Archaeologica.org

John, by the way, you really should read article #13 at www.GenesisVeracity.com, you might learn something.

Genesis Veracity wrote:Minimalist, by the way, thank you for your endorsement of my analysis of archae's position concerning the Biblical Noah's Flood, now we can move on.

Just don't forget the second part.

Genesis Veracity wrote:John, by the way, you really should read article #13 at www.GenesisVeracity.com, you might learn something.

This link does not work, if you really must read this article try:

http://www.genesisveracity.com/Articles/Article13.htm

though what it has to do with this thread I'm sure I can't figure out.

Don't underestimate yourself, and it's short, and it applies to rebut your rap about what the Bible "really" says.

Actually....GV has distilled your position very well, Arch.

not really. i have not said everything i know yet thus what i have presented has been very elementery. i did not get into geology for i am not a geologist and i can only present what supports the biblical record.

i can't not go off on tangents nor state something that would be wrong.

Whoops, excuse me Starflower, I thought that was Minimalist.

I don't get this. You two should be natural allies.

no that would be a false assumption. so far he has shown he does not have a good grasp of the bible nor its meaning plus he fails to present anything except what he writes. he has been proven to be unreliable and a nuisance especially when it comes to questions, sources, references among other details.

he fits right in with the evolutionists who duck questions and challenges to thier beliefs.

he has been proven to be unreliable and a nuisance especially when it comes to questions, sources, references among other details.

thats why hes saying you should be allies

Genesis Veracity wrote:John, I'm reading the Genesis 1:1 which has been transcribed by the Jews for thousands of years, you seem to have an agenda not based on history, but if you must delude yourself.....

my "agenda" (1. pl. Things to be done; opp. to matters of belief 1753 - shorter OED) is definitely not based on history, but archaeology.

yours is apparently based, by your own statement, on history, not archaeology. see my opening post on "history vs. archaeoloogy, redux".

so, leaving (as you have done) archaeology aside, how do you distinguish history from myth, or fiction?

this requires external evidence. the incessant repetition of internal evidence does not suffice. hearsay, "transcription", is not evidence. it is the labor of a scribe.

i will transcribe L.H. Morgan's "League of the Iroquois" for you, so it can become part of you irrefutable truth collection.

it seems you do not intend to reply to doc, "chapter and verse", with a rebuttal of his evidence.

and it seems that you do not intend to reply to my questions.

so i'll keep it simple.

does god have a penis, with the associated ball-mongery, or not?


yes or no will suffice.


j

Hey archae, you sure badly acted like you knew alot about geology when you were trying to rebut me.

And according to your post of 2/16/06, you think that the evidence may be "deeper," or that the West doesn't know yet (and, by inference, the East does), or scientists are somehow hiding the evidence of a global flood from us, and now (drum-roll please), you say that you haven't said all you know yet, so, now you're a great keeper of secrets? All right!

What would it take for you to divulge your big "secret?"

I think "panspermia" is a Darwinian offshoot.

you sure badly acted like you knew alot about geology when you were trying to rebut me

i don't remember doing that let alone rebutting you

And according to your post of 2/16/06,

i posted more than one post in this thread. take time to read it all and a lot changes as one deals with the topic over 70 pages. if you're willing to learn something, look at how all of us involved post sources, links, quotes to give credibility to our sides of the argument...please follow suit.

So since your position about Noah's Flood is in a constant state of flux, what is it today, what do you think it will be tomorrow?

Genesis Veracity wrote:I think "panspermia" is a Darwinian offshoot.

oops. you do seem to be a little uninformed .

panspermia comes from the doctrines of anaxagoras and democritus, whom, if you'll recall your history, were both greeks from a very long time ago.

"the elements were a mixture of all the seeds of things".

which is a very interesting statement in its own right, but deserves a separate discussion.

darwin didn't have anything to do with it.


j


ps.

is it really that difficult to answer my question?[/i]