Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lucretius · 10-01-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

This may be the old "there is no website that says it ,therefore it can't be true" gambit.
I haven't come across a complete line by line analysis of the DH online (as yet) but even if there isn't one possibly due to the amount of information then it still doesn't negate any of the DH .

It could be the "maybe if I find some small detail to quibble about ad-infinitum, no-one will notice that I haven't addressed the big picture and the consilience" gambit.

Only time will tell.

Unless, of course, you feel like addressing the big picture and the consilience now, Dave?

Well yes that too

Dave Hawkins · 10-01-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Dean, could you please provide a link which shows the complete divisions of the text into J E D and P? Or if no such link exists, could you state this please?

I am curious, Dave: why does this matter in the slightest? You have shown no appetite for raw information, and you have not been able to deal with the consilience of the sections Dean has presented so far. This seems to be equivalent to asking for pictures of dendro sequenced when you are utterly incompetent to analyze them. Deal with what you already are failing at. Learn to crawl before you learn to fly.

Well ... it would be useful and it would be a lot easier than getting the info from a hard copy book.

I note that you and Lucretius said you were such good Googlers that you found several such online sources and you ridiculed me for being such a lousy, lazy Googler that I couldn't find it myself. I knew you were bluffing and now this has been proven.

Constant Mews · 10-01-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

This may be the old "there is no website that says it ,therefore it can't be true" gambit.
I haven't come across a complete line by line analysis of the DH online (as yet) but even if there isn't one possibly due to the amount of information then it still doesn't negate any of the DH .

It could be the "maybe if I find some small detail to quibble about ad-infinitum, no-one will notice that I haven't addressed the big picture and the consilience" gambit.

Only time will tell.

Unless, of course, you feel like addressing the big picture and the consilience now, Dave?

i think it has more to do with ego and petty revenge. Dave is still annoyed that several of us pointed out that the material is available, but we refused to tell him where. If you state that it is not available online, then he can call us liars and feel vindicated.

Sauron · 10-01-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

I am curious, Dave: why does this matter in the slightest? You have shown no appetite for raw information, and you have not been able to deal with the consilience of the sections Dean has presented so far. This seems to be equivalent to asking for pictures of dendro sequenced when you are utterly incompetent to analyze them. Deal with what you already are failing at. Learn to crawl before you learn to fly.

Well ... it would be useful and it would be a lot easier than getting the info from a hard copy book.

I note that you and Lucretius said you were such good Googlers that you found several such online sources and you ridiculed me for being such a lousy, lazy Googler that I couldn't find it myself. I knew you were bluffing and now this has been proven.

The only thing "proven" by this, Davey, is that these two posters have gotten tired of:

a. providing you information that you're too lazy to find yourself;
b. only to be forced to explain it to you piece-by-piece, because you lack the education to process it

There's nothing remarkable about getting tired of babysitting an insincere poster in his (your) effort to make assertions that you have no intention of supporting.

Dean Anderson · 10-01-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I note that you and Lucretius said you were such good Googlers that you found several such online sources and you ridiculed me for being such a lousy, lazy Googler that I couldn't find it myself. I knew you were bluffing and now this has been proven.

Hang on - let's not jump to conclusions.

Just because I don't know of such a link doesn't mean that they haven't found one or more...

-Jay- · 10-01-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

It's interesting. All these "alternative reality enthusiasts" (as I like to non-judgmentally call them) avoid each others discussions.

It gets back to that whole consilience thing I'm always harping on. "Real-worlders" share their observations and theories, consensus survives only if it survives relentless exposure to all honest inquiry and observation. There's a massive, open, ongoing dialog with a whole planetful of observers. Theory that doesn't survive that process gets discarded or at least modified.

"Alternative reality enthusiasts" - and I'm thinking mainly of creationists here, but I think it's a general characteristic - seem uninterested, not only in meshing their idiosyncratic views with the larger, "real-world" community, but also with one another. Hence, you've got afdave picking this tidbit from Rohl, that tidbit from McDowell, a scrap of nonsense from Smyth - never noticing that they all contradict not only reality but one another.

It's never been about building a coherent theory or framework of their own. The "alternative reality enthusiasts" (I like that...) have always been about trying to discredit ideas they don't agree with, under the implicit false dichotomy that if "they" are shown to be wrong, "we" must be right.

The stunning thing is the mindset. While it's perfectly reasonable (in their minds) for the AREs to try to discredit concepts in opposition to their POV (and claim victory every time a small issue is identified), they often fail to apply the same standards to their own claims, and simply move on to something else when one of their issues is addressed. (Witness Behe's abandoning the flagella in favor of chloroquinone resistant malaria parasites, which in fact provide a stunning counterexample to his assertions.)

In some sense, maybe they can't help it. Maybe some AREs have been so conditioned by their upbringing that they can only see things in terms of either/or choices. Maybe they've been taught that any threat to their worldview represents a threat to their eternal soul, so they can't bring themselves to think otherwise. :huh:

Good observations, VoxRat.

regards,

NinJay

Dave Hawkins · 10-01-2007, 08:25 AM

Well then ... if such an online source exists, then Dean and I BOTH must be lousy or lazy Googlers. Nice to know that if I'm in the dark on something, Dean's in dark too.

Dean Anderson · 10-01-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Well then ... if such an online source exists, then Dean and I BOTH must be lousy or lazy Googlers.

I don't need to Google for it. I've got books.

So definitely "lazy" rather than "lousy" in my case.

Quote:

Nice to know that if I'm in the dark on something, Dean's in dark too.

But I'm not in the dark about it. As I said, I have books.

Constant Mews · 10-01-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

I am curious, Dave: why does this matter in the slightest? You have shown no appetite for raw information, and you have not been able to deal with the consilience of the sections Dean has presented so far. This seems to be equivalent to asking for pictures of dendro sequenced when you are utterly incompetent to analyze them. Deal with what you already are failing at. Learn to crawl before you learn to fly.

Well ... it would be useful and it would be a lot easier than getting the info from a hard copy book.

I note that you and Lucretius said you were such good Googlers that you found several such online sources and you ridiculed me for being such a lousy, lazy Googler that I couldn't find it myself. I knew you were bluffing and now this has been proven.

see my prior post. God, but I'm good. Of course, the remarkable predictability of the creationist mind helps.

Dave, you couldn't find Herodotus when given the actual passage number. You are a terrible googler.

Lucretius · 10-01-2007, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

I am curious, Dave: why does this matter in the slightest? You have shown no appetite for raw information, and you have not been able to deal with the consilience of the sections Dean has presented so far. This seems to be equivalent to asking for pictures of dendro sequenced when you are utterly incompetent to analyze them. Deal with what you already are failing at. Learn to crawl before you learn to fly.

Well ... it would be useful and it would be a lot easier than getting the info from a hard copy book.

I note that you and Lucretius said you were such good Googlers that you found several such online sources and you ridiculed me for being such a lousy, lazy Googler that I couldn't find it myself. I knew you were bluffing and now this has been proven.

Dave you previously asked for a "chart" that showed the proposed dates of the JEDP documents,which I found.
You now appear to be asking for something far more detailed ,which I have not found (as yet) and are being unnecessarily insulting when I haven't found something for you , that you have never previously asked for .

Mind reading is not unfortunately one of my many skills

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

10-01-2007, 08:25 AM	#457
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Well then ... if such an online source exists, then Dean and I BOTH must be lousy or lazy Googlers. Nice to know that if I'm in the dark on something, Dean's in dark too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.