Noah's Flood...

[Guest]

Any chance we can get back to discussing evidence for a global flood that covered every square inch of planet Earth?

The ball is in archaeologist's court, so to write. Thus far, he has provided no evidence for it. There has been presented conclusive evidence against it, particularly anything that would salvage the Flood Myths of the Pentateuch.

So . . . that rather ends it. Not much more to discuss.

Nicole Kidman's okay, but I hardly think she constitutes evidence for the impossible

Methinks it wil be a cold day in Hell. . . .

--J.D.

[Guest]

post like a human being

What? You mean capitalize the beginning of sentences and utilize punctuation?

and show some respect then maybe you will get somewhere.

You receive every bit of respect you deserve, no more, no less. You treat others who have spent considerable time and patience explaining to you the state of the discipline with both ridicule and contempt. Your treatment has been, if anything, merciful.

. . . until then i will be ignoring all childish posts.

--J.D.

[Leona Conner]

Doc. I hope you personally know that child because you will not only owe him an appology and an really good explanation of why you did this to 'im. Considering that you are using his image to relate to the brainless wonder of archaeology.

Sorry Arch, but you do have a way of bringing out the worst in people.

And I agree with Doc, if you are a teacher, as some of your posts infer, them please start using elementary writing. Your postings make me crazy because I want to edit them and make them at least readable.

Plus, the things we post for your consideration are not purely rhetorical. We ask or we state because we would like some kind of answer to get your perspective. Do you ignore us because you don't have an answer that would make you look as if you knew what you're talking about?

[ed]

The problem is that he has his conclusions already and cannot reconcile the data to them.

This is why people like him are a real and present danger ot our public school systems.

You might recall the contortions that Geocentrists went thru to make their conception fit the data because "it was right". Same thing here.

Modern geocentrism is a belief currently held by certain groups that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. The prime motivating factor for the modern belief, as opposed to the geocentrism of Ptolemy, is explicitly religious. Advocates generally argue that literal interpretations of certain Biblical passages demand that the Earth be properly described as being the center of the universe. Alternatively, in the case of Catholic geocentrists, scripture authoritatively interpreted by statements of Church Fathers and various Popes is used to justify their belief, even though this viewpoint is no longer endorsed by the Church itself. The geocentrist views are held in the awareness that essentially all modern scientists agree that there is no evidence that the universe has any center. Philosophically, since the concepts of center and absolute motion are not clearly defined and no evidence distinguishing any motion of the earth from motion of the universe is available, geocentrism in and of itself cannot be falsified and is therefore not a scientific theory. However, there do exist perspectives of certain modern geocentrists which run directly counter to observations and the scientific consensus. These perspectives are considered to be pseudoscientific by skeptics, similar to other religiously motivated rejections of scientific theories and data (for example, the doctrine of creationism).

Wikki

How would you like that crap taught to our kids?

[Minimalist]

How would you like that crap taught to our kids?

No dumber than creationism.

Of course, I'm in favor of neither.

[Guest]

How would you like that crap taught to our kids

why make me responsible for what people believed in the middle ages (long before i was born). just because they were wrong does it mean i am or that the Bible is also.

And I agree with Doc, if you are a teacher, as some of your posts infer, them please start using elementary writing

i always liked e.e.cummings style but i am also a poor typist but then my handwriting is bad too.

Do you ignore us because you don't have an answer that would make you look as if you knew what you're talking about

re-post the questions. you forget that for every one post you respond to, i have 6 or 7. my perspective draws many responses and a lot of the time or i should say most of the time i get questions that a). been answered previously, b) are foolish, c) just asked to cause trouble, d). some questions i don't have the resources to give a good answer to, e). are out of my expertise, f). take time to think about, g). are trick questions, etc.

few seem to be serious or are written in a manner that i cannot tell if they are serious or fall into the above categories. sometimes i miss questions due to the style or length of a post and what is being said in that post.

plus i also hold back information based upon the responses i get, the ridicule and attacks i am subjected to. you want me to be this perfect answer machine, a person who responds elequently all the time despite the abuse thrown at him.

so if you are goingto attack the messenger, why would i answer your questions?

The ball is in archaeologist's court, so to write

sorry but i am the one that laid out the challenge so the ball is in your court now. i have spent 60 pages presenting evidence tthat has been mocked and attacked. your turn.

[Guest]

How would you like that crap taught to our kids

why [Sic-Ed.] make me responsible for what people believed in the middle ages [Sic-Ed.] (long before i [Sic-Ed.] was born).

Because you expouse their eroneous viewpoints with less of an excuse.

just [Sic-Ed.] because they were wrong does it mean i [Sic-Ed.] am or that the Bible is also.

No, it is the facts that make that conclusion inevitable.

i always liked e.e.cummings style but i am also a poor typist but then my handwriting is bad too.

That is your problem. Cummings was both a fool and a poor typist. "That's not writing, that's typing." He was a fool, because he pompously proclaimed he used capitals "like the Greeks did."

They did not. His was the modern use of miniscules. The Greeks wrote in ALL CAPITALS OFTENINSCRIPTUACONTINUAWITHNOTHINGINTHE [Stop that!--Ed.] of punctuation.

It could be worse, some, like semitic languages, did not bother with vowels sygtsmthnglkths.

Do not emulate fools and hacks! Emulate real poets like Parker and Yeats.

As for the rest, simply construct your post in a word-processing program--such as MS Word--allow Spell Check and . . . voila!

Your failure to do this suggests a singular disrespect for other posters.

re-post the questions.

Oh, but you will rudely send people to "page 85" of some such nonsense rather than defend a viewpoint. You become a hypocrite.

He then protests too much about questions.

Evasions noted.

few [Sic-Ed.] seem to be serious or are written in a manner that i [Sic-Ed.] cannot tell if they are serious or fall into the above categories.

Why not try answering them. Contrary to your protests, you have not, and you try to spray poison on them to avoid them. Your running from Flood and Exodus/Conquest questions is quite obvious.

More protests of his "injur'd merit."

Behave as you wish to be treated.

so [Sic-Ed.] if you are goingto [Sic-Ed.] attack the messenger, why would i [Sic-Ed.] answer your questions?

Welcome to debate, lad. Now, should the messenger walk in knocking over the statuary, defecating on the Persian, and then singing the praises of Celine Dion, he will, I confess, be shown the door and then have the hounds set upon him. You are treated as you present yourself and treat others.

You were previously asked a simple question: which Flood Myth is accurate?

Thus, given your protest, you should have no excuse to continue to avoid it.

sorry [Sic-Ed.] but i [Sic-Ed.] am the one that laid out the challenge so the ball is in your court now.

Actually, you did.

i [Sic-Ed.] have spent 60 pages presenting evidence tthat has been mocked and attacked.

No, you have presented insult, evasion, unsupported beliefs, beliefs contradicted by facts, petulance, and, now, hypocrisy.

your [Sic-Ed.] turn.

Check mate.

--J.D.

[Guest]

That is your problem. Cummings was both a fool and a poor typist. "That's not writing, that's typing." He was a fool, because he pompously proclaimed he used capitals "like the Greeks did."

you insult the grandfather of a man i have known for over 25 years--you are ignored.

[Guest]

That is your problem. Cummings was both a fool and a poor typist. "That's not writing, that's typing." He was a fool, because he pompously proclaimed he used capitals "like the Greeks did."

you [Sic--Ed.] insult the grandfather of a man i [Sic--Ed.] have known for over 25 years--you are ignored.

For twenty-five years, you have known the grandson of a pretentiously wrong fool and a horrible poet.

One benefit of not believing myth is fact is you will not lay the sins of the fathers upon their children.

--J.D.

[ed]

That is your problem. Cummings was both a fool and a poor typist. "That's not writing, that's typing." He was a fool, because he pompously proclaimed he used capitals "like the Greeks did."

you insult the grandfather of a man i have known for over 25 years--you are ignored.

Nice way to avoid the questions. Convenient I calls it.

[Guest]

Nice way to avoid the questions. Convenient I calls it.

so you are saying it is okay to insult posters, their families and their friends (and tehir families)?

he has proven he is not here for constructive dialogue so why should i endure his insults as well?

[Guest]

so [Sic--Ed.] you are saying it is okay to insult posters, their families and their friends (and tehir [Sic--Ed.] families)?

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam with a dash of cadit quaestio.

One who insults others really is in no position to complain about being insulted. Nevertheless, that Cummings proves a waste of a good tree, says nothing about his family or his family's friends.

he [Sic--Ed.] has proven he is not here for constructive dialogue so why should i [Sic--Ed.] endure his insults as well?

Argumentum ad misericordiam [Stop that.--Ed.]

The individual has a most singularly eroneous conception of "constructive dialogue." Apparently, he thinks it refers only to fawning acceptance of his beliefs without and despite evidence.

Unfortunately for him, it does not.

In the rain.

--J.D.

[Minimalist]

Timely posting on Archaeologica's News site.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/06 ... s_ark.html

The Ark story is scientifically implausible; there simply wouldn't be enough space on the boat to accommodate two of every living animal (including dinosaurs), along with the food and water necessary to keep them alive. Furthermore, constructing a vessel of that scale would take hundreds of workers months to complete. Still, Biblical literalists—those who believe that proof of the Bible's events remains to be found—have spent lives and fortunes trying to validate their beliefs.

[Guest]

interesting article though i see you post the only paragraph with a declatory statement and no evidence to back it up.

wow it couldn't happn because the author said it couldn't---real proof there.

the last part of that quote is sad, as people looking to prove something they don't have to prove, spend money that should go elsewhere so it could do more good than give someone a vacation.

anyways, the only good thing that article said or did was to update the latest claim. though i hated the quote "we sell hope" i can't begin to described how stupid that statement was.

[Minimalist]

Here's a clue....click on the link and read the rest of the article.

Or is that too threatening to your belief system?