Doubting Didymus

Oh? I thought it was creationists that had a penchant for arbitrarily classifying ancestral hominids as Homo sapiens?

Homo habilis, anyone?

(P. S., could someone who knows ed better than me tell me if he is being serious? That is, does he really think that Lpetrich cant tell the difference between a human and an australopithecus, or should I take this joke at face value?)

Yours in professional confusion, Didymus

Duvenoy

Having followed this for months, and even seriously contributed to it (back in the good ol' days when it made sense), I think he's stone serious.

In a perverse way, I admire Ed. He's been called every kind of fool there is, from idiot to ignoramus, and he never gets upset; never loses his temper. And he never backs down. If he could just get his facts straight, he'd make a demon debater!



Edited to add: Ed, congratulations! You have an entire thread named after you! Some guys have all the luck (grumble).

doov

Ed

Hahaha(sarcastic laugh)

Quote:

lp: The stuff below is more suited for a thread in Biblical Criticism & Archaeology, it must be said. lp: Ed, what do you consider mythical about the Bible's account of Moses? Ed: Nothing. I was referring to the other figures.

lp: So one could go back in a time machine and watch Moses call down the Ten Plagues of Egypt and part the Red Sea?[/quote]

Yep.

Quote:

I am referring to the archaeological evidence that points to the ancient character of the Torah and its closeness to the time period of Moses.

Whatever "evidence" that is supposed to be.[/quote]

Well for one thing, Deuteronomy matches the form of Hittite Suzerainty treaties of the second millenium B.C.

Quote:

lp: The Documentary Hypothesis features NO such presupposition -- it is based on analysis of the text. Ed: It claims that the more complex doctrines were not developed until later and therefore claiming that any verses talking about more complex doctrines in earlier times are anachronisms, but this has no basis in fact.

lp: When, in fact, it proposes no such thing.[/quote]

Evidence {}. In fact in addition to being influenced by Darwin, he(Wellhausen) was also greatly influenced by Hegel. This is confirmed by statements by the great archaeologist W.F. Albright.

Quote:

Ed: Read the German anthropologist's Wilhelm Schmidt's book, "The Origin and Growth of Religion:Facts and Theories". (supposed universal belief in a single male deity...)

lp: Seems like he has been doing some creative interpretation and projecting the Xian God onto a lot of different belief systems -- a lot of mythologies state no such thing.[/quote]

And lp's evidence {}.

Quote:

lp: G1: humanity created after everything else G2: first man, then animals, then first woman Ed: No, Gen. 1 gives the order of events, Gen. 2 is a telescoping in on the content of those events. ...

lp: Except that the way it's presented in the Bible is a very clumsy way of doing that. If that sort of thing appeared outside of the Bible, Ed would quickly say "Of course those are two creation stories!"

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p> [/QUOTE]

Hardly. The different name in the Hebrew used for God tells you that you are looking at His relationship to creation as a whole and then on a personal level with other personal beings.

Ed

Many did and do, but I never said ALL.

Quote:

lp: So do you believe that the two gentlemen that ps418 had mentioned had wanted to thumb their nose at the Xian God?

No.

Quote:

ps418 on Ed's not defending his flood-geology claims... Ed: No, I just said that I was not qualified to go into great detail because I am not a geologist or a hydrologist.

lp: Ed, let me explain with an analogy how evasive your response is.

Let's say that I propose that Jesus Christ had been homosexual.
And let's say that you demand that I produce the evidence to that effect.
And let's say that I claim that I am not an expert on the Gospels.

Ed, if I did that, would you think that I'm being straightforward? [/QUOTE]

It depends on the content of your previous posts.

lpetrich

I wonder if it is at all possible to conclude that Noah's Flood had been pure mythology without Ed judging that one is guilty of thumbing one's nose at the Xian God.

Duvenoy

It has always struck me as odd that anyone who states anything that disagrees with the Bible, however accurate, always gets hit with that accusation. But consider: if the Bible account of the Flood were submitted to any sci-fi or fantasy publication, it would be rejected; if only for being too unlikey (and having been done too many times before by better writers).

How can I hate or thumb my nose at something I don't believe in?

And now, I must get ready for another stay in the VA Hospital. I'm finally going to get this damnable hip replaced. See ya when I get back.



doov

Ed

Human beings in their present state, naturally reject the Christian God. Sorry to hear you are going to have hip surgery.
I hope everything goes well for you, Doov. Take care.

Doubting Didymus

What do you mean by that? It's inadvertant? Inevitable, even?

VonEvilstein

No crap we reject such a rdiculous fabrication!

The wonderful result of a millenia long uphill struggle, called science, held back, badmouthed and put down by religions through the ages, yet still the only philisophy with a track record of getting it right, and howing up how to get it wrong.

Thank you, but I'll stick with what works.

Glad to see that others are heading in that direction. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And believe me, I have never heard anyone seriously claim anything more incredible, extraordinary or downright insane as propsing the existence of a god.

When will this species grow up?

When will we atheists get our own homeland, to live in freedom from religion? Anyone know of a couple of hundred square miles of polder-able (look it up), international waters, and some very rich investors?

Doubting Didymus

As Scigirl would have said, before she was ensnared in the unescapable bonds of 'real life': Hello VonEvilstein, and welcome to infidels! Feel free to introduce yourself here if you like.

As for a nation with freedom of religion, practically any civilised european country would suit you. Religion is very much an american preoccuption these days. Here in australia, atheists are as common as kangaroos (which really are everywhere).