Dating The Exodus II

Of course. While the basic framework he put forward has held up very well there have been lots of modifications. The actual rate of evolutionary change and the uniformity of it that he suggested has been shown to be incorrect for example.So while the theories have been highly reinforced his actual statments in detail have been heavily superceded.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-11-2004 06:49 PM

Ok, Willowtree that is the LAST time you use that as an attempt at rebuttal of an argument unless you show, in detail, how the worldview has produced an erroneous interpretation.In fact, since it is only the evidence and the logic behind the interpretation that counts you probably don't need to go into the worldview. You are, of course, welcome to show that the evidence used by the 'revisor' is false or incorrectly examined and interpreted. that is a valid argument and doesn't require recourse to guessing what cause the incorrect examination or interpretation.If, in debate, the one is simply allowed to say "you are wrong because you view my ideas as incorrect" then there isn't any real debate is there?You will defend your points and disagrrements with actual arguments.You might, for example, show how one's worldview makes the distance from the GP to the seacoast different from about 112 miles. When you have handled something so simple then you can move on to other issues.

But then why the word "worldview" in there?Exactly what aspect of "world view" are you refering to?What was, IIRC, pointed out that over time new information can come to light. For this reason using very old information can be a problem (though not always, of course).I think you have used "worldview" in the past to refer to religious convictions. That, then, is not the meaning of the word now?Religious convictions have nothing to do with a "view" that says that new information has to be considered.I agree that rejecting the information only on antiquity is not a very supportable position. I don't recall what other information was presented.

Then I recalled incorrectly (IIRC if I recal correctly). That poster should be asked to show why the old information has been superceded.(however I'm going to get a little cranky if they did that).

Brian, as the thread has unfolded. will have to be backed up with some of those texts and how they make a difference to the topic at hand.I agree with WT that simple age doesn't make something wrong unless it has been actually superceded.

I'm sure, after your good example (which I haven't checked yet) WT will step up to the plate.

That is, the "Proof Of God" thread sidelined. The height of the GP etc. if you remember.NO one is to bring that thread into this one. WT has been invited to start specific threads up on each of the claims made there.So far those examinable start to get shaky when examined. WT has yet to be able to determine how far the GP is from the sea coast. This is after weeks of time to do so. That bodes ill for any attempt to continue the GP threadsAgain DO NOT BRING THEM IN HERE.Anyone who does so will end up with a short sojourne in Boot camp. This is to obviously off topic there that it would be deserved.(btw -- do you really need such a large signiture? Nice it is but taked up scrolling space)This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-16-2004 09:30 PM

MMM, young, NOT virginal female will do nicely. Please just leave out for pickup and do not damage intransit. Let me look up that thread. PROOF OF GODWeren't you involved???

Hair colour is far from the most important item. Fast delivery is!That topic may have some relavance here but there are times when such things MUST be dealt with in a separate thread.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-16-2004 11:45 PM