of story.
The thread was fully answered.

If 'competant' archaeologists aren't doing 'their job' in finding Mt. Sinai and Exodus proof in Saudia Arabia, then my conclusion is that the evidence does not support the assertion enough to even bother checking archaeologically.

And I don't want to say that 'professional scientists and laypeople' don't make contributions. We deal with collectors all the time. They can be handy for recovering raw data - If they recover it and record it correctly. Archaeological evidence, removed from it's context is next to useless.

But we don't look to them to make our great theories. We look to the people who analyze the data in context with all the other relevant data.

But I will stand by my assessments of Whittaker and Möller. Neither is QUALIFIED to make archaeological assessments. Please note that there is no reason that such people -can't- try and appeal to scholarly forums. They just have to do so in a scholarly manner, and often their data and conjecture do not stand up to scrutiny. Hence, even with 'the professional scientists and laypeople who are out there actually doing the legwork and writing', none that I have found are accepted by the scholarly world of Archaeologists. Why? Their data and hypotheises are not solid, nor scientific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

You also fabricated words into my mouth, as you acknowledged quite reluctantly with a lot of hand-waving diversion.

And RedDave, it is time for you to retract, modify or attempt to support your integrity accusation of a "bogus" (counterfeit, sham, fraudulent, spurious) theory of the Exodus in Arabia. You have successfully demonstrated one thing - skeptics will trip over each other to try to somehow support each other in such a false integrity accusation. Now it is your turn to answer.

Shalom,
Steven

As I stated, those 'words' I 'put in your mouth' were do to the context you used your evidenciary sources. If we were talking about physics, optics especially, and I brought up Milisauskas as a source, would you perhaps assume that he was some sort of authority on optics?

I beleive that Red Dave need not 'retract, modify or attempt to support [his] integrity accusation of a "bogus" (counterfeit, sham, fraudulent, spurious) theory of the Exodus in Arabia'. I have been unable to research any scholarly works that show any (even relatively) conclusive evidence, nor anyone citing such works as part of their other greater works.

Why? Because people don't cite Von Daniken either. He's not an authority.

Now.

Praxeus, let's see if we can't come to an agreement on who an acceptable source would be for both of us so we can have a discussion without you falling back to ducking questions over 'flat-out integrity accusations' and the like, huh?

RED DAVE · 05-15-2007, 07:34 PM

I've posted this elsewhere, but I think it might come in handy here.

Definition of a Crank [Crackpot]

Quote:

Crank: "A person whose beliefs lie outside the scientific mainstream, but does not attempt serious or extensive debate with those in the mainstream. Martin Gardner, who invented the term, identified two distinguishing features of a crank.

The first is that cranks do not participate in scientific conferences or peer-reviewed journals, but instead write for journals they themselves edit, and speak before groups they themselves founded.

Second, they believe that the failure of the scientific community to adopt their beliefs represents widespread stupidity or corruption on behalf of the entire scientific community.

Not to be confused with unorthodox scholars who do participate seriously in the formal channels of academic discussion."

(edited for format: paragraph breaks added)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-...stRecentReview

RED DAVE

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

05-14-2007, 01:10 PM	#2
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Is praxeus saying they came "out of Arabia" instead of Egypt like it says in the bible? Or is he saying that they wandered around Arabia instead of the regions described in the bible?

05-14-2007, 01:53 PM	#4
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	I'd say a degree from an accredited university is a good start, and a position in a reputable institution is even better.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.