Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Constant Mews · 09-26-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Well Dave I just found it (on a Christian site no less) in about 3 minutes so why can't you ?

And no I won't post the link here, do some work for yourself for a change

Really? The whole thing? I found a small snippet on a Christian site, but not the whole thing.

This game playing of withholding links with the pretense that I am lazy is ridiculous. That would be like me saying "Go to the library and read Faber for yourself." No, I went to the effort to make scans and post them. I've gone to the effort of typing in lots of McDowell when I could have just said "You're lazy ... go read the book."

How much effort can it be to post a link?

Ridiculous!

How much trouble is it for you to discuss things honestly? Ridiculous!

ericmurphy · 09-26-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

A common assumption I harp about a lot is the assumption of closed systems in rock which scientists attempt to date radiometrically. Assumptions are also made about initial quantities of parent and daughter products in these rocks. In Carbon 14 dating, it is assumed that the Flood of Noah is a fictional or local event and thus the concentration of Carbon 14 in the biosphere has been relatively constant for hundreds of thousands of years needing only relatively minor corrections provided by calibration curves. But if these assumptions are wrong, then results of studies are radically different.

Dave, you're the one "assuming" here. You are assuming, without the tiniest scrap of evidence, that your "flood" happened. We're not "assuming" the flood didn't happen; we observe that it didn't happen because 1) there is no evidence that it ever happened, and 2) for it to have happened would require multiple violations of natural law and multiple miracles.

No one "assumes" the initial concentrations of parent and daughter products in radiometric dating. Those initial concentrations are observed from isochrons and concordia/discordia, as has been explained to you exhaustively.

No one is "assuming" that ¹⁴C concentrations have been relatively constant over time. There have been observed variations over the last 60,000 years, and it's not an assumption that calibration curves apply the necessary corrections; it's a fucking observation.

This same tired trope of yours has been ground into the dirt over and over and over and over again, and you know you're wrong. There is no fucking possibility at this point that you don't know you're wrong.

I think everyone can draw the necessary conclusion from that without my having to spell it out.

JEST2ASK · 09-26-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Damn, you guys! By the time I've posted, you've pre-empted many of my points...

Actually, I see that as a good thing.

Because it helps to show Dave (well, who am I kidding? - it helps to show the hypothetical "lurker") that these points can be logically arrived at by an objective viewer; that we're not just all parrotting Dean, whose mastery of this subject is obviously well beyond that of any of the rest of us.

Having followed many of Dave's "scientific" discussions, I have often had the impression of someone being not only completely wrong, but not even speaking the same language as the people trying to set him straight.

Here we are, though, in what should be Dave's home turf - the Bible. Not oranges and apples; not Chinese and Navajo. Very interesting. From where I sit, it's looking a lot like a rout.

:wave: I feel that the vast majority of posters are well beyond me not just Dean ... (hopefully now fades largely unnoticed into the background)

Lucretius · 09-26-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Well Dave I just found it (on a Christian site no less) in about 3 minutes so why can't you ?

And no I won't post the link here, do some work for yourself for a change

Really? The whole thing? I found a small snippet on a Christian site, but not the whole thing.

This game playing of withholding links with the pretense that I am lazy is ridiculous. That would be like me saying "Go to the library and read Faber for yourself." No, I went to the effort to make scans and post them. I've gone to the effort of typing in lots of McDowell when I could have just said "You're lazy ... go read the book."

How much effort can it be to post a link?

Ridiculous!

The problem is Dave that you have been provided with links many, many times on threads here and then appear to either not read them ,ignore the contents or simply fail to grasp what they are saying.
Maybe if it took you yourself some time and a miniscule amount of effort you may ,just may , actually attend to these problems you appear to have.

shirley knott · 09-26-2007, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Really? The whole thing? I found a small snippet on a Christian site, but not the whole thing.

This game playing of withholding links with the pretense that I am lazy is ridiculous. That would be like me saying "Go to the library and read Faber for yourself." No, I went to the effort to make scans and post them. I've gone to the effort of typing in lots of McDowell when I could have just said "You're lazy ... go read the book."

How much effort can it be to post a link?

Ridiculous!

How much trouble is it for you to discuss things honestly? Ridiculous!

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

ericmurphy · 09-26-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Let's stick with the Flood story for the moment please. The Tablet Theory as stated by Wiseman has some difficulties which are addressed by later authors. I acknowledged this a long time ago and will address it in due course. But none of these difficulties appear in the Flood Story to my knowledge.

You picked the Flood Story and divided it up according to the DH. What basis do you have for doing so? What do you see wrong with the Tablet Theory divsion of the Flood story?

Dave, this has already been addressed. Everyone else here knows exactly what basis there is in the DH for dividing up the flood story. Did you somehow manage to miss it?

Undoubtedly your most irritating trait is your habit of pretending your questions have not been answered when they have in fact been answered exhaustively, often multiple times by multiple people.

You know what the justification is for splitting the flood story the way the DH does it, and you know what that splitting makes more sense than the Wiseman hypothesis does. You've lost this point; it's time to move on to the next one.

Dave Hawkins · 09-26-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Really? The whole thing? I found a small snippet on a Christian site, but not the whole thing.

This game playing of withholding links with the pretense that I am lazy is ridiculous. That would be like me saying "Go to the library and read Faber for yourself." No, I went to the effort to make scans and post them. I've gone to the effort of typing in lots of McDowell when I could have just said "You're lazy ... go read the book."

How much effort can it be to post a link?

Ridiculous!

The problem is Dave that you have been provided with links many, many times on threads here and then appear to either not read them ,ignore the contents or simply fail to grasp what they are saying.
Maybe if it took you yourself some time and a miniscule amount of effort you may ,just may , actually attend to these problems you appear to have.

I think you are just bluffing. I've gone to hundreds of links provided to me and you know it. I don't think you have any such link.

Constant Mews · 09-26-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

The problem is Dave that you have been provided with links many, many times on threads here and then appear to either not read them ,ignore the contents or simply fail to grasp what they are saying.
Maybe if it took you yourself some time and a miniscule amount of effort you may ,just may , actually attend to these problems you appear to have.

I think you are just bluffing. I've gone to hundreds of links provided to me and you know it. I don't think you have any such link.

What you think does not matter; we're not going to play that game. Do your own work.

Constant Mews · 09-26-2007, 07:38 AM

More importantly, I note that Dave is shifting the goalposts and dishonestly claiming that he established something that he did not.

The very first line of his OP is

Quote:

have elsewhere claimed that the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP Theory/Oral Tradition) is receiving increasing skepticism by scholars and I have claimed that the assumptions which underpin the DH have all been refuted. (emphasis added)

And yet now Dave claims

Quote:

My claim was that all the presuppositions which gave rise to the DH have been refuted. They have, so my mission is accomplished.

So Dave - unable to refute Dean's points - simply changes his story and declares victory.

<edit>

Dave, you have done nothing to even establish that your 'presuppositions' underpin the DH. Nothing.

Should we expect this kind of nonsensical moving of goalposts, and irrational behavior for the remainder of this thread? That is, until you are faced with too many contradictions and you bail out.

VoxRat · 09-26-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Oh? How so? Where are the inconsistencies in the Flood account? Where are the contradictions?

Quote:

His splitting of the flood account leaves the usual problems in the text (were there two of each clean animal, or fourteen? were the waters on the earth for 40 days or 150 days? and so on...) which the DH takes out because they end up in the separate accounts.

Please explain what problems you see and why they are problems?

note the part highlighted in red? Just f'rinstance.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.