Reflectorites
Paul doth protest too much, methinks!
As I said, I will ignore Paul's ad hominem diversionary tactics and
answer any remaining *issues* he has raised.
Once again I thank Paul for responding to my posts and
stimulating my research into Dan 9:24-27.
Steve
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:12:40 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
>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.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 17 2000 - 18:25:22 EST