Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Egyptology Sets Up A Straw Man
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6166 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 286 of 302 (286091)
02-13-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by PaulK
02-10-2006 4:37 PM


Re: Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus
The fact that Egypt has had at least partial agricultural economy as early as 5000BC is an interpretation of evidence and not a fact....
but that is a debate for another forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2006 4:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2006 10:52 AM Garrett has replied
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2006 1:29 PM Garrett has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 287 of 302 (286129)
02-13-2006 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Garrett
02-13-2006 9:29 AM


Egyptian Dating
It sounds Garrett like you have some doubts about dating methods. There is a whole forum for those. If you have any doubts perhaps you'd like to bring them up there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Garrett, posted 02-13-2006 9:29 AM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Garrett, posted 02-13-2006 12:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 288 of 302 (286169)
02-13-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Cold Foreign Object
01-19-2006 9:25 PM


Re: The Evidence that Proves the Exodus and the Temple
Hi Ray,
I have almost finished a reply to post 251, however, when you say
The Thutmosis Palestinian campaign DID NOT reach the Orontes in Syria.
could you clarify which particular campaign Velikovsky was on about? Thutmosis III conducted many campaigns into Palestine and Syria, so if you could let me know which particular one we are discussing then it may save me a lot of time.
Thanks.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-19-2006 9:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Garrett
Member (Idle past 6166 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 289 of 302 (286173)
02-13-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by NosyNed
02-13-2006 10:52 AM


Re: Egyptian Dating
I'll try to work my way over there as soon as I have sufficient time. I look forward to the sharing of ideas :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2006 10:52 AM NosyNed has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 290 of 302 (286202)
02-13-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Garrett
02-13-2006 9:29 AM


Re: Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus
Then you miss the point. The point is that you need much more than Rohl's adjustements to Egyptian chronology to fit the findings of archaeology with AiG's ideas of the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Garrett, posted 02-13-2006 9:29 AM Garrett has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 291 of 302 (286205)
02-13-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Cold Foreign Object
02-10-2006 4:59 PM


Re: Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus
Dr. Scott: "Velikovsky is hated because he refuted them all."
Ray,
Do you know of anyone who hates Velikovsky? My opinion of him is I believe that of the majority and that is to be utterly baffled by his looney theories that have no basis in physics or astronomy. His theories amount to a ludicrious joke. Venus was somehow ripped out of Jupiter and showered extraterrestial protein on the Isrealites as manna? It's just very bad science fiction to the point of being cult comedy.
I do think Dr. Scott was a profiteering charlatan and I am now suspecting he was character disordered and probably should be condemned for duping people like yourself to build his financial empire.
As to Velikovsky,well, scientists haven't taken much time to answer his popular works of science fiction, why should they? They haven't taken time to refute Plan Nine from Outer Space either. As to whether Velikovsky was a hoaxster, a fraud, or a kook I don't know but his theories are so wild they are not even junk science but simply bad science fiction i.e. good science fiction respects most of the findings of science and only extrapolate one or two possibilities like faster than light travel.
Charlatans like Dr. Scott offer strong emotional simple stories but you really need to go beyond that and start reading factual material. Velikovsky proved nothing and offer no meaningful evidence and is thus rightly ignored by scientists, after all they have to spend their time dealing with real data, real experiements, observations etc. and not theories that Venus was once part of Jupiter. Your other claims about Velikovsky have been refuted in other threads but then you wait awhile and then claim they have not been refuted.
No egyptologists are going to accept citations from Velikovsky because he had no expertise in the subject at all, no crediblility, zip, none, nada. Velikovsky has been debunked as to his astronomy and history and his nonsense has been mostly forgotten accept by fringe hucksters like Gene Scott.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-10-2006 4:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2006 6:07 PM lfen has not replied
 Message 294 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-13-2006 9:21 PM lfen has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 292 of 302 (286259)
02-13-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by lfen
02-13-2006 1:43 PM


Helping Hep
I'm not sure Ifen, that you're attempt to help Hep on being more careful about his sources is going to work.
After being shown, conclusively (even he agreed) that one clear claim of a source was wrong and utterly stupid. He carries on accepting all else. He has a very, very weak BS detector.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by lfen, posted 02-13-2006 1:43 PM lfen has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 293 of 302 (286296)
02-13-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Cold Foreign Object
02-12-2006 7:50 PM


Reaching Ray. Really Reaching.
Ray, do you insist on missing the point? Or do you like pretending to be a martyr? Or are you baiting me Ray? Lol.
The "book" RAZD is talking about is the Bible.
RAZD has just proved my initial point above, that is his blue box insults the premier source of ancient history, which is nothing but an ASSUMPTION that it is wrong.
What "insult" did I make Ray? (Did you actually even read what I wrote?)
I specifically said that the logical conclusion was NOT that the BOOK was wrong (or that the BOOK was an assumption), but that the HYPOTHETICAL INTERPRETATION (of the book) was an assumption that was wrong:
"The logical conclusion would not be that the bible per se is wrong, Ray, but that the hypothetical interpretation of it that developed dates for the {plagues\exodus\etc}, and which is what is really in conflict with the evidence, is what is wrong."
So how does that insult "the book"? I even underlined it and used italics in the original so that this point would be as hard to miss as possible.
Last time I checked there were no dates of historical events in the bible, even for things less than 2000 years ago (and for which there happens to be a LOT of hard, authoritative, collaborated, cross-referenced hitorical data), so that makes it difficult to use as an "authority" on ancient history in any sense other than one using RELATIVE dating: X happened before Y and Y happened before Z.
Any interpretation of events to link them to ones known from other sources (and where actual dates ARE actually known, and involving not just egyptian history but history from greek and other sources as well) is necessarily that: an interpretation, based on assumptions, and subject to (all too human) error. Anyone who says X, Y or Z happened on {{specific year}} is making an interpretation, an assumption.
Or do you have trouble distinguishing an interpretation from the data the interpretation is based on?
I'd be insulted if I weren't so amused by your response.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-12-2006 7:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-13-2006 9:38 PM RAZD has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 294 of 302 (286298)
02-13-2006 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by lfen
02-13-2006 1:43 PM


Re: Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus
Do you know of anyone who hates Velikovsky?
The attempted Talibanic blacklisting by Sagan and the establishment is synonymous with hatred. Chronology has literally stood still in time since 1952 when "Ages in Chaos" was released, which proved Thutmose III did not live in the 15th century BC based upon the physical evidence of the Karnak temple bas-reliefs. The stagnation is because the acceptance of the evidence automatically means 100+ years of atheist Egyptology is down the drain.
My opinion of him is I believe that of the majority and that is to be utterly baffled by his looney theories that have no basis in physics or astronomy. His theories amount to a ludicrious joke. Venus was somehow ripped out of Jupiter and showered extraterrestial protein on the Isrealites as manna? It's just very bad science fiction to the point of being cult comedy.
You have established that Velikovsky was an atheist attempting to craft natural explanations for Biblical miracles. This means he had no bias for the supernatural.
I do think Dr. Scott was a profiteering charlatan and I am now suspecting he was character disordered and probably should be condemned for duping people like yourself to build his financial empire.
Ad hom fundamentalist rant caused by the inability to refute.
Who is preaching the gospel ?
Whoever is being slandered. --Lloyd Jones
It is also apparent you are jealous of the financial rewards educated persons are known to have.
Since you are a Darwinist your views of Dr. Scott are entirely predictable. Your approval would have supported his wrongness.
I am sorry you are upset - I take no pleasure in it.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by lfen, posted 02-13-2006 1:43 PM lfen has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 295 of 302 (286300)
02-13-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by RAZD
02-13-2006 9:07 PM


Re: Reaching Ray. Really Reaching.
What "insult" did I make Ray?
RAZD previously writes:
Comparing well dated, cross-referenced and consistent {historical\archaeolobgical} evidence to a hypothetical interpretation of a book that makes vague references to events in the past, and noting that there are severe inconsistencies
"hypothetical interpretation of A book" = "veiled" insult. By saying "a" book you are attempting to downgrade the Bible as nothing but "a book".
"vague references to events in the past" = blatant misrepresentation. The Bible makes crystal clear declarations.
"and noting that there are severe inconsistencies" = assumption of inconsistency as fact. There are none. The Bible is complex because God is a complex Person. Science has proven this attribute about Him (complexity). All perceived inconsistencies are the result of the complexity being misunderstood.
Who would make these biased and untrue insults about the Bible ?
If I had to guess...maybe a Darwinist or nonbeliever ?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2006 9:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by AdminAsgara, posted 02-13-2006 10:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 297 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2006 10:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 298 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2006 10:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 296 of 302 (286301)
02-13-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Cold Foreign Object
02-13-2006 9:38 PM


Re: Reaching Ray. Really Reaching.
Ray,
While we all understand the high regard in which you hold the Bible, this is a science forum. Here the Bible holds no more weight than any possible source. Bringing God into the discussion will just cause your opponents to ask for existential evidence and that is not on topic for this particular thread.
Not all who disagree with your interpretation are "Darwinists" or nonbelievers. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with you, by itself, has nothing to do with whether or not your argument is sound. Please keep the discussion moving forward without the needless assumptions concerning your opponents.
Please take any discussion of this post to the appropriate thread.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
    http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 295 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-13-2006 9:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 299 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-13-2006 10:08 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 297 of 302 (286303)
    02-13-2006 10:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 295 by Cold Foreign Object
    02-13-2006 9:38 PM


    Re: Reaching Ray. Really Reaching.
    Yep,seems you want to feel insulted.
    LOL.
    "hypothetical interpretation of A book" = "veiled" insult.
    Nope. I used a generalized condition - "a book" means "any book" in this application. This is why I used "a book" here and "the bible" later - to distinguish between a generalized condition and a specific application of it. The capitalization is yours, showing that you want to feel insulted.
    "vague references to events in the past" = blatant misrepresentation. The Bible makes crystal clear declarations.
    Tell me Ray, what year was specifically mentioned in the bible for any event? Your claim of "crystal clear" - as well as the "primary source" - means that things are listed with specific dates rather than vague references to the times things happened. Blatant? prove it. Give me the year month and day that something occured, quoted directly, rather than a vague reference.
    "and noting that there are severe inconsistencies" = assumption of inconsistency as fact.
    Betweeen the ASSUMED INTERPRETATION and known historical dates ... again you chose to miss the point.
    And as far as your "assumption of inconsistency as fact" goes, the post I originally replied to noted those inconsistencies as fact (remember, the one you said was so reasonable?). Again you show that you want to feel insulted.
    Who would make these biased and untrue insults about the Bible ?
    But they weren't about the bible, but about one interpretation of it. Again you show that you want to feel insulted.
    But hey, if that turns your crank, then, by all means go for it.
    Enjoy.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 295 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-13-2006 9:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 300 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-13-2006 10:28 PM RAZD has not replied

    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8996
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003


    Message 298 of 302 (286305)
    02-13-2006 10:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 295 by Cold Foreign Object
    02-13-2006 9:38 PM


    The bare facts Ray
    book you are attempting to downgrade the Bible as nothing but "a book".
    But Ray, me boy, the only point of agreement here is that it is a book. Everything else is the subject of discussion and no one is "insulting" anyone by simply disagreeing with there views.
    You don't insult RAZD by disagreeing with the explanatory power of the ToE. You simple have to expect to be challenged on it. If you want RAZD to think the Bible is somehow "more" (whatever the heck that means) than a book you'll have to back it up. That is the point of threads in this forum.
    The Bible makes crystal clear declarations.
    It is crystal clear that the declarations are not crystal clear to everyone. This is something else you have to support. It is, I repeat, NOT an insult to disagree with someone.
    If I had to guess...maybe a Darwinist or nonbeliever ?
    Now this is getting a bit closer to insulting. You aren't discussing the issue, the evidence or the logic; you are simple making wild assertions about the motives of others. A bad habit of yours Ray.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 295 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-13-2006 9:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 301 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-13-2006 10:32 PM NosyNed has not replied

    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 299 of 302 (286307)
    02-13-2006 10:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 296 by AdminAsgara
    02-13-2006 10:00 PM


    Re: Reaching Ray. Really Reaching.
    While we all understand the high regard in which you hold the Bible, this is a science forum. Here the Bible holds no more weight than any possible source. Bringing God into the discussion will just cause your opponents to ask for existential evidence and that is not on topic for this particular thread.
    Not all who disagree with your interpretation are "Darwinists" or nonbelievers. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with you, by itself, has nothing to do with whether or not your argument is sound. Please keep the discussion moving forward without the needless assumptions concerning your opponents.
    Please take any discussion of this post to the appropriate thread.
    Understood.
    Ray

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 296 by AdminAsgara, posted 02-13-2006 10:00 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 300 of 302 (286312)
    02-13-2006 10:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 297 by RAZD
    02-13-2006 10:03 PM


    Re: Reaching Ray. Really Reaching.
    Nope. I used a generalized condition - "a book" means "any book" in this application. This is why I used "a book" here and "the bible" later - to distinguish between a generalized condition and a specific application of it. The capitalization is yours, showing that you want to feel insulted.
    Negative.
    You have made an error. I never took offense personally or said you insulted ME, rather, I said, you insulted a source/Bible, then I offered a possible reason why someone might do this.
    Tell me Ray, what year was specifically mentioned in the bible for any event?
    I don't recall making THIS assertion or claim since I know dates are conspicuously absent in the Bible and most other sources of ancient history.
    Your claim of "crystal clear" - as well as the "primary source" - means that things are listed with specific dates rather than vague references to the times things happened. Blatant? prove it. Give me the year month and day that something occured, quoted directly, rather than a vague reference.
    You have suddenly defined what you meant by "vague"; to mean you were talking about dates. But when you first made the assertion you did not say what you meant. With this being fact your comment assumes I have and am contesting THIS vagueness - I was not, and now that you have told the debate exactly what you are talking about ....I agree with you as I would have before if you would have defined vagueness to be speaking about time/dates.
    Then your post repeats the error that I am somehow personally insulted. I only protested the insult of a Source that contained no evidence to justify the "insult".
    Ray

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 297 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2006 10:03 PM RAZD has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024