>[...]
>
>PR>I can't see any point in continuing with this. These arguments are just
> >rat holes of errors.
Stephen
>Paul is of course free to bail out at any time, but I will still go
>through his
>remaining arguments to see if there is anything new in them and then answer
>them with *evidence*.
Chris
Would that you would go through his remaining arguments, instead of taking
his actual arguments and modifying them to make new versions that you think
you have good answers for.
>Stephen
>My posts are to the List, not to Paul. Others might be interested in seeing
>answers to all of Paul's points, particularly Christians who might be
>encouraged
>seeing how critics who rely mostly on bluff can be patiently answered with
>the *evidence*.
>
>PR>Arguments are just slung together in a totally ad hoc fashion with no
> >degree of consistency. As an example, arguments from silence are
> >applied to suit. I hear repeatedly "Why were there no rebuttals", and
> >a few lines away is a comment about Christians not copying documents
> >that don't agree with them, or missing documents not demonstrating
> >something.
Stephen
>I have supplied *evidence* and Paul has just supplied his unsubstantiated
>assertions. It is ironic that Paul complains of "arguments from silence" when
>almost his whole argument is based on same.
Chris
*EVIDENCE* is precisely what you have *not* supplied. You have supplied
*interpretations,* claims by others that are themselves unsupported by
historical fact, and so on. Your entire case is almost nothing *but*
unsubstantiated assertions.
Your arguments here are no better than your arguments for ID. Maybe worse,
because you seem to have even *less* grasp of what is required to
substantiate historical claims (especially of such an absolutely extreme
nature) in this area than you do with respect to biology.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 22:22:28 EST