Paul Robson:
>As a postscript, I have copied the same passage again and have noted all
>the errors, unsupported assertions, or dishonest argument tactics used in 9
>lines.
>
>So far I have 14 ; some of which are related to others.
>
>Anyone spot any more ?
Steve Jones:
I must say I smiled at Paul's claim that *I* posted "unsupported
assertions".
Paul Robson:
In 9 lines there are 14 unsupported assertions, use of debate tricks,
inconsistencies etc. I agree, this is funny, especially as I didn't
"select" this passage specifically.
Steve Jones:
But I regard this as just another red-herring by Paul to divert attention
away from the fact that he posted little (if any) actual evidence for his
claims but mostly (if not totally) just made unsubstantiated assertions.
So I will not respond to Paul's diversionary tactics but will continue
working through his *arguments* to see if there is anything new in them
and then respond to same.
Paul Robson:
Well, I would have thought it was obvious to the most simple minded
half wit.
Your alleged "arguments" contain so many errors, assertion, dishonest
debate tricks etc that they are impossible to respond to, without it
getting ridiculous.
I found 14 assumptions and errors, which you cannot support but
simply assume as a fact.
In this particular passage there is one huge error (the dichotomy) which,
as usual, you simply ignore.
This is how I think you operate.
You do not actually read the passage, or attempt to understand the
arguments. You simply look for "key words". You then refer to one
of your numerous apologetics texts, and simply copy and repeat
their arguments. You make no effort to check these arguments are
coherent or consistent.
Despite your claim to be "answering" my arguments, I think you aren't
even READING them. You certainly aren't reading yours.
Your use of the argument from silence is quite staggeringly dishonest.
But you probably don't grasp why. It is the same basic problem. The
function of your "arguments" (as with Daniel) is simply to get from A
to B. Once you have done this, you can use different arguments to
get from C to D. The minor detail that these are inconsistent does not
bother you.
"Paul OTOH is working from the basic assumption that Jesus is not the
Messiah and supernatural predictive prophecy is impossible."
It is nice to see this stupendously tedious Christian cliche dragged out
yet again.
Paul is working from the assumption that apologists/creationists will
say any old crap in an attempt to convince the waverers and wobbly
Christians.
Paul's argument, is the fact that Jones has quoted three different
methods, calculated in different ways, and is apparently trying to
defend all three.
They can't all work. If you use 360 day years, this is a completely
different "discard ratio" to 6 year out of 7, as does using 365 day
years, of course.
Question for the stupid. What does this tell you about either the
beginning or terminus dates ?
Paul Robson.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 12 2000 - 19:12:59 EST