Aha.  Well, this makes a fine conclusion to the thread, then.  You are actually defending the views of some folks you've read that you happen to agree with.  When it comes to presenting the raw material that forms the conclusions behind those folks, you'd rather hide behind their scholarship, and not make any of it your own.  If I DID respond to the book without reference to the mysterious primary sources, you'd simply dismiss it since I'd be dependant on the English Translations.  I trust you didn't have to learn Ugaritic or Sumerian or whatever in order to interact with the book?  Did they translate it for you?  Anyway, since that is the case, you've essentially insulated your entire argument against any criticism.

My only possible recourse given this turn of events is to find some OTHER source with credentials similar to the ones you insist I have before I am allowed to think for myself.  In that vein, I have given you Lewis, who knew quite a few languages (he and his wife would play Scrabble, and any word from any language was permitted), and was definately familiar with the sort of claims you are making.  However, he only has some essays that I am aware of, not full length treatments.

I'll keep my out for a conservative (read:  sane and non-questionbegging) response to that matter, and then submit it for you.

Then it will be your author against my author, with the two of us I guess incompetent and unable to interact with the material they talk about.

This thread turned out to be nothing more than the old "I know you are but what am I" line.

But you make it look so nice.  

"This is such pretentious hogwash that even you must have trouble spouting it."

My sentiments about your post(s) exactly.

"Neither of us is a historian or has the ability to use "primary sources","

Speak for yourself.

"Both of us rely on the expertise of others for that information."

On the core facts of my worldview, I rely on nobody else.  Perhaps this is what separates us.

"I have presented you with a solid source to back up my claim that ancient Hebrews were monolatrous--not an unreasonable or unpopular view in the scholarly community--and you have nothing to say"

That's not true.  What I said was that you have insulated yourself from criticism by insisting that neither of us can argue about them effectively as we don't have the capabilities to interact with the data ourselves- the hypocrisy, of course, is that you nonetheless appear to have the ability to re-capitulate their conclusions.  Its the strangest "I'm a dunce, now I'm a scholar" argument I've ever seen.  TO WHICH I replied (so, ie, not 'nothing') that if that is the way you are going to play it, you should have spared us the agony of having to listen to you mimic the conclusions of people you don't think either of us have the ability to comprehend, then I will have to simply find my own scholarly work and just post that, instead.

Basically, then its just a matter of "My scholar can beat up your scholar."

You seem to be afraid to submit the material that somehow has managed to convince you to the scrutiny of others.  Whatever.  

"My only possible recourse given this turn of events is to find some OTHER source with credentials similar to the ones you insist I have before I am allowed to think for myself."

See, that's not nothing.

"Lewis was an author of fantasy novels."

So was Carl Sagan.

Well, this is getting us far.

"That does not make him or me an expert on ancient semitic languages and dialects."

How do you know he wasn't an expert in either?

"Indeed, I know quite a bit more than you about translation and the difficulties that it poses for those who would interpret ancient texts, since that has been part of my own professional background."

So?  I have four years of higher education in translating and interpreting ancient texts as part of what I originally went to school to do.  I seem to be able to keep up just fine in the scholarly works that I interact with.  Scholarly works, I'd add, that because of your complete lack of an objective bone in your body, you never seek out for an alternate perspective.

So, the way I see things shaping up, the argument for evolution is because "Scientists say so" (Cogito and Stath in particular) and your argument here is because "Scholars I agree with say so."  And then when it gets down to the brass tacks, in both cases, you refuse to provide the raw material that forms those conclusions.  We aren't 'elite' enough, I guess.

I guess my question is why you bother to say anything at all?  Why not just say "Scientists and Scholars say such and such.  I'm not smart enough to critically evaluate their stuff, and neither are you (and those who ARE smart enough, well, we just Shermerize them), I'm right because I agree with them."

It would save us a heck of a lot of time if you could just come out and state what your arguments reduce to instead of making us wind through page after page of discourse until it comes out on its own.

Lack of substance in--->Lack of substance out.  

From William James' "The Vareity of Religious Experience."  I found a section on anthropomorphism.  He's right, because I agree with him.

If this be true, it is absurd for science to say that the egotistic elements of experience should be suppressed. The axis of reality runs solely through the egotistic places,- they are strung upon it like so many beads. To describe the world with all the various feelings of the individual pinch of destiny, all the various spiritual attitudes, left out from the description- they being as describable as anything else- would be something like offering a printed bill of fare as the equivalent for a solid meal. Religion makes no such blunder. The individual's religion may be egotistic, and those private realities which it keeps in touch with may be narrow enough; but at any rate it always remains infinitely less hollow and abstract, as far as it goes, than a science which prides itself on taking no account of anything private at all.

A bill of fare with one real raisin on it instead of the word 'raisin,' with one real egg instead of the word 'egg,' might be an inadequate meal, but it would at least be a commencement of reality. The contention of the survival-theory that we ought to stick to non-personal elements exclusively seems like saying that we ought to be satisfied forever with reading the naked bill of fare. I think, therefore, that however particular questions connected with our individual destinies may be answered, it is only by acknowledging them as genuine questions, and living in the sphere of thought which they open up, that we become profound. But to live thus is to be religious; so I unhesitatingly repudiate the survival-theory of religion, as being founded on an egregious mistake. It does not follow, because our ancestors made so many errors of fact and mixed them with their religion, that we should therefore leave off being religious at all. * By being religious we establish ourselves in possession of ultimate reality at the only points at which reality is given us to guard. Our responsible concern is with our private destiny, after all.

* Even the errors of fact may possibly turn out not to be as wholesale as the scientist assumes.

http://www.psywww.com/PSYRELIG/james/james15.htm#493

http://www.psywww.com/PSYRELIG/james/toc.htm

In the first place, you should read the entire context.   I only gave you a snippet, but I gave you the link for more.   In the second place, I have no interest in discussing the matter.   Why should I?  You've made it quite clear that your arguments reduce to a source- a source that neither of us (but mainly just me, I guess) are not competent to interact with.   I have better uses for my time.

Instead, as I find material by that speaks to the matter I'll post it.  People who wish to go beyond accepting your scholars on faith will in time have plenty of material documenting the Christian POV for them to make up their own minds with.

Wow, you're going way back.

"Much of your misunderstanding"

As I just said to Cop in another thread, you skeptics are quick to call a 'misunderstanding' what is actually a disagreement.

"here stems from your profound misunderstanding of the fallacy of the argument from authority but I've given up on trying to explain that fallacy to you, so let's try this instead"

Save your breath.   This is a forum where it is encouraged to discourse on substance.  To try to sway opinions based on the evidence.   Did you miss my attempt on this thread to dig into whether or not the raw material supports the premises that Copernicus was trying to hoist on us?  His response was that we were not competent to deal with the material.  Similarly, you also do not wish to delve into the raw material and allow people the dignity of making up their own minds.  

"Third, we may argue as you do; that is, we may argue that the theory of evolution is mistaken on scientific grounds"

This is dishonest.  I have been explicit and painfully clear on the grounds that I think evolution fails on.  

You are so far away from understanding my position it isn't even funny.

Let me see if I can put this in focus for you.

Let's say that I did devote my life to studying X, where X is whatever in theory you think would make me competent to speak on the matter.  Does anyone for a single moment think that you would consider what I had to say to be credible, if it did not coincide with the modern synthesis?

Gehenna NO.  We can easily put forward examples of people who meet your criteria already, but what do you do?  You simply find other reasons to dismiss them.  That's the MO of a skeptic:  Nothing pleases them.  

Michael Denton was just one example.  He wasn't even Christian, and that didn't help.  Yet, many of the things that I say- about the 'science'- closely parallels him, and much of the data I derive from the evolutionists themselves.  Nothing pleases you.  Nothing can please you.  Confronted with people who cannot be pleased you know what other people start doing?  They stop trying to please you.

Now, I find the situation funny.  I have friends and family that have been pushing me to get a Phd for some time.  Let's examine this thread along with your rank hypocritical arguments from authority.  What would I get my PhD in?  Biology?  Geology?  Hebrew?  Greek?  Hebrew?  Aramaic?  History?  Biochemistry?  Genetics?  Physics?  There isn't the time in the world to do all of these.  And if I did, what then?   You'd consider it?  HA!  You must take me for a glorious idiot.  This practical limitation affects all of us, but here is the irony:

As applied to you, it doesn't matter.

As applied to me, it does.

Despite the terrible problems of trying to dig deep into this material like the 'elites,' somehow you feel like you can yet grasp them to comment on all the topics listed above.  You are exempt.

What a cowardly way to argue.  Running to authorities this way and that, its pathetic.  So, yea.  Its an argument from authority if you refuse to present and defend the raw facts, the primary sources, etc, but instead cite this or that person and hide behind their credentials.   If the facts are behind you, then suck it up, be a man, and present and defend the FACTS.

In this thread, Cop presents a certain book as the source for his data.  He wasn't even interested in presenting some of the actual source material that the authors of those book used.  He wouldn't even PRODUCE IT, let alone defend it.  And then he went the next step- the one you follow him in- and say that we are not competent to interact with the material at all, anyway.  And then he goes on to present that material as fact and thinks people are going to allow themselves to be persuaded by it.  But he just said that we are not competent to interact with the material.

Its behavior like that that justly deserves my scorn and contempt, and I will continue to dish it out, because it really is only responding in kind.  After all, it is the real mark of scorn and contempt which insists that others are idiots and unable to think for themselves.  We return to one of your first posts, Cog.  You accused Christians of thinking atheists are irrational and insane for not believing in God.  In fact, that was just psychological transference.  You actually believe that of us.  

I am the one saying "Let's lay out the facts."

YOU are the one, along with others, that are saying "So and So says."

Its not hard math to figure out who is the real free thinker and who really treats their opponents with dignity.

"I am the one saying "Let's lay out the facts."

YOU are the one, along with others, that are saying 'So and So says.'"

Wrong. I am telling you that the facts HAVE been laid out, that the facts HAVE been examined in tremendous detail and that conclusions HAVE been reached about those facts.

What's more, I am telling you that while it is not irrational for a person who has studied the modern synthesis in great detail, who understands the science behind it as well as any elite scientist in the world, to disagree with the conclusions reached by virtually the entire scientific community, I am telling you that it IS irrational for you or for me or for probably anyone else reading this thread to believe that that person is correct.

Let me emphasize that: That person (Michael Denton, Michael Behe or any of the other relative handful of evolution skeptics) MAY BE CORRECT! It's always possible that he is!

But YOU have no reason to believe that what he says is true except for the sole reason that what he says is compatible with your particular interpretation of your religion.

To be rational does not mean to be in possession of the absolute, infallible, indubitable truth (assuming that such exists in the first place). It means only to hold beliefs that are reasonable to hold. It means only to hold beliefs that are internally consistent, that are coherent, that we have justification to hold, etc.


"You accused Christians of thinking atheists are irrational and insane for not believing in God. In fact, that was just psychological transference. You actually believe that of us."

That is a mischaracterization of what my post said. My post said that Christians, if they are consistent, ought to believe that the belief of non-Christians is irrational. BTW, this follows necessarily from the law of the excluded middle.

I don't think I've tried to hide the fact that I think Christian belief is irrational as you've tried to hide the fact that you think non-Christian belief is irrational. If you think I have, allow me to disabuse you of that notion forthwith: I think belief in what is usually taken to be Christian dogma is irrational.

I hope that's clear.

"I am telling you that the facts HAVE been laid out, that the facts HAVE been examined in tremendous detail and that conclusions HAVE been reached about those facts."

Where are they?

They are here:

All living organisms have a parent who is or was living. That parent had a parent. That parent had a parent. Etc. Life has come from life all the way back to the origin of life. [There are various theories about how life originated but none of them have anything to do with evolution. Evolution takes life, however it originated, as its starting point.]

Living organisms differ in appearance. For instance, sntjohnny doesn't look like a big blue-eyed frog. . . OK, OK, maybe that isn't the best example. Let's try these instead: Bears don't look like roses and wolves don't look like algae. We probably all agree about this.

Simpler life forms existed on earth before more complicated life forms did. The fossil record is powerful justification for this claim. For example, our own species, a complex life form, is found only near the surface of the earth: graves, dried lava flows, riverbeds, etc. Our kind is not to be found in deeper excavations.

From this, we reason that simpler life forms begat more complex life forms that differ in appearance from their ancestors; thus, evolution.

Here's another (better) way of expressing the same idea from the talkorigins.com website:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. -- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism

lol

Well, clearly there is no answering this astounding display of recapitulation from another site (indicating, too, that you hadn't bothered yet trying to do it here, on this forum), as you also don't think I have the brain power or education or both to interact with it.

Don't you see how silly this is?  I see your text, but its irrelevant.  

Is what you said  true?  How do we know?  Scientists say so.

If you are going to present information as though you think it should be compelling on its face, without an appeal to authority, then by GAWD you'd better be prepared to stick to that.   Either we simpletons can grasp it or not.  Make up your mind.