Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)

[Loudmouth]

actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Gentry claims that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. Where is his evidence?

 

[EveryTime]

actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.

I agree, I say that Bigfoot, the Lock Ness monster and the tooth fairy all exist, unless you can prove that they don't,
the jury awaits.

 

[CabVet]

actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.

LOL, the burden of proof lies with who is making the assertion. Always.

that would be an ad hominem, attack on character and not the evidence of what was said.

You should read again what he said. The critique on the evidence, not the person.

 

[CabVet]

logical fallacies are in question in your reply, mainly a red herring. To avoid the topic of substance for grammer.

That would be grammar. And the papers have no substance to avoid.

 

[Tomk80]

That would be grammar. And the papers have no substance to avoid.

I must admit that I wouldn't know whether at some point the papers get some substance. I didn't encounter any, but I didn't read the whole paper. I might try again this weekend.

I will say that one of the characteristics of a good scientific article (and that is what was claimed these were) contains a concise, accurate and dispassionate summary of the research up to that point in the introduction. The introduction of the article I read was had none of those characteristics.

 

[keith99]

I started reading the second of his 10 "censored" papers in my lunch break. Really couldn't get through it, gave up after the first two pages. The first two pages are basically self-congratulatory whine fests with no substance whatsoever. Really, if I dared to send something like that to my supervisor I'd get a strong reprimand from him. If I continued, I don't think I'd ever get my PhD, unless I'd find a different professor who revels in self-congratulatory whine fests.

edited to add: Seriously, read one of those articles, the writing is really, really, really crappy.

edited because I can't get over how crappy: yes, really, extremely, horribly crappy.

I read the abstract of the first. It was more polemic than abstract and had details (intended to impress I'm sure) that do not belong in an abstract.

Half the titles are enough to raise red flags on their own.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree, I say that Bigfoot, the Lock Ness monster and the tooth fairy all exist, unless you can prove that they don't,
the jury awaits.

What does your brother say?

 

[CabVet]

What does your brother say?

If he is a scientist, he will say something along these lines: "there is as much evidence supporting the existence of these creatures as there is supporting Thor or a global flood".

 

[AV1611VET]

If he is a scientist, he will say something along these lines: "there is as much evidence supporting the existence of these creatures as there is supporting Thor or a global flood".

Then it looks like ET is being selective in even what his brother says.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who's his brother you are talking about?

Steve, you're a doofus!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET I have a habit of believing someone who, unlike your brother, was actually there.

That is the original anasema wewe.

Y'all talk way over my head here too much

anasema wewe - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were no results matching the query.

The page "Anasema wewe" does not exist



.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Y'all talk way over my head here too much

anasema wewe - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were no results matching the query.

The page "Anasema wewe" does not exist



.

Try "translate: anasema wewe" in google.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Try "translate: anasema wewe" in google.

Hi TG
Tis ok.
Phil gave me the translation on the CF Chat Box

15/05/2013 14:41 <AV1611VET> It means "says you" in Swahili.



.

 

[brinny]

Y'all talk way over my head here too much

anasema wewe - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were no results matching the query.

The page "Anasema wewe" does not exist





.

say what?

 

[AV1611VET]

say what?

That's "kusema nini?"

 

[Habakk]

"anasema wewe" from Swahili

says you

According to translation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.

We're not in a courtroom. As for the jury -- Wasn't Gerrity's "science" already reviewed by a "jury" of his peers... and found wanting?

that would be an ad hominem, attack on character and not the evidence of what was said.

What was said demonstrates a complete lack of evidence, and Gerrity has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of character.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by TLK Valentine

The Institution rejects lots of papers -- did they mention why?

No less blind than rejecting it as biased without investigation.

There is no scientific evidence for creationism -- Gentry's "evidence" consists of so much whining that even other creationists are getting sick of him.

Originally Posted by Tomk80 I started reading the second of his 10 "censored" papers in my lunch break.
Really couldn't get through it, gave up after the first two pages. The first two pages are basically self-congratulatory whine fests with no substance whatsoever. Really, if I dared to send something like that to my supervisor I'd get a strong reprimand from him. If I continued, I don't think I'd ever get my PhD, unless I'd find a different professor who revels in self-congratulatory whine fests.

edited to add: Seriously, read one of those articles, the writing is really, really, really crappy.

edited because I can't get over how crappy: yes, really, extremely, horribly crappy.

logical fallacies are in question in your reply, mainly a red herring. To avoid the topic of substance for grammer.

I have no idea what you just said, but, it sounds interesting....

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

Search Multiple Dictionaries (including Easton's Bible Dictionary) :

Grammer | Define Grammer at Dictionary.com

grammer

- no dictionary results




.

 

[CabVet]

I do.

Tablet theory

Oh, so that's just a theory (and by that I don't mean a scientific theory but just a collection of speculative and generalized explanations).

 

[Lucy Stulz]

I do.

Tablet theory

Interesting. A theory from the 1930's. I always thought Moses was supposed to have written the Pentateuch without some other primary source according to many variants of Judaism and Christianity but this is the first I'd heard that he only compiled them based on "tablets" handed down.

I especially LOVE Wolf's doubt that Moses would have been able to read a Pre-Tower-of-Babel tablet. So much for "confounding their languages", eh?

LOL!

Pretty clever to imagine things like tablets handed down through the generations.

It sounds like this "hypothesis" is still very much in debate and is rather outside of the usual schools of the "Documentary Hypothesis" or the "Mosaic Authorship" hypothesis.

So can I ask why the Tablet Hypothesis appeals to you? Do you have a reason to believe in hypothetical tablets? Or is this more stuff like the Bethelehem Star Hologram that is added onto the Bible? Are the tablets mentioned in the Bible?