|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jonah and the whale - It happened! | |||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
kendemyer writes:
If I'm reading the topic correctly, the proposition being debated is: "Jonah and the whale - It happened!" So far you've managed to demonstrate only that, according to some, it 'could' have happened, particularly given that 'whale' didn't necessarily mean whale and 'belly' didn't necessarily mean belly. Now according to the game "Trivial pursuit" a huge percentage of animals have gone extinct. Why is this important to the JOnah debate? The obvious question is: So what? The 'possible' forms a near unbounded class of mundane and fantastic. It includes Unicorns, Alien abduction, and the ever-lovable Yeti. So let us accept, for the purpose of debate, that the Jonah story is every bit as theoretically possible as is the proposition that Unicorn poop clears warts. Does this, in any way, serve as affirmative evidence for the proposition: "Jonah and the whale - It happened!"? Not in the least. And yet, somewhat pathetically, it's all you have. Please let us know when you have something of worth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I did offer some inductive proof that it did happen and ...
Rubbish. You've offered nothing but sophistry. What, specifically, are you seeking to pawn off as "inductive proof"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Your complaint would be far more convincing if ...
I made no complaint. I made an observation: one obvious to anyone following this thread, and one which you obviously hope to evade. Again, what, specifically, are you seeking to pawn off as "inductive proof"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I did some more science and historical research. Again, what, specifically, are you seeking to pawn off as "inductive proof"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I have no desire to wrangle with you.
Stop embarrassing yourself. Your evasions are getting tiresome. What, specifically, are you seeking to pawn off as "inductive proof"?
Sincerely,
No, cowardly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Do you have an inductive proof or don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Speaking of time honored traditions, please supply the "inductive proof" you claim to possess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Lastly, if ConsequentialAtheist has a problem with my essay he should be more specific. Asking me to regurgitate the whole essay because he asserts there is no real evidence is unreasonable and a pointless request.
I have a problem with intellectual cowards. What is your inductive proof? [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-18-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
What is your inductive proof?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
One, Kendemeyer is not being an intellectual coward, CA. He genuinely believes he has supplied the proof you want.
Then it should be trivially easy for Kendemeyer or you, his perceptive lawyer, to outline his inductive proof of the historical accuracy of the Jonah narrative.
For Kendemeyer, should he ever return, and Brian, I think the fact that Kendemeyer never reacted to my summation of his argument ("if it's scientifically possible, and the Bible said it, then it happened") is proof enough that I summed his argument up.
You apparently see proof everywhere.
In a bizarre maneuver, he went back and completely changed his OP, but the point of the OP is still exactly the same: "scientifically, it's not impossible."
And his inductive proof?
You guys are asking for proof it happened, and he considers "it's scientifically possible" proof that it happened.
And what do you think? Do you see any basis whatsoever to accept such silliness as inductive proof?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
he's been asked that directly by Moose and Brian several times, and it never clicked.
Perhaps he left because it did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Therefore?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I did quite a bit of additional historical and archeological research in regards to the Book of Jonah.
Absolute rubbish: you demonstrate that you haven't a clue what "historical and archeological research" is all about.
Accoding to a website whose information I confirmed through several reference and website sources the following is true: ...
You confirmed? How? Specifically:
Jews at the time of Jesus viewed Jonah as history.
So what? People back then, much like some fringe fruitloops today, believed all types of absurdities. You are living proof of that capacity (which, by the way, is the only probative evidence you've offered so far). Based on DSS evidence, the Book of Enoch was quite popular. I'm more than willing to stipulate that the two books are equally accurate. What about you? kendemyar, you have, in fact, offered not one piece of probative evidence supporting your position. It is difficult to determine whether you are too arrogant, too deluded, or too young to recognize this, but your effort thus far barely achieves the level of a very, very bad Junior High School paper. Where is the inductive proof of Jonah and the Whale? [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-22-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Here is a copyrighted academic paper that I felt was well done.
Reading you has many of the tiresome qualities of seeing a sequel to "Dumb and Dumber". Specifically:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
On page 8 of the cited work the author says that his work is part of a project that is an assignment for an academic effort in Hebrew exegesis (I am paraphrasing).
Yes, you are. What it says, specifically, is: "This project is an assignment for a seminary course in Hebrew Exegesis". Your point?
I see no reason to make an effort to address your future posts ...
Predictable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024