Dave Hawkins

Agreed. The discussion began when I answered Shirley Knott's question as I recall. (slaps forehead ... why am I so tempted to answer off topic questions?)

Steviepinhead

Because it assists you in avoiding the on-topic questions...?

Constant Mews

And with regard to the OP, the points that have been established include the fact that Josephus' sources cannot be considered as supporting evidence for the existence of the patriarchs.

It's good that we've settled that.

Sauron

It's quite different.

In Cal's scenario, the lack of belief has nothing to do with "choose". It has to do with reviewing the claim against established science and history, and then evaluating the claim as being deficient as a result.

In your scenario, you simply pick and choose what you want to believe.

Sauron

You think someone has to be present at the big bang, before they can make a claim about the properties of the laws of physics?

You seem to have the burden of proof reversed. Intentionally, of course. It is not up to Cal to prove they did not exist, since Cal isn't incorporating them into his/her argument. You on the other hand, have invoked their existence. Burden is on your back, and nowhere else.

The willingness of theists to claim that science is nonsense, while simultaneously backpedaling on proving that statement, has always amused me.

Blaming others for distractions that *you* caused again, Roger?

It was you who tried to raise the idea that the laws of the universe had not been constant. Cal is merely addressing that flight of hypothetical fancy. If your flight of hypothetical wasn't connected to your post, then why pray tell did you raise it in the first place?

Sauron

Except that Josephus lists no such thing at all.
As you've been told multiple times.

Except when it requires that you read something.

Tectonic folding. Let me show you it.

Sauron

1. Literary sources already discussed - do not support you, and in fact don't even mention Hebrews or patriarchs;

2. Other sources "not listed yet" - given your past record, we won't hold our breath;

1. None of which support 969 year lifespans;

1. The evidence says no such flood existed.

Got anything else in your magic bag, Davey?

Sauron

They aren't manuscripts, Cal. In Roger's world, nothing counts unless it's a manuscript.

Any other type of paper (or evidence) fails to provide him with the opportunity to hold forth as a pseudo-expert. And he's not willing to invest any time in self-education, outside of manuscripts.

So until you have a quote from Tertullian about the quantum state of the early universe, it doesn't count in Roger's world.
When the only skill you have is using a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Calilasseia

In that case shall I have them transcribed onto parchment by a geriatric monk? He'll have to wait a long time though because the business of illuminating the first capital letter takes two hours.

[Note: if a certain person from another board sees this and recognises their comic handiwork, copyright is duly acknowledged to Trumpton]

Sauron

Yes. And you were corrected when you did so.

1. the fact that you "highlighted" something as having no content does not make it so.

2. Your position assumes, a priori, the existence of antediluvians. But you have yet to prove a flood - and without a flood, you have no 'ante-' anything.

3. Moreover, there is no evidence that anyone lived "these vast periods", as you claim. So saying "people who live this long are not like us" is just another example of you assuming your conclusion, before you've proven it.

You may think you're clever by sneaking claims you otherwise need to prove into evidence, but I assure you that everyone here saw you try it. Fortunately, it didn't work.

1. On the contrary. It indicates a knowledge of modern science - which you might consider availing yourself.

2. You deliberately mischaracterize the science anyhow. Not only is there zero evidence of anyone living this long *today*, but there is zero evidence for anyone living this long at any time in history.

3. We're all willing to read. But none of us are willing to accept uncritically a claim about 1,000 year lifespans -- any more than we would accept a claim about gods on Olympus or flying serpents. Until you can provide some metric whereby genesis patriarchs should be accepted at face value, while rejecting other ancient fairy tales, I'm afraid your crippled argument is dead in the water.

Your point was not ignored; it was rebutted. You were the one trying to create a burden of proof to disprove any antediluvians existed; that burden was rightly returned to you, its creator.


The only person here who has acted with hubris and arrogance is yourself, Roger. Moreover, I see no evidence that Cal repeats any of these scientific points uncritically. I do, however, see you trying to handwave your way out of arguments where your points fail to muster credibility.