Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
    Stop lying, I quoted from the last paragraph in the article (and told you so) not the free non pay walled synopsis

    read er and weep



    I can't post the whole thing as I am quite sure it would violate their copyright but I am sure a decent library will probably have that copy in by now if you don't want to get a subscription.




    There is no if - you were wrong. As you yourself have stated the author according to you are "friends of finkelstein" and are no evangelical ahem fundamentalist group and they say it matches the TRADITIONAL Date of exodus. SO all your hogwash about me being on the fringe is just that - hogwash
    Are we reading the same article??

    Here is a link to the research of the primary author of the research paper your article references to, Lily Singer-Avitz:

    https://telaviv.academia.edu/LilySingerAvitz

    One of her papers is entitled, "Earliest settlement at Kadesh-Barnea" and discusses the "Midianite" pottery. However, I see zero mention anywhere in the article about the Exodus. The link in your article is for members of BAR only. The articles on Lily Singer-Avitz site are free to read. Are we talking about the same article? And, who is Parr??

    Ok, I found a reference to "Parr", but he is not one of the researchers in this paper. Here is the quote:

    This painted pottery, found in the northwestern Arabian peninsula (Hejaz) and thesouthern Wadi Arabah, was first identified and titled “Midianite Ware” some 40 yearsago (Parr
    et al . 1970; Rothenberg 1970). In an attempt to avoid a name associatedwith an ethnic group, and based on the data from Qurayyah (in the northwesternArabian peninsula), where the richest assemblages of this painted pottery as well asthe kilns probably used in their production had been found, Parr (1982; 1988)

    Gary: So Parr is not part of Singer-Avitz group. She simply refers to some of his research, done forty years ago. Your article seems to be suggesting that PARR, writing forty years ago, believed that the pottery at Kadesh-Barnea represented the time period of the Exodus. I don't see anywhere where Singer-Avitz and her colleagues, who are all colleagues of Finklestein and Silberman, say anything about the Exodus or that the Midianite pottery at Kadesh-Barnea are from the time period of the Exodus.
    Last edited by Gary; 10-11-2015, 11:41 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
      Stop lying, I quoted from the last paragraph in the article (and told you so) not the free non pay walled synopsis

      read er and weep



      I can't post the whole thing as I am quite sure it would violate their copyright but I am sure a decent library will probably have that copy in by now if you don't want to get a subscription.




      There is no if - you were wrong. As you yourself have stated the author according to you are "friends of finkelstein" and are no evangelical ahem fundamentalist group and they say it matches the TRADITIONAL Date of exodus. SO all your hogwash about me being on the fringe is just that - hogwash
      And here is another link to the article about Kadesh-Barnea and the Midianite pottery. The quote Mike is giving is NOT present in the final paragraph. Is it possible Mike that you conflated Singer-Levy's article with an article by Parr??

      https://www.academia.edu/13095074/Th...outhern_Levant

      And back to the issue of Egyptian rule of Canaan: The Egyptians maintained firm control of Canaan until the reign of Ramses V or VI in the late twelfth or eleventh century. How in the world did the Israelites conquer Canaan in the thirteenth century as Mike and Dr. Hoffmeier want us to believe, if Egypt was at the height of its power, fighting for territory as far north as Syria?? How is it that the Hebrew God Yahweh "destroyed" the Egyptian economy, decimated its population, and drowned its army and Pharaoh, but yet history records this period as Egypt's zenith of power???

      This scenario just is NOT credible, folks...unless you are a fundamentalist, for whom it MUST be true...or your entire world collapses!

      So back to the fifteenth century: There is NO evidence of any settlement at Kadesh-Barnea in this time period, and the Bible tells us that the two million Hebrews camped there for THIRTY-EIGHT years!

      Neither time period is believable!
      Last edited by Gary; 10-11-2015, 11:58 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        Gary: So Parr is not part of Singer-Avitz group. She simply refers to some of his research, done forty years ago. Your article seems to be suggesting that PARR, writing forty years ago, believed that the pottery at Kadesh-Barnea represented the time period of the Exodus. I don't see anywhere where Singer-Avitz and her colleagues, who are all colleagues of Finklestein and Silberman, say anything about the Exodus or that the Midianite pottery at Kadesh-Barnea are from the time period of the Exodus.
        Sheesh....you talk about Christians being silly and brainwashed and incapable of understanding issues then turn around and call me a rabid fool but you can't even read a simple quote. I have told you now several times it is a BAR article and linked to it and told you multiple times its behind a pay wall but you are now informing me of what I have stated several times? THE QUOTE IS FROM THE BAR ARTICLE AUTHORS. Yes they refer to Parr because of his work with midianite pottery but the quote

        the same pottery found at Kadesh Barnea and dated to the period when the exodus is TRADITIONALLY dated. If the israelites were in Midian as the Bible says they were there is no reason to doubt that they proceeded to Kadesh Barnea.
        IS FROM THE BAR AUTHORS (not Parr) - you silly person - there are several authors and the article would not be allowed to be published elsewhere ( ahem - the whole point of a magazine having a paywall)

        and Gary - you who calls other people rabid fools - the reason for the dating assessment as i have stated is the "Qurayyah Painted Ware" you know - ahem - the first article listed at her academia profile . Amazingly ye who calls people rabid fools - the article in order to cover Kadesh Barnea does not have to have the word in the title. Go figure.
        Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-12-2015, 12:35 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          And here is another link to the article about Kadesh-Barnea and the Midianite pottery. The quote Mike is giving is NOT present in the final paragraph. Is it possible Mike that you conflated Singer-Levy's article with an article by Parr??
          HUman nature always amazes. How can someone running around claiming others are fools be such a nitwit. He actually thinks one of the authors of the Bar article would violate copyright and publish the Bar article on their academia page for free. What makes it even more drop down stupid is anyone reading the free excerpt would see there is nothing in the wording of the excerpt that matches the academia articles - can anyone be so dense to think they are the same? Meanwhile does he bother to notice that even in that article she points to stamp seals that point to the 20th and 19th dynasty in a section I dunno sub headed - KADESH BARNEA? Nah

          Sheesh and atheist and agnostics swear they are so smart.
          Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-12-2015, 12:39 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
            Sheesh....you talk about Christians being silly and brainwashed and incapable of understanding issues then turn around and call me a rabid fool but you can't even read a simple quote. I have told you now several times it is a BAR article and linked to it and told you multiple times its behind a pay wall but you are now informing me of what I have stated several times? THE QUOTE IS FROM THE BAR ARTICLE AUTHORS. Yes they refer to Parr because of his work with midianite pottery but the quote



            IS FROM THE BAR AUTHORS (not Parr) - you silly person - there are several authors and the article would not be allowed to be published elsewhere ( ahem - the whole point of a magazine having a paywall)

            and Gary - you who calls other people rabid fools - the reason for the dating assessment as i have stated is the "Qurayyah Painted Ware" you know - ahem - the first article listed at her academia profile . Amazingly ye who calls people rabid fools - the article in order to cover Kadesh Barnea does not have to have the word in the title. Go figure.
            Why would Singer-Avitz not say a word about the Exodus in her own papers on the very same subject? Anyway, I think Mike and I are really fighting over the definition of this term, "Traditional date of the Exodus". I assumed that this term referred to the fifteenth century, but it seems some Christians consider both the fifteenth and the thirteenth century as two "traditional" dates.

            "Both of the conventional dates for the Exodus, (ca. 1450 and ca. 1250 B.C.)"

            Source: http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/ancientne/dating.html

            Gary: If this is the case, then Mike can claim victory in our dispute.
            Last edited by Gary; 10-12-2015, 01:09 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              I don't believe you. Why would Singer-Avitz not say a word about the Exodus in her own papers on the very same subject?
              Gary theres no other way to say it - you are a fool (edited to be more biblically accurate)- the Kadesh Barnea article was published in 2008 the year is now 2015 the BAR article was two months ago

              the pottery article is about several places Kadesh Barnea being just one. not a piece on the exodus - That piece is the BAR article. Like I said alleged doctor if you are too broke to get a subscription you can try your library

              I don't give a rip about what you believe. You are just showing yourself to be even more silly than you already have and about to have even more egg on your face
              Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-12-2015, 01:31 AM.

              Comment


              • Like a line up of dominoes, Gary's assertions tumble one by one.

                Lily Singer-Avitz: Lachish Section A, Area P
                The ceramic assemblage of the Interim LB I Phase at Tel Lachish is limited. ...
                The site was apparently abandoned at the end of the 16th century and settled anew no later than Level S-3, during the later part of the 14th century BCE. Only the Fosse Temples, built during the 15th century, remained in use throughout the entire period (see Singer-Avitz, Chapter 18, Section B).


                Great Soviet Encyclopaedia 1979:
                an ancient city in Syria on the Orontes River (near the modern city of Horns). It is known from hieroglyphic (Egyptian) and cuneiform sources from the 16th century B.c. Kadesh was inhabited by Semites. In the 15th century B.C. it was conquered by Egypt, and from the beginning of the 14th century to about 1200 B.c. it was subordinate to the Hittite empire. In the late 14th or early 13th century B.C., a battle between the Egyptian forces of Rameses II and the Hittites under the leadership of King Muwatallis occurred at Kadesh’s walls. The city was apparently destroyed at the beginning of the 12th century B.c. by the Sea People. Kadesh is again mentioned in a document from 565 B.C. as the center of a district bearing the same name in the Neo-BabyIonian Kingdom.


                GARDINER, Alan - The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II (commentary)
                The heretic king Akhenaten(1367-1350B.C.)was too deeply absorbed in his religious reforms to harbour any dreams of foreign expansion. Meanwhile, however, there had emerged to the northwest of Syria a power infinitely stronger than any which Egypt had ever been obliged to face. After a long period of impotence the Hittite king Domunder Suppiluliumas (1375-335B.C.) began to develop its potentialities, subjugating its neighbours one after another until, about 1370B.C., it finally suppressed and replaced the hitherto so important Mitannian kingdom. In the course of this campaign Suppiluliumas pushed even as far as Damascus, overwhelming the small principality of Kadesh en route. That city-state on the left bank of the northward flowing river Orontes owed its great strategic importance to its position near the exit from the high-level valley between the Lebanons called the Bika’. Along this valley every north-bound army had necessarily to pass if it was to avoid the narrow route, intersected by river-mouths, along the Phoenician coast. Already under Tuthmosis *** Kadesh had proclaimed its leadership by forming a coalition to check the Egyptian advance. Although defeated at Megiddo and seeing his city captured on more than one later occasion, the Prince of Kadesh never ceased to occupy a position of outstanding importance among the petty rulers of northern Syria until under Muwatallis (1306-1282 B.C.), the grandson of Suppiluliumas, he became no more than one of the allies whom that Hittite king suborned to stem the advance of Rameses II.


                After expelling the Hyksos 15th dynasty, the native Egyptian New Kingdom rulers became more aggressive in reclaiming control of their state's borders. Thutmose I, Thutmose III and his son and coregent Amenhotep II fought battles from Megiddo north to the Orontes River, including conflict with Kadesh.

                Many of the Egyptian campaign accounts between c. 1400 and 1300 BC reflect the general destabilization of the region of the Djahi. The reigns of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III were undistinguished, except that Egypt continued to lose territory to Mitanni in northern Syria.

                During the late Egyptian 18th dynasty, the Amarna Letters[13] tell the story of the decline of Egyptian influence in the region. The Egyptians showed flagging interest here until almost the end of the dynasty. Horemheb, the last ruler of this dynasty, campaigned in this region, finally beginning to turn Egyptian interest back to this region.
                Sad, innit?
                Last edited by tabibito; 10-12-2015, 06:47 AM.
                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                Comment


                • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  Again, you're reading the text in a very presentist sense. The early Christians did not read Genesis in the strictly literal fashion that you seem to read it in. Biblical literalism comes from Martin Luther. Before him, it was fairly common to interpret the Bible in metaphorical or typological ways, hence the focus on the prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

                  Unfortunately, you're being a fundamentalist who's changed sides. If one thing is false (e.g. the Census of Quirinius), it doesn't render the entire Bible false.
                  The underlined is blatantly false. Here are some examples from well before Martin Luther ever existed.

                  Source: St. Basil: Hexaëmeron:Homily 2

                  Why does Scripture say one day the first day? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says one day, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day— we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source.

                  Source: St. Basil=Hexaemeron: Homily 6

                  2. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to divide the day from the night. Heaven and earth were the first; after them was created light; the day had been distinguished from the night, then had appeared the firmament and the dry element. The water had been gathered into the reservoir assigned to it, the earth displayed its productions, it had caused many kinds of herbs to germinate and it was adorned with all kinds of plants. However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source.

                  Source: St. Basil=Hexaemeron:Homily 9

                  I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. For I am not ashamed of the gospel.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source.

                  Let's go back even further, near the time of Jesus Himself.

                  Source: Flavius Josephus:Against Apion

                  8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source.

                  Source: Flavius Josephus:Antiquities of the Jews

                  Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made. And that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations; whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source.

                  He goes on to say that Adam and Eve were real, and that Eve was made out of Adam's rib, and Adam out of literal earth, specifically red earth.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                    Mike, if you want to insult me, then get in the arena with me.

                    The early Church Father Origen distinguished among three levels of reading the Bible: the literal, the metaphorical, and the transformational. The literal meaning was considered the least important. Luther was the first major proponent of literalism, and prior to him, it more or less didn't exist in any major way.

                    If you're stuck in the very wrong belief that much of the OT was designed as strict history, then you really don't know what you're talking about.

                    Ignoring criticism is done at your own risk. I'll tell you that most of what I believe as a Christian is based on what I know as a scholar.
                    This is another reason I tend avoid those who tend to proclaim the loudest that "evidence and reason" are their highest priorities. They always get so many basic things that can be easily checked vastly wrong.

                    John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

                    You got the earthly things wrong, why should I believe your theology?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Like a line up of dominoes, Gary's assertions tumble one by one.

                      Lily Singer-Avitz: Lachish Section A, Area P
                      The ceramic assemblage of the Interim LB I Phase at Tel Lachish is limited. ...
                      The site was apparently abandoned at the end of the 16th century and settled anew no later than Level S-3, during the later part of the 14th century BCE. Only the Fosse Temples, built during the 15th century, remained in use throughout the entire period (see Singer-Avitz, Chapter 18, Section B).


                      Great Soviet Encyclopaedia 1979:
                      an ancient city in Syria on the Orontes River (near the modern city of Horns). It is known from hieroglyphic (Egyptian) and cuneiform sources from the 16th century B.c. Kadesh was inhabited by Semites. In the 15th century B.C. it was conquered by Egypt, and from the beginning of the 14th century to about 1200 B.c. it was subordinate to the Hittite empire. In the late 14th or early 13th century B.C., a battle between the Egyptian forces of Rameses II and the Hittites under the leadership of King Muwatallis occurred at Kadesh’s walls. The city was apparently destroyed at the beginning of the 12th century B.c. by the Sea People. Kadesh is again mentioned in a document from 565 B.C. as the center of a district bearing the same name in the Neo-BabyIonian Kingdom.


                      GARDINER, Alan - The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II (commentary)
                      The heretic king Akhenaten(1367-1350B.C.)was too deeply absorbed in his religious reforms to harbour any dreams of foreign expansion. Meanwhile, however, there had emerged to the northwest of Syria a power infinitely stronger than any which Egypt had ever been obliged to face. After a long period of impotence the Hittite king Domunder Suppiluliumas (1375-335B.C.) began to develop its potentialities, subjugating its neighbours one after another until, about 1370B.C., it finally suppressed and replaced the hitherto so important Mitannian kingdom. In the course of this campaign Suppiluliumas pushed even as far as Damascus, overwhelming the small principality of Kadesh en route. That city-state on the left bank of the northward flowing river Orontes owed its great strategic importance to its position near the exit from the high-level valley between the Lebanons called the Bika’. Along this valley every north-bound army had necessarily to pass if it was to avoid the narrow route, intersected by river-mouths, along the Phoenician coast. Already under Tuthmosis *** Kadesh had proclaimed its leadership by forming a coalition to check the Egyptian advance. Although defeated at Megiddo and seeing his city captured on more than one later occasion, the Prince of Kadesh never ceased to occupy a position of outstanding importance among the petty rulers of northern Syria until under Muwatallis (1306-1282 B.C.), the grandson of Suppiluliumas, he became no more than one of the allies whom that Hittite king suborned to stem the advance of Rameses II.




                      Sad, innit?
                      You are conflating a "Kadesh" in Syria with Kadesh-Barnea in the Sinai.

                      That is like saying Berlin, New Jersey was occupied by the four powers in 1945.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                        Gary theres no other way to say it - you are a fool (edited to be more biblically accurate)- the Kadesh Barnea article was published in 2008 the year is now 2015 the BAR article was two months ago

                        the pottery article is about several places Kadesh Barnea being just one. not a piece on the exodus - That piece is the BAR article. Like I said alleged doctor if you are too broke to get a subscription you can try your library

                        I don't give a rip about what you believe. You are just showing yourself to be even more silly than you already have and about to have even more egg on your face
                        I made a mistake in saying that there was no archeological evidence of a settlement at Kadesh-Barnea during the time of the Exodus. Period.

                        Why was I wrong? Answer: Because Christians are divided on the dates of the Exodus. I assumed they had one date, the fifteenth century. Christians have two (at least) dates, the fifteenth century and the thirteenth. The authors of Mike's articles state that there is evidence of settlement at Kadesh-Barnea during the "traditional" dates of the Exodus, "if one believes in the Exodus". They are referring to ONE of the two alleged dates of the Exodus, the thirteenth century.

                        Now, Mike needs to pick a date of the Exodus: Fifteenth century BCE or thirteenth century BCE. And whichever date he picks, he then needs to explain the following:

                        1. If he picks the thirteenth century, he needs to explain a lack of evidence for a devastated, weakened Egypt after the effects of the plagues and the defeat at the Red/Reed Sea, when the historical record indicates that this period was the zenith of Egyptian power and territorial expansion.

                        He also needs to explain why the Israelites would flee from Egypt...to Egyptian-occupied Canaan, and, why the Egyptians are not mentioned in the Conquest of THEIR occupied territory of Canaan.

                        2. If he picks the fifteenth century, he needs to explain a lack of evidence of any settlement at Kadesh-Barnea.

                        You can't have it both way, Mikey.
                        Last edited by Gary; 10-12-2015, 11:21 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          The underlined is blatantly false. Here are some examples from well before Martin Luther ever existed.
                          Good for you C. I just couldn't bother proving that utter nonsense wrong but sometimes people think that response is rhetoric when you say that. It really was just soo silly of a claim. You have to have a clear emotional bias to make such a ridiculous claim. He identifies as catholic so I guess some ( not all or even most I know) still have it in for luther.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary View Post

                            Now, Mike needs to pick a date of the Exodus: Fifteenth century BCE or thirteenth century BCE. And whichever date he picks, he then needs to explain the following:

                            Actually I don't - even though I go for around the 15th. IF you say there is no evidence and the debate is over pointing at the 1200s then I show you Kadesh. If you say no evidence and point to 14-15 hundreds I say - ahem then have you read Rohl yet and laugh at your claims.

                            Either way you lose both in your claims of no evidence and in claiming the debate is over. Good thing for you is you are so uneducated in what the various issues are you don't realize what a fool you are making of yourself in all theses twists and gyrations to get out of your blunder. The bad news is everyone that is educated is pointing at you and laughing. Let me give you a hint and see if the lightbulb can go off. You are now appealing to the date that many evangelical conservatives that you love so much point to - do you really think they are pointing to that because it makes their case weaker or stronger?

                            ROFL..........You flat out rejected Patterns of Evidence as thoroughly debunked and you have now put yourself right within sight of one of their timelines.


                            If you ever get to Vegas and need work consider being a stand up comic....lol
                            Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-12-2015, 12:07 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              You are conflating a "Kadesh" in Syria with Kadesh-Barnea in the Sinai.

                              That is like saying Berlin, New Jersey was occupied by the four powers in 1945.
                              Kadesh or Qadhesh in Classical (Hebrew: קָדֵשׁ‎), also known as Qadesh-Barneaʿ (קָדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ),[1] is a location mentioned in the Hebrew Bible where a number of historical events took place. Kadesh was an important site in Israelite history.


                              Kadesh was a city in what is today the country of Syria, an important center of trade in the ancient world, and site of the famous battle between Pharaoh Rameses II (The Great) of Egypt and King Muwatalli II of the Hittite Empire, usually dated to 1274 or 1273 BCE (though Durant, and others, assign a date of 1288 BCE).



                              You were saying?
                              Last edited by tabibito; 10-12-2015, 12:15 PM.
                              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                                Good for you C. I just couldn't bother proving that utter nonsense wrong but sometimes people think that response is rhetoric when you say that. It really was just soo silly of a claim. You have to have a clear emotional bias to make such a ridiculous claim. He identifies as catholic so I guess some ( not all or even most I know) still have it in for luther.
                                I get that, but every once in a while that same type of claim is made when it's easily demonstrated to be false. It gets to a point where I just can't take it anymore, and have to say something, otherwise I'll explode .

                                This is always claimed by those who say that evidence and reason are their highest priorities(science is often thrown in there too). Yet, the evidence I've just given is usually ignored with some kind of ad-hoc explanation of how those examples don't fit.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X